1 Tuesday, 14 October 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-04-75-T, The Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the
13 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted and
14 Thomas Laugel for the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 And for the Defence, Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
18 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic with legal assistant, Liane Aronchick.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 The witness may be brought in.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Susa.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: May I remind you that you are still under oath.
25 Mr. Olmsted, please proceed.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 May we have on the screen, 65 ter 3120.
3 WITNESS: VOJIN SUSA [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
6 Q. Mr. Susa, good morning.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. I would like to return to the issue of the 9 October 1991
9 decision by the SBWS Great National Assembly, the place the SBWS TO under
10 the -- or within the armed forces of the SFRY.
11 What we have in front of us, if we could enlarge the original a
12 little bit, is a 10 October 1991 letter from Ilija Koncarevic to the SFRY
13 vice-president, Branko Kostic. And we see that this letter was sent one
14 day after the -- the 9 October decision. Mr. Kostic -- or Mr. Koncarevic
15 notes in the first paragraph that the Great National Assembly adopted a
16 decision declaring the district an autonomous federal unit of the new
17 Yugoslav state union.
18 He then provides the substance of the 9 October decision, again,
19 using the term "armed forces."
20 Mr. Koncarevic then states: "The Grand National Assembly deems
21 that these two decisions give full legitimacy to the SBWS to be directly
22 and equally represented in the Presidency of Yugoslavia."
23 Mr. Susa, that was the ultimate purpose of the
24 9 October decision, wasn't it, to place the TO within the armed forces in
25 order to provide a basis for the SBWS to be given a seat within the SFRY
2 A. I don't think so. I think a much more intensive decision was
3 when we joined the Presidency, and putting it in the framework of the TO
4 in order to achieve, would not have been so good. It would have been
5 a -- an inadequate approach to the problem.
6 But specifically this letter of Mr. Koncarevic is not familiar to
7 me. In my view, this decision to resubordinate TO to the JNA was the key
8 decision of that assembly session. The rest is just political
10 Q. Well, I believe you've already testified that it was
11 Mr. Koncarevic who was negotiating this 9 October 1991 decision with the
12 SFRY authorities; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct. That was within his authority as president of
14 the Grand National Assembly.
15 Q. And you were also aware that it was one of the goals of the SBWS
16 Grand National Assembly and Mr. Koncarevic to obtain a seat for the SBWS
17 in the SFRY Presidency; isn't that correct?
18 A. No. I knew that our ultimate goal was to remain a part of
19 Yugoslavia, but I did not know about this aspiration to get our own MP in
20 the assembly. I didn't know about this.
21 Q. I did not say an MP in the assembly. What I said was a seat
22 within the SFRY Presidency.
23 A. I understand you completely. Our wish was to remain a part of
24 Yugoslavia. Perhaps not as a federal unit. That would have been too
25 ambitious but as a territory with a special status. That, certainly. I
1 did not know that there were any ambitions to have a seat on the
2 Presidency. Maybe that was discussed by an narrow circle of people of
3 which I was not a part.
4 Q. Well, let's look at 65 ter 6683. This is tab 171.
5 I'd like to draw your attention to the short article that's right
6 in the middle of this newspaper page. And this is a 16 October 1991
7 Politika article entitled: "Request of the government of the
8 Serbian District of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem."
9 MR. OLMSTED: If we can enlarge the middle -- the middle -- yes,
10 to the left. The short one that's in the box to the left.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I see it well.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Okay. This article reports that Mr. Hadzic told Tanjug: "The
14 Serbian people in this district who are outside the Republic of Serbia,
15 and now they are in Krajina, which means they are no longer in Croatia,
16 should have their representative at the highest level of the country in
17 which they want to be."
18 And if we can look further down in the article, Mr. Hadzic
19 states: "It was logical for the Serbian District of SBWS to have its
20 representative in the country it recognises, whether with equal or other
22 Mr. Susa, that was the position of the SBWS government and
23 Mr. Hadzic, wasn't it?
24 A. To me, a more important part of the text is the one you haven't
25 read. I, as a member of the government, bore in mind primarily that
1 paragraph, which says we don't want to be a federal unit but we do want
2 to be independent in any case. All these stories about being represented
3 in the Presidency or any other federal body, such as the assembly, were
4 not very present in my mind. Maybe, as I told you before, this was
5 discussed by some other officials of ours, maybe even Goran Hadzic. I
6 don't know. In any case, to me, it doesn't matter. As far as I'm
7 concerned all our policy boiled down to the formulation I've just read.
8 Let us allow the possibility that some of them even had ambitions
9 of being represented in the federal bodies.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender
11 65 ter 3120 and 6683.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I object to -- to -- to -- because there is no
13 foundation to -- for tendering these documents, since the witness doesn't
14 know anything about the contents of these documents.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if the witness may take off his
17 headphones for a second.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you take off your headphones, Mr. Susa, for
19 a moment. Thank you.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution is not surprised that
21 the witness contradicts the Prosecution's propositions being put to him;
22 he is, after all, a Defence witness. But these documents do contradict
23 what this witness has said about the purpose of the 9 October 1991
24 decision, placing the SBWS TO within the SFRY armed forces. They're
25 right around the same time period that decision was issued and they
1 provide context to that.
2 Now the witness has testified that Mr. Koncarevic was the one who
3 was behind the 9 October decision, so a letter from Mr. Koncarevic is
4 very relevant to this issue. And this article that is now in front of us
5 the Prosecution will submit is closely related to that letter by
6 Mr. Koncarevic. The witness is not, of course, being helpful on this
7 issue because he is standing by his position to what the 9 October 1991
8 decision was all about. But the Prosecution position is that this
9 document is -- these two documents are necessary for the Trial Chamber to
10 weigh the evidence of this witness as well as to put that evidence within
11 its proper context.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: My objection is not on the ground of relevancy
14 but on the ground of lack of nexus between the statement of this witness
15 and tendering of these two documents, and I've said that there is no
16 foundation for it.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is overruled. The documents are
18 admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 6683 will be Exhibit P3309.
20 And 3120 will be Exhibit P3310.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. Mr. Susa, the SFRY Presidency never gave the SBWS a seat on the
24 Presidency, did it?
25 A. Definitely not.
1 Q. Nor did the SFRY Presidency adopt the Grand National Assembly's
2 9 October decision and, as a result, the SBWS TO was never incorporated
3 into the SFRY armed forces; isn't that correct?
4 A. De facto, it was definitely incorporated into the SFRY armed
5 forces. That's how it operated on the ground. I don't know, though,
6 whether there was a particular decision of the Presidency governing that.
7 Q. And in your Dokmanovic testimony, you testified that you believed
8 that this 9 October decision was disseminated to the various TO units in
9 the SBWS through the radio, press and television; correct?
10 A. Among other things, but that was not sufficient.
11 Q. And, in fact, it's your evidence that even after this
12 9 October decision, it took effort on the part of the members of the SBWS
13 government to explain to local TO units why it was necessary to places
14 themselves under the JNA; correct?
15 A. There was only a smaller number of individuals who opposed it
16 because they felt they were losing their local authority. However, they
17 opposed it without any effect. In the end, they had to be
19 Q. It's also the case that the local TO commanders always found ways
20 of retaining their autonomy from the JNA; isn't that correct?
21 A. No, they didn't always found -- find ways. They tried, but they
22 rarely succeeded.
23 Q. Well, I suppose I need go to your Dokmanovic testimony then.
24 Which you don't have in front of you but I will read to you.
25 A. Now I have it in front of me.
1 Q. I'm referring to your Dokmanovic testimony which you do not have
2 in front of you. This is 1 --
3 A. I don't have that one, yes.
4 Q. This is 1D2319 and I'm interested in page 11 in the e-court.
5 And during your Dokmanovic testimony you were being asked about
6 this 9 October decision, and the Defence counsel asked you: "Does this
7 mean that after the 10th of October, the village watches had nothing to
8 do with you?"
9 And on the next page, page 12, you said: "This need not be true
10 in absolute terms because the village watches always found ways of
11 retaining their autonomy with the local commanders."
12 And you go on to say that this is a problem for the JNA?
13 That was your testimony in Dokmanovic. Do you stand by it?
14 A. I still say that. That did not happen everywhere. It happened
15 in individual cases.
16 Q. Can you name the individual cases?
17 A. No. I don't think they were in any way important. It was
18 probably in areas where those local commanders had a lot of power to
19 decide about movements in their territory. That affected their power
20 also to control economic flows, and they were afraid they would lose that
21 position. Those were various and individual cases that I cannot cite
23 Q. There was also a question whether the JNA would ultimately agree
24 to place these local TO units under its command; correct?
25 A. In the early days, that question existed, but later, it happened.
1 The JNA did place TO units under its command.
2 Q. Well, if you could turn to paragraph 36 of your 2014 statement.
3 It's correct that you do not know to what extent, if any, the
4 local TO units were placed or resubordinated to the JNA; isn't that
6 A. They were. To what extent, I don't know, and I cannot testify
7 about that. That was not within my remit. Fundamentally, it's true they
8 were resubordinated. If there were any exceptions, I don't know about
10 Q. Indeed, under paragraph 36 of your statement after mentioning
11 that the decision was reported to the radio and television, you state:
12 "I also suppose" -- "I also suppose that later on the ground men from the
13 JNA started slowly disarming and resubordinating to them, the units that
14 had, until then, commanded themselves."
15 So you had no direct information whether TO units were being
16 resubordinated to the JNA; correct?
17 A. No, I had no direct information. Only what I saw in the field
18 and hearsay from other people or perhaps even briefings at government
19 sessions. Personally, I did not deal with this. It was not within my
20 job description.
21 Q. Now in your 1998 statement you describe how in the SBWS
22 everything was regulated by law and sublegal acts which you drafted on
23 behalf of the SBWS government and you also stated that the legislative
24 documents were of high quality, at that time higher even of those of
25 Serbia. That is correct, isn't it?
1 A. Those documents that were drafted in the Ministry of Justice, we
2 tried to draft according to the highest available standards. We were
3 able to change some things in law that were very rigid in Serbia, such as
4 economic sanctions, et cetera, but, in the rest, my -- my ministry did
5 not take any part.
6 Q. The laws and regulations for the SBWS were published in
7 official gazettes that were first published in Beli Manastir and then,
8 once the RSK was formed, in Belgrade; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And the Beli Manastir municipality also published its decisions
11 in official gazettes also published in Beli Manastir; correct?
12 A. They had their own municipal official gazette that had nothing to
13 do with our Official Gazette except that the same print works produced
15 Q. And those gazettes, the SBWS and Beli Manastir gazettes, were
16 available to the public to the extent that they wanted to review them;
18 A. They should have been available and only those people were
19 duty-bound to read them who, under the law, had to act in accordance with
20 what was published in the Official Gazette.
21 Q. Last week you testified that the Beli Manastir Executive Council
22 decisions that you described as discriminatory "should have been repealed
23 or harmonised."
24 In fact, they never were repealed by the SBWS government, were
1 A. The government did not have to repeal it. They had an imperative
2 order to do it themselves, and in future, to enforce only the laws of the
3 district. And if they failed to do that, I believe they were in conflict
4 with the law.
5 Q. You can't state that the Beli Manastir Executive Council ever
6 repealed its decisions that it rendered in 1991. Isn't that the case?
7 A. Whether they made an explicit decree repealing them, I don't
8 know. But for me, it's enough that there is a legal enactment under
9 which all their previous decisions had to be considered as inferior to
10 laws. They had to be considered as bylaws, as, as such, they would not
11 be enforced. They would not be applicable.
12 Q. What legal provocations are he referring to because we have the
13 Official Gazettes for the SBWS and there's nothing in there, as far as
14 I'm aware, which explicitly repeals Executive Council decisions?
15 A. It is understood that when a law is passed that applies to the
16 entire territory, and the territory of Baranja was in no way excepted,
17 these laws apply mandatorily to the whole territory and thus to Baranja
18 as well. They had to enforce these laws too and if they failed to do so,
19 of which I had no particular evidence, then they would have been in
20 conflict with the law.
21 Q. Well, which laws are you referring to that you were in conflict
22 with the Beli Manastir Executive Council decisions?
23 A. This question begs a very general answer that is very delicate.
24 All the laws --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
1 MR. OLMSTED:
2 Q. Witness, if you could please slow down a bit for the
4 A. Sorry. All these laws - and I confirmed it was a large number of
5 laws - had to be enforced by everybody. I don't know which of these laws
6 they failed to apply. You would have to give me a specific example, and
7 then I would be able to comment.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry, Mr. Zivanovic.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I see that there is no -- in
10 transcript the laws that the witness alleged. He enumerated
11 approximately three or maybe four laws. He was --
12 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine, Your Honours.
13 Q. Could you list the laws that you mentioned so that we can look
14 them up ourselves to see if they're inconsistent with the Beli Manastir
16 A. I invoke the decision of the Assembly in Beli Manastir. All the
17 laws that were adopted at that time. I cannot even enumerate them all
18 now. All of them at the time of their passing at the Grand National
19 Assembly were adopted, published and had to be applied. If you want me
20 to enumerate them all I will try, but there are certainly 15 to 20 and
21 I'm sure to miss a few.
22 Q. But we're only talking about laws that you claim contradicted the
23 decisions by the Beli Manastir Executive Council. But if you cannot
24 point us to those particular laws, that's fine. But you will agree,
25 Mr. Susa, that the -- those Beli Manastir decisions that you proclaimed
1 as discriminatory were consistent with your 11 February 1992 memorandum
2 to the Mohovo local commune?
3 A. I believe that the decisions of the Beli Manastir municipal
4 council differ considerably from this decision that I sent to the local
5 commune of Mohovo.
6 Q. You testified last week that the SBWS government proposed to the
7 Grand National Assembly to proclaim a state of emergency but that the
8 assembly never acted on that proposal. Now, the reason the assembly did
9 not act on that proposal was that the reason behind it, to introduce work
10 obligation, could be accomplished without a state of emergency; correct?
11 A. The assembly took a position on that point, yes. That could have
12 been done without introducing work obligation.
13 Q. Let's look at 65 ter 1065. This is tab 50.
14 And these are minutes of the 4/5 May 1992 RSK Assembly -- or RSK
15 government session in Beli Manastir. And you attended this session,
16 correct, we see your name listed?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if we could turn to page 2 in both the original and the
20 We see that after the security briefing from Milan Martic and a
21 discussion that included Minister Spanovic, Minister Veizovic, you and
22 others, the RSK government decided to send a proposal to the republic
23 president to proclaim a state of emergency in the territory of the RSK.
24 Mr. Susa, a state of emergency existed at least as of May 1992;
1 A. I think that a state of emergency was not introduced. A proposal
2 to introduce a state of emergency and to pass a decision on that, it's
3 not one and the same thing. When you asked me a moment ago, I spoke
4 about the situation. We did not speak about the actual time involved.
5 We talked about the situation in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and
6 then the Grand National Assembly refused to introduce a state of
7 emergency. It was Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic that had launched that
8 initiative. I see that the topic that is discussed here has to do with
9 the Republic of the Serb Krajina. We were no longer in the SAO Slavonia,
10 Baranja, and Western Srem. There was a proposal here sent to the
11 president. Now whether the president took that into account, we have to
12 see that on the basis of his decision.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 1065 will be Exhibit P3311.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
17 MR. OLMSTED:
18 Q. And, Mr. Susa, please allow me to skip around a little bit in
19 time, because I have limited time and I want to make sure I cover all the
21 In January 1993, Mr. Hadzic exercised his presidential powers by
22 declaring a state of war in the RSK and at the same time he declared a
23 general mobilisation; correct?
24 A. I think that is evident from the documentation. Yes, I think
25 that is correct.
1 Q. You testified last week that no one from the SBWS was involved in
2 writing the RSK constitution that was adopted in Borovo Selo in
3 December of 1991.
4 Now, if we look at your statement from 2014, in paragraph 165,
5 you state that: "The Ministry of Justice and Administration of the SBWS
6 and I, myself, were involved in drafting the 19 December 1991
8 You've changed your evidence, haven't you?
9 A. No. I absolutely stand by what I stated. We took part in
10 drafting the constitution. However, that draft constitution was not
11 discussed by the assembly in Borovo Selo. A completely new term was
12 introduced. This constitution that was adopted in Borovo Selo had its
13 shortcomings. We would have never allowed ourselves to say in the
14 constitution that the Republic of the Serb Krajina would be established
15 only in the territory of the Krajina and further on, of course, I stood
16 by that, that we worked on a concept of the constitution that was not a
17 subject of discussion. Everything that we prepared beforehand for this
18 assembly was the subject of previous constitutional amendments.
19 Q. And if I understand your evidence correctly, you worked on a
20 draft of another constitution. And was that submitted to this assembly
21 that was held in Borovo Selo?
22 A. No. The political circumstances were such that probably somebody
23 came to the conclusion that this form of constitution that we had
24 advocated and proposed at that point in time in Borovo Selo, it would not
25 have yielded any positive results. On the contrary, it would have
1 brought about divisions. The basic concept, the basic difference in
2 respect of this constitution in Borovo Selo was, according to our draft
3 and that is the way it was supposed to be carried out, the president is
4 elected by the assembly. There was this conglomerate of different
5 relations in Borovo Selo. Some of this had been adopted and other things
6 were not.
7 Q. Now, in your 2014 statement and this is paragraph 167, you state:
8 "The constitutional powers of the RSK president under the constitution
9 were very broad, especially in relation to the RSK's armed forces."
10 That's correct, isn't it?
11 A. In that constitution that was adopted, yes.
12 Q. All right. If we could have L55 on the screen. And I'm
13 interested in the amendment 8, which to the left side.
14 And for the English, we might need to go to page 2.
15 Now you were shown this amendment number 8 to the RSK
16 constitution during --
17 A. Could it please be zoomed in.
18 Q. All right. This is what you were shown during direct examination
19 last week, Mr. Susa. And it was promulgated on 18th May 1992. And we
20 can see that it gave the RSK president -- president the power to appoint
21 the RSK TO commander, as well as the power to appoint judges and
22 prosecutors of the military courts.
23 Now prior to this amendment, the RSK constitution did not
24 expressly give the RSK president these powers, did it?
25 A. Far wider powers were given to him as far as the TO commander was
1 concerned. He could appoint and remove. This is a strange amendment,
2 again some kind of political comprise. Now the president is only given
3 the opportunity to appoint the TO commander. This is a very interesting
4 situation. The already-existing TO commander cannot be replaced by the
5 president. He could have been removed from that position only if he
6 resigned himself or if, God forbid, he been killed. However, in a
7 regular procedure, the president cannot have him removed from office.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
9 be asked to speak slower. Thank you.
10 MR. OLMSTED:
11 Q. Mr. Susa, please speak slower so that the interpreters can
12 understand you.
13 I've looked at the constitution and I did not find any provision
14 regarding the appointment of the TO commander or the appointment of
15 military court judges or military prosecutors. Now we can look at
16 Article 102 of the constitution, which this amendment amends, but I put
17 to you that it does not deal with those particular issues. These are new
18 powers given to the president.
19 A. These are definitely not new powers. Why would the question of
20 appointing the TO commander be raised in general when it is generally
21 known? It can be seen from the constitution and the Law on Defence that
22 the president appoints and dismisses. This president can no longer
23 dismiss. He can only appoint. This is illogical.
24 Q. Well, we'll have to leave that there. The Judges do have the
25 constitutes and they can see for themselves whether these powers were
1 explicitly provided for in the constitution.
2 Other than this amendment 8, the RSK president's constitutional
3 powers in relation to the RSK armed forces remained unchanged until the
4 22nd of April 1993 when the constitutional amendments establishing the
5 Supreme Defence Council were established; correct?
6 A. The Supreme Defence Council was a new limitation in terms of the
7 breadth of the powers that the president had. When the Supreme Defence
8 Council came into existence he became only a member of that council.
9 Q. Let me stop you there, because you're not answering my question.
10 Between amendment number 8 and the amendment establishing the Supreme
11 Defence Council there were no other constitutional changes that affected
12 the RSK president's powers over the armed forces; isn't that correct?
13 A. Well, I cannot say right now, really. There were so many
14 different amendments and different situations. I cannot recall. It
15 would not be natural for me to be able to recall that.
16 Q. While presiding over the Supreme Defence Council, Mr. Hadzic
17 continued to assert himself as supreme commander of the RSK armed force,
18 didn't he?
19 A. Well, you're not going to be happy with my answer. But even
20 until then, he was no supreme commander.
21 Q. Well, let's look at 65 ter 1800. This is tab 91.
22 Now, unfortunately, I do not have a Serbian version of this
23 article which is a 28 September 1993 Vecernje Novosti article, if I
24 pronounced that correctly. In the beginning, Mr. Hadzic states to the
25 press: "As supreme commander, I will carry out radical staffing changes
1 in the army, leadership and the government. The reason for this is the
2 recent developments on the Lika front."
3 So I put to you again, Mr. Hadzic put himself out publicly as the
4 commander of the armed forces, didn't he?
5 A. There's no denying it that according to the position he held he
6 was the supreme commander. I'm just saying how this functioned in
7 reality. I'm not saying for a minute that he was not the supreme
9 Q. And at the end of this article, it reports that Mr. Hadzic:
10 "Assessed the situation on the Lika front as stable, particularly after
11 three strong units of the Krajina army had been deployed there. He then
12 states that the demarcation line is the same as it was before."
13 As president, Mr. Hadzic kept the public informed about the
14 operations of the RSK armed forces; correct?
15 A. There's no denying that he was duty-bound to do that in respect
16 of everything except for what was a military secret.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
18 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 1800 will be Exhibit P3312.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. Goran Hadzic, as RSK president, attended RSK government sessions
24 from time to time, didn't he?
25 A. Maybe a few times. I'm not ruling that out, but I am not linking
1 it to anything significant that happened at the time.
2 Q. Let us look at 65 ter 1054. This is tab 49.
3 And these are minutes from the RSK government session held on 27
4 to 28 April 1992. And we can see that both you and Goran Hadzic attended
5 this session; correct?
6 A. Goran Hadzic was invited and was present, yes. It can be seen
7 here that he was invited to attend the government session.
8 Q. If we turn to page 3 of both the English and the Serbian version,
9 the original version, we see that one of the decisions reached at the
10 session was the creation of an RSK council for the protection of
11 constitutional order. And we also see that Mr. Hadzic was appointed
12 president of this council, which consisted of other high-ranking RSK
13 officials; correct?
14 A. Obviously.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 1054 will be Exhibit P3313.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you. If we could have 1D2575 on the screen.
20 This is tab 266.
21 Q. And these are minutes of an RSK government session held on
22 14 July 1992. And, again, both you and Goran Hadzic are present at this
23 session; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if we could turn to page 7 of both versions.
1 I'd like to draw your attention to item number 9. We see that
2 after you provided reasons for consenting to the appointment of
3 Djordje Calosevic as chairman of the Dalj Executive Council that consent
4 was given to his appointment by the government; correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, may this be admitted into evidence.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: 1D2575 will be Exhibit P3314.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
10 MR. OLMSTED:
11 Q. The RSK president had the power to propose the appointment and
12 the removal of the RSK prime minister, didn't he?
13 A. I don't think so. He could have made proposals, but it was the
14 assembly that could remove the prime minister. I think that that was
15 wrong and that this narrowed down the powers of the president of the
17 Q. Let us see 1D2619. And this is tab 269.
18 This is a 17 March 1993 decision to appoint prime minister-elect
19 to form a government. This is an example of Mr. Hadzic exercising his
20 constitutional powers; correct?
21 A. In terms of proposing the prime minister-designate, yes. But he
22 is not the one who appoints him.
23 Q. Now, in March 1993, Mr. Hadzic also dismissed three ministers,
24 including the minister of defence, Stojan Spanovic, as well as
25 Mr. Bjegovic's predecessor as prime minister, Zdravko Zecevic; isn't that
2 A. I think they were dismissed by the government as its members, and
3 Mr. Hadzic did not have these powers.
4 Q. Let look at paragraph 189 of your 2014 statement. And I'll read
5 it for the record. You state: "Because of the failings of the defence
6 and the heavy casualties sustained in this aggression," I think you're
7 referring to the Maslenica incident, "the RSK president dismissed three
8 ministers, including, minister of defence, Stojan Spanovic."
9 That's correct, isn't it?
10 A. Maybe it's put a bit clumsily. However, when you see his powers
11 this simply does not correspond to that. I was dismissed by the assembly
12 at the assembly meeting, and that's the way it had to be. Maybe I
13 misspoke, so please allow me to correct myself. There is really nothing
14 there that is not written in documents so there's no need for me to
15 invent anything here. Everything is written down in the documents. I
16 may make a mistake though.
17 Q. Mr. Hadzic was not pleased with what happened in Maslenica. The
18 public was not pleased. And, as president, he took action by dismissing
19 three ministers, as well as the prime minister, didn't he?
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is asked and answered.
21 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine, Your Honour, I'll move on.
22 May this document be admitted into evidence.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 1D2619 will be Exhibit P3315.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have L38 on the screen. This is
2 tab 21. Tab 21, this is L38.
3 Q. Last week you testified about attending a government session in
4 Erdut on 19 November. These are the minutes from that session; correct?
5 A. These are minutes from the session held on the 20th of November.
6 Q. Well, if I could draw your attention --
7 A. All right. It was held on the 19th and the minutes were compiled
8 on the 20th. I don't know why how come but all right I allow for that
10 Q. And this meeting on 19 November in Erdut, it began in the morning
11 and finished around 2.00 or 3.00 p.m.; correct?
12 A. I don't remember that. I don't know when it started. I don't
13 know when it ended. Really.
14 Q. Well, if you could look at paragraph 18 in your 1998 statement,
15 does that first sentence refresh your memory?
16 A. Well, at that time definitely. I must have remembered that
17 better. I wouldn't correct it now. Probably when I stated that then,
18 that is what was correct. I mean, it is correct now as well, but I no
19 longer seem to remember it.
20 Q. Now at this meeting, Goran Hadzic informed you and the other
21 members of the government that he had talks with his associates who had
22 returned from the terrain and that he was told that in the course of the
23 following day, operations would be completed for the liberation of
24 Vukovar; correct?
25 A. Yes, yes, that is correct.
1 Q. Did he mention who his associates were?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And at this 19 November 1991 session, it was decided to have a
4 working and festive meeting, again the next day in Vukovar, which, in
5 fact, happened at Velepromet; correct?
6 A. Well, this working and ceremonious meeting, I like that, so, yes,
7 we'll see.
8 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your answer. Are you verifying
9 what I asked you in the question?
10 A. We agreed that it would be a working and ceremonious meeting.
11 Q. Thank you. In addition, and I believe this is what you describe
12 in paragraph 16 of your 1998 statement: "The 19 November session was
13 predominantly dedicated to the Vukovar events. One could feel certain
14 euphoria since we had received information that the fights were nearly
15 over with enemy forces being beaten. We were receiving this information
16 at great speed. The news was delivered by the people who participated in
17 the fighting or those originally coming from Vukovar, therefore,
18 particularly interested in the situation. There were about 200 to 300
19 people who got together that day to discuss the situation."
20 That was the situation, wasn't it, Mr. Susa?
21 A. Yes, that's what the situation was like.
22 Q. And given the large number of persons present, the government was
23 unable to follow a strict agenda on the 19th of November; correct?
24 A. These 200 people could not even fit into the room where the
25 government session was being held. When I refer to them, I mean the
1 hallways and the rooms around the conference room where the government
2 was meeting. I am not sure that they bothered us in our work.
3 Q. But a strict agenda could not be followed that day, could it?
4 And I'm looking at paragraph 18 of your statement at the very end of it.
5 A. Well, it's quite normal that the focus on work was weakened, but
6 we did do some work.
7 Q. If we could look at page 3 of the English of these minutes and
8 page 4 of the original version. I would like to draw your attention ...
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the original version of the
10 document only has two pages. Can counsel clarify, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, you're absolutely correct. I apologise for
12 that. It's item 2 I'm interested in, which begins at the bottom of the
13 page of these minutes and continues onto the next page.
14 Q. Yes, and what I want to draw your attention to is that the
15 minutes reflect that "Radovan Stojicic briefed those present on the
16 military situation." And then after that, you and a number of other
17 persons took part in that discussion.
18 It was the case, Mr. Susa, wasn't it, that Badza provided the
19 government with more information than mere casualty numbers. He provided
20 information regarding the security situation.
21 A. This time, at the very end of the operations, yes.
22 Q. And, I apologise, I believe that the item is on page, yeah, 3 of
23 the -- of the English, but we can look at that later.
24 Now prior to the 20 November 1991 meeting at Velepromet, you knew
25 that the SBWS government lacked a KP Dom prison in the Vukovar area which
1 could house large numbers of prisoners from Vukovar; correct?
2 A. It definitely didn't have one.
3 Q. There were only some makeshift collection centres, such as in
4 Dalj and Borovo Selo; correct?
5 A. I don't know about those collection centres. I never spoke about
7 Q. Prior to the 20 November meeting, you and the other government
8 members had been discussing at meetings and elsewhere stories about
9 serious crimes allegedly committed against Serbs in Vukovar; correct?
10 A. Those were not rumours. We had exact information from
11 professionals who had a lot of experience in that work, had collected
12 over the previous year. I'm talking about investigators, policemen, who
13 spoke to families of the victims, survivors, et cetera.
14 Q. Well, given these stories -- and I use the word "stories" because
15 that's the word you use in paragraph 29 of your 1998 statement. Given
16 these stories that circulated, you were aware of the possibility that
17 among the Serb population in Vukovar there may be a desire to seek
18 revenge against captured Croat prisoners; correct?
19 A. I could not suppose that on the basis of anything we knew.
20 That's not a normal thing.
21 Q. Well, during your Dokmanovic testimony, this is 1D2319, page 28
22 in e-court, which, again, Mr. Susa, you don't have in front of you, you
23 testified that: "There were lots of internal settlings of accounts after
24 the fall of Vukovar."
25 Now you attributed this to Croatian formations but Serbs also had
1 the desire to settle accounts in Vukovar against Croats, didn't they?
2 A. I cannot know that. Those are only assumptions. And we didn't
3 have even that.
4 Q. In your 1998 statement, this is paragraph 22, I state that you
5 left Belgrade on the morning of 20 November, between 7.00 and 7.30 a.m.
6 you accept that?
7 A. I accept that.
8 Q. And, as I understand it, you travelled to Sid, and then from Sid
9 you crossed over into the SBWS and went to Vukovar.
10 Could you tell us how long did it take you to travel from Sid to
11 Vukovar that morning?
12 A. I think, with all the circumstances around it, spending time
13 there, picking up Bogdanovic, stopping in Sid, we needed three to three
14 and a half hours to get to Belgrade.
15 Q. I believe -- you said Belgrade. To Vukovar, I take it?
16 A. Yes, I mean Vukovar. From Belgrade to Vukovar, three or three
17 and a half hours with all the inevitable stops that were not short.
18 Q. But I want to focus on the leg of your journey from Sid to
19 Vukovar that morning. Could you give us an estimate of how long that
21 A. We stopped by in Cakovac to see the brother of Bogdan Vojnovic.
22 It's not important to the story, so I didn't mention it earlier. But
23 passing through all the barricades and all that we needed to get through,
24 I believe we travelled a little more than an hour.
25 Q. You testified last week that you needed a permit to enter the
1 SBWS from Sid. Once you were inside the SBWS, you used your official
2 SBWS government identification card to get through the army check-points;
3 isn't that correct?
4 A. No. It was precisely that permit that I got previously in Sid.
5 Everywhere where there was a military presence, where the military
6 controlled traffic, I had to produce this permit I got from Sid. Only on
7 the leg from Erdut to Dalj and in the area where we were known to people
8 was I able to use my ID as a minister.
9 Q. Well, if we look at paragraph 22 of your 1998 statement, you were
10 talking about your journey to Vukovar that day. And you state: "I had
11 my official ID card with me, which I would present but it meant nothing
12 for a certain number of people."
13 Then you go on to say: "Usually on our way to Vukovar my card
14 always worked but this time, with much more efforts than usual."
15 Now, in your statement, you only mention using your official ID
16 and you make no mention of receiving a permit from Sid, and this is not
17 something that you corrected in your 2014 statement; correct?
18 A. But this time I'm not even -- I'm even emphasizing here that my
19 official ID was not enough.
20 Q. That's not correct. You say: "But this time, with much more
21 efforts than usual."
22 A. Yes, if you get that additional permit in Sid. That was
23 certainly so. I need not change anything here.
24 Q. And you will agree that nowhere in this paragraph do you mention
25 getting a permit from Sid.
1 A. In the paragraph you are showing me, I don't see any mention of
2 any permits, and I don't see that sentence you are citing.
3 I say that at every check-point, my driver had to have a
4 discussions, that I tried to calm him down, I produced my ID, but to a
5 number of people, it meant nothing.
6 When we went to Vukovar, my ID was usually enough, but this time,
7 things were much harder. As far as I recall, that time we got a permit,
8 a laissez-passer, in Sid.
9 Q. That last part about the laissez-passer in Sid, that's not in
10 that paragraph. Let's be clear about that.
11 A. It's not in this paragraph. But if you will, treat it as if we
12 got a permit in Sid, although it won't be correct. Use that part of my
13 statement whichever way is convenient to you now.
14 Q. You testified that you arrived at Vukovar around 10.30 a.m. and
15 you arrived at the Velepromet 60 to 70 minutes later. This was last week
16 during your testimony.
17 A. You mean we arrived at Vukovar at 10.30 and we took another 60
18 minutes to travel to Vukovar? I didn't say that. That's not true.
19 Q. Let me repeat my question because maybe something was lost in it.
20 You testified last week that you arrived Vukovar around 10.30;
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. And then you testified about how you engaged in some other
24 activities and that you arrived at the Velepromet facility 60 to 70
25 minutes after arriving in Vukovar; correct?
1 A. I think it was close to noon when we got back to Velepromet.
2 Q. Well, based upon your testimony last week, you arrived at
3 Velepromet somewhere around 11.30 to 11.40 a.m. Do you accept that?
4 A. I accept that.
5 Q. And you testified that when you arrived at Velepromet you saw
6 Goran Hadzic, Arkan, and Vitomir Devetak, as well as Bogdan Vojnovic in
7 the yard of Velepromet. This is from your testimony last week.
8 Now, in your statement from 1998, you also mention seeing
9 Mladen Hadzic, Slavko Dokmanovic, Rade Leskovac and Bogdan Vorkapic in
10 the yard as well; is that correct?
11 A. It's obviously a mistake. Bogdan Vojnovic was the man who was
12 with me all the time. We never separated. I didn't see him in the yard
13 because he was with me. This is probably about Bogdan Vorkapic, and it's
14 just a mistake. Maybe it doesn't matter but Bogdan Vojnovic was with me
15 all the time.
16 Q. That's fine. I accept that. But what I wanted to verify is that
17 in additional to seeing Goran Hadzic and Arkan in the yard you also saw
18 Mladen Hadzic, Slavko Dokmanovic, Rade Leskovac and, as you just
19 mentioned, Bogdan Vorkapic; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. Them, and many other people who were standing in the yard.
21 Behind the gate.
22 Q. And then you testified that you waited an hour before you entered
23 the Velepromet offices; correct?
24 A. Probably even longer. People were standing in clusters and
25 talking. It's very difficult for me to determine how much time we
1 actually spent that way. It could be an hour, it could be more.
2 Q. Now, turning to the meeting itself, a majority of the members of
3 the SBWS government attended the Velepromet meeting; correct?
4 A. Most of them, yes. But a number was absent.
5 Q. My question wasn't most -- well, I think that answered it.
6 So at least a majority was present; correct?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, the last words of the witness were not
8 transcribed or interpreted.
9 MR. OLMSTED:
10 Q. Could you repeat your answer, Mr. Susa.
11 A. What specifically do you mean? What am I supposed to repeat?
12 That the majority was there? Yes, the majority, I believe, was there.
13 Q. And Arkan also attended the meeting and he sat next to
14 Goran Hadzic; correct?
15 A. Yes, to my left. I believe between them and our table, there was
16 another table.
17 Q. And you assumed that Arkan came to Vukovar that day escorting
18 Goran Hadzic since the section between Erdut and Vukovar was still highly
19 unsafe; correct?
20 A. That was a logical assumption and my inference. Nobody told me
22 Q. It was also your personal opinion that on that day, Arkan had
23 come to strengthen the position of Goran Hadzic during his encounter with
24 military leaders; correct?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. And you testified last week that at the Velepromet meeting, there
2 were several military officers present that you did not know. It is
3 possible that some of those military officers who were present were TO
4 commanders; correct?
5 A. I believe they were different from officers because they didn't
6 have such ranks. Our TO officers almost didn't have any ranks, and these
7 other officers had one or two stars, or some insignia showing a different
8 rank. That's why I inferred they did not belong to the TO.
9 Q. Well, let's look at your Dokmanovic testimony. This is 1D2319,
10 page 53. And you were asked: "Were Territorial Defence commanders also
11 present in this meeting on the 20th of November?"
12 And then you stated: "It is possible that some of the commanders
13 were there."
14 A. I'm not questioning it even now. I distinguished them from the
15 officers. In the room where we held the meeting, there was a number of
16 people who were coming in and out.
17 Q. In your 1998 statement, you stated that Veselin Sljivancanin
18 joined the meeting and even spoke at it, but your testimony in this case
19 was that he only peeked through the door; correct?
20 A. No, no, sorry. I didn't testify that he spoke.
21 Veselin Sljivancanin, and I believe said that in 1998 as well, just
22 peeked through the door. He was not very well known from the media and
23 then he left. Veselin Sljivancanin, definitely didn't attend this
24 meeting, nor did he say a word.
25 Q. I wasn't referring to your previous testimony. I was referring
1 to your 1998 statement. In that statement you stated that Sljivancanin
2 was -- attended the meeting and you've changed that testimony, that he
3 only peeked in; isn't that correct?
4 A. I maintained that he did not attend the meeting. And I don't
5 know how such a mistake occurred in the interpretation of my statement.
6 Q. You testified last week that a lieutenant-colonel at the meeting
7 introduced himself as Vojnovic. And if you look at your 1998 statement,
8 paragraph 27, you described the military officer present at the meeting
9 as "holding the rank of a colonel."
10 Why now have you demoted him to lieutenant-colonel?
11 A. Now I don't know if he was a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel, and
12 it's completely irrelevant. I know that he introduced himself as
13 Vojnovic. It's possible that he was a lieutenant-colonel.
14 I totally didn't care about this. I didn't pay attention. It
15 was totally unimportant to me. I saw several stars on his shoulder
16 strap. I don't know if I counted them correctly.
17 Q. You also state in your 1998 statement - and this is
18 paragraph 31 - that you were not sure that the name of the colonel was
20 Why are you now so certain that his name was Vojnovic?
21 A. I'm still not sure whether his name is Vojnovic or Vojinovic.
22 When a person introduces himself, he says his name only once, and you may
23 not hear properly. I'm still not sure whether he's Vojnovic or
25 Q. May we have D220 on the screen.
1 This photograph was shown to you during direct examination. In
2 your 2014 statement, in paragraph 115, you state that this image appears
3 at time code 14:05 hours on a video dated 20 November 1991. If you turn
4 to paragraph 44 of your 1998 statement, which is at the very end, you
5 will see that in this statement, you were shown this video, which was
6 taken outside of Velepromet, and you identified a number of people in the
7 video from time code 13:49 to 15:12 hours. However, you will see in your
8 statement that you did not identify Bogdan Vujic, did you?
9 A. In the previous and in this statement, I definitely identified
10 Colonel Vujovic, whom I know personally.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure whether it's Vujic
12 or Vujovic.
13 MR. OLMSTED:
14 Q. I believe you said Colonel Vujic; correct? Vujic.
15 A. Colonel Vujic.
16 Q. And it's just to clarify the record, Mr. Susa. But I want you to
17 look at paragraph 44 of your 1998 statement, not your 2014 statement,
18 Mr. Susa. And in this statement, as I will repeat, you were shown this
19 video from time code 13:49 all the way to 15:12 and yet you never
20 identified Colonel Vujic in that footage, did you?
21 A. Maybe I didn't see it well. Maybe it's not in that footage. I
22 don't know what you're talking about. I'm telling you again I was then
23 shown a picture of Bogdan Vujic and I identified him.
24 Q. And who showed you this particular photograph?
25 A. When I testified back in the Slavko Dokmanovic case, this
1 photograph was shown to me, and you showed it again to me now. It was
2 shown to me in these proceedings as well.
3 Q. We have your transcript from your Dokmanovic testimony and at
4 least during your testimony you were not shown this photograph. Can you
5 tell us who is the one who showed you this photograph that's in front of
7 A. I believe this photograph was shown to me last week.
8 Q. By Mr. Zivanovic?
9 A. Yes, yes. Mr. Zivanovic showed it to me.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I see the time.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
12 We'll take the first break, 30 minutes. We will be back at
14 Court adjourned.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, you have something like 40 minutes
19 left, you know?
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, if I understand correctly, 45 minutes, and I
21 think I should be able to do it within that time-frame.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Mr. Susa, last week you testified that Mladen Hadzic interrupted
2 the colonel's report on the security situation in Vukovar at the
3 Velepromet meeting. In fact, it was Goran Hadzic who interrupted the JNA
4 officer's presentation in the course -- or his report on the course of
5 finalizing the military operation; isn't that correct?
6 A. No, that's not correct. Mladen Hadzic did not interrupt this
7 man. He let him speak. And then he attacked him. That was not
8 Goran Hadzic.
9 Q. Well, if we look at paragraph 28 of your 1998 statement, you
10 state: "We took our seats and this military officer started the meeting
11 in describing the course of finalizing military operations when Hadzic
12 interrupted him. In my opinion, the meeting was clearly presided over by
13 this colonel, and I think that at one point, Hadzic even declined to sit
14 besides the colonel. Anyway, Hadzic said his speech was irrelevant at
15 the moment ..."
16 It goes from there. That's Goran Hadzic, isn't it?
17 A. That is Mladen Hadzic, definitely.
18 Q. So it's your evidence that it was Mladen Hadzic who declined to
19 sit besides the colonel?
20 A. He was next to him anyway, and, at that moment, I realised that
21 he would refuse to sit next to him. He distanced -- distanced himself
22 about 2 metres away before he started speaking. Hadzic was already
23 sitting in his own seat and he was not next to the colonel, or
24 lieutenant-colonel. Now I mean Goran Hadzic.
25 Q. Well, take a look at paragraph 29 of your statement. You know,
1 in this paragraph, you state at the very beginning: "I can remember that
2 Dr. Mladen Hadzic delivered a rather emotional speech, talking about the
3 information from the places where abductions and identifications of dead
4 bodies were conducted."
5 So in this paragraph, when you're referring to Dr. Hadzic, or
6 Dr. Mladen Hadzic, you referred to him by his full name, and I put to you
7 in your statement when you referred to Goran Hadzic, you simply referred
8 to him as Hadzic?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It was asked and answered.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'll allow the question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That could not be inferred on the
12 basis of these parts that are marked here as 25, where I specifically
13 refer to Goran Hadzic. It's quite possible that someone did not record
14 the name of Mladen Hadzic, who is the person I meant.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Now, the paragraph we just looked at suggests, and I believe your
17 testimony also suggested, that at this meeting, emotions were running
18 high; correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And, in fact, you reminded everyone present at the meeting about
21 the stories of crimes that took place, including many cases of violent
22 death, rapes and burning of houses; correct?
23 A. I added onto what the colonel said at the moment when he said
24 that all prisoners would be exchanged. That is what I was speaking of at
25 the time.
1 Q. Well, look at paragraph 29, and after you describe what
2 Dr. Mladen Hadzic stated, you state: "I myself joined the discussion by
3 reminding the others on the stories about the crimes that took place and
4 the facts we were familiar with concerning many cases of violent deaths,
5 et cetera."
6 You were referring to crimes against Serbs; correct?
7 A. I meant all crimes. So if we are to be honest, I particularly
8 meant crimes against Serbs that had been totally uninvestigated.
9 Q. And at the time, just from your last answer, you and the SBWS
10 government were aware that crimes had been committed against the non-Serb
11 population in Vukovar; isn't that correct?
12 A. We could assume that. We didn't know anything for sure. Not in
13 terms of our crimes or these crimes. All of that had to be investigated.
14 Q. Now, at a certain point during this meeting, the military
15 officer, presumably the colonel, also said something that added to the
16 already tense atmosphere, by pointing out that the army would prevent any
17 form of possible revenge and vengefulness; isn't that correct?
18 A. No one spoke of revenge and vengefulness. And, in that sense,
19 the colonel, or lieutenant-colonel, didn't have to intervene. He just
20 stated that prisoners were under the most direct control of the military
21 than they would be transferred to different locations. All of that was
22 all right and in accordance with the law.
23 Q. Well, let's look at paragraph 28 of your 1998 statement. I draw
24 your attention to the last sentence of paragraph 28 where you state: "At
25 a certain point, the military officer also said something that added to
1 the already tense atmosphere, by pointing out that the army would prevent
2 any form of possible revenge and vengefulness."
3 That's what you stated in your 1998 statement. And that's
4 correct, isn't it?
5 A. I'm not going to deny that. All of that is fine. But I don't
6 know what caused what he did and said.
7 Q. Now, with regard to the topic of the non-Serb prisoners of war
8 who were captured during the Vukovar operation, you, Goran Hadzic,
9 Mladen Hadzic, and Slavko Dokmanovic, as well as a few additional
10 government members, took part in that discussion; correct?
11 A. I took part in that. I think that Mladen Hadzic did not. That
12 Slavko Dokmanovic did not. And Goran Hadzic said a few sentences about
13 all of that just before he left the room.
14 Q. Well, that is different from what you said in your 2014
15 statement, but I'll move on.
16 Mr. Hadzic, Goran Hadzic, at this meeting, insisted that there
17 were serious criminals among the prisoners of war who had to be found and
18 brought before the courts; correct?
19 A. Well, he actually said that among the prisoners of war, most
20 people were innocent. In that way, he was referring to what Colonel or
21 Lieutenant-Colonel Vojnovic was saying. And he had interpreted that to
22 us in a way that was not really important to us. No one said that most
23 prisoners of war had or had not committed crimes. Goran Hadzic said that
24 a small group of people had committed crimes and he said that we are not
25 equating all Croats to war criminals. And that's when he left the
2 Q. I'll draw your attention to paragraph 30 of your 1998 statement
3 where you state: "At the initial stage and even later it was the
4 military authorities who were exclusively in charge of the issue of
5 prisoners of war. That was normal. And no one had any comments about
6 that except Hadzic," which I assume you mean Goran Hadzic, "who pointed
7 out that there were for sure many innocent people but there was also
8 serious criminals who had to be discovered and put on trial."
9 That's correct, isn't it?
10 A. That is what he was saying just before he left the room.
11 Q. Now you testified last week that Goran Hadzic stated at this
12 meeting: "We do not identify the Croatian people with criminals and we
13 are perfectly aware that we will have to peacefully coexist in the
15 Mr. Susa, I put to you that you made no mention of this statement
16 by Mr. Hadzic in your 1998 statement, your 2014 statement, or during your
17 Dokmanovic testimony. The first time you have provided evidence
18 regarding this statement about peaceful co-existence was before this
19 Trial Chamber in this case; correct?
20 A. It's possible that this is the first time I've said this, but
21 that is true, and Goran spoke and wrote about this a few days beforehand.
22 I think that's what he said.
23 Q. You testified last week that you protested that no checks were
24 being performed on the prisoners of war to determine whether they had
25 committed war crimes. In fact, you stated at this meeting that you
1 wanted those checks and those investigations to be performed by the local
2 police and judiciary so that the prisoners could be brought to justice in
3 the SBWS; isn't that correct?
4 A. You've oversimplified this and you have reduced my statement
5 completely. I said that investigations had to be carried out so that the
6 perpetrators of crimes could be identified. I did not protest at all.
7 There was no reason for any kind of protest at that point in time, except
8 for the statement of Colonel Vojnovic that everyone would be exchanged on
9 an all-for-all basis.
10 Q. And you wanted those investigations, those checks, to be
11 conducted inside the SBWS before the prisoners left your jurisdiction;
12 isn't that the case?
13 A. No, that's not correct. We clearly stated that at these places
14 where this would be carried out, if it is carried out, we want our people
15 to be present as well.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the next thing I want to deal with
17 the witness should not see it. It should not be broadcasted to the
18 public as well.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: The document shall not be shown to the witness
20 and not be shown to the public.
21 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't think you mentioned the document number,
23 Mr. Olmsted.
24 MR. OLMSTED: I'll do so now. It's P3204. This is tab 130.
25 And if we could -- if we could turn to page 27, I'm interested in
1 paragraph 143. And I mean in the English version. I'm not sure what
2 page it is on the Serbian version. All right.
3 Q. Okay. According to this statement, which you won't be able to
4 see, Mr. Susa, it was mentioned --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the
6 witness. His microphone seems to be off.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Mr. Susa, according to this statement: "It was mentioned at the
9 meeting at Velepromet that the military-aged male prisoners, some in
10 uniforms and some not, were taken to Sremska Mitrovica and some other
11 towns, Major Sljivancanin said that these men would take them until it
12 was clear to they were and what they did. That is what Susa was
13 referring to when he said we had the police and we had judiciary, and we
14 could do it on our own. Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was opposed to these
15 men being sent to Sremska Mitrovica."
16 Mr. Susa it is correct, isn't it, that you insisted at the
17 meeting that the SBWS police and judiciary should carry out proceedings
18 against the prisoners on their own?
19 A. Definitely not. There was no reason for that, and there weren't
20 any conditions for that either.
21 Q. In your statement, you -- this is your 1998 statement, you state
22 that at the meeting also Arkan said a few things which were not worth
23 remembering. I think this is in paragraph 30.
24 In fact, what Arkan said was that the prisoners must remain in
25 the SBWS, didn't he?
1 A. What Arkan said is really not worth remembering. I'd forgotten
2 that. He didn't speak about that, though. I would have remembered that
3 because that is a rather serious matter.
4 Q. If we could have on the screen D187. This should also not be
5 broadcast to the witness. D187. This is tab 263. And if we could turn
6 to page 9. I'm interested in paragraph 48.
7 Now, in this statement, it states: "The main issue that was
8 being discussed was whether some people who had been arrested should be
9 taken to Serbia. Some people claimed that there was a judiciary in the
10 region and their guilt should be established there. I think it was
11 Vojo Susa that was saying this."
12 That's correct, isn't it, you were saying that at this meeting?
13 A. Just in part, as I have already explained. Once investigations
14 are carried out and once evidence is compiled, the trial could be held in
15 Vukovar as well. That's what I meant.
16 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have on the screen 65 ter 6685 and
17 still do not broadcast this to the witness at the moment. This is
18 tab 173.
19 And if we could turn to page 4 in both versions. And if we could
20 enlarge the -- the original version somewhat, the best we can. Yeah,
21 that's fine. And now if we could broadcast this to the witness.
22 Q. Mr. Susa, I put to you that these are notes from the
23 20 November meeting of the government at Velepromet, and you'll see that
24 the second, I guess paragraph, indicates that someone by the name of Vojo
25 stated: "They are not the prisoners of war."
1 It is you who made that statement; isn't that correct?
2 A. You are showing me a slip of paper from a little notebook that is
3 carried around by military intelligence people. This is not any kind of
4 minutes or record. This is not the area where we were at the time. This
5 has no official character. Anybody could have written this at any point
6 in time.
7 Q. But you didn't answer my question. My question is: The
8 statement made "they are not the prisoners of war," you made that
9 statement at the Velepromet meeting, didn't you?
10 A. Those were prisoners of war. I knew that, and I could not have
11 stated anything like this.
12 Q. Was there anyone with the nickname Vojo at that meeting that you
14 A. I cannot say. I don't know.
15 Q. The notes then indicate that the minister of the interior stated:
16 "We waged the war together. We should put them on trial together.
17 "This people and the government should have been consulted on how
18 to put them on trial and where.
19 "Only over the citizens' dead bodies is it going to be possible
20 to leave Vukovar for Sremska Mitrovica with the Ustashas."
21 Mr. Susa, that is what Borislav Bogunovic said regarding the
22 matter of the prisoners, isn't it?
23 A. Borislav Bogunovic did not speak about that. I'm sure that he
24 did not speak about that at all. I am sure that he did not speak at all.
25 Therefore, he couldn't have said this either.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to tender
2 this into evidence.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would object. I would object. First of all,
4 we don't know who is author of this document. We -- we -- we saw the
5 name of -- on the first page of this witness statement this -- this
6 witness was known to the Prosecution for at least ten years. He was not
7 put on their list. We had no opportunity to cross-examine him, if he is
8 author of -- of this document. And, because of that, I object to
9 tendering of this document.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 The first part of this document is a statement authenticating
13 this document which was recently obtained by the Prosecution. The sole
14 purpose of that statement is to authenticate the nature of this document.
15 And this document itself has been on the Prosecution's 65 ter list. It
16 just required authentication that which was recently obtained, and our
17 position is that the document goes to the weight of not only this witness
18 as to what happened at the Velepromet meeting but other witnesses as
19 well, and therefore, the document itself can be admitted, and the
20 statement is simply there to assist the Trial Chamber in a -- evaluating
21 its authenticity.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is my position that we have full right to
23 cross-examine this witness who allegedly made this document and to see
24 when he made -- made this document and whether he made this document.
25 This witness, I repeat, was known to the Prosecution for ten years, and
1 he was not put on their list. He was not called as a witness in their
2 case. And I object.
3 In addition, since the witness could not confirm anything about
4 this document, I object it -- for this reasons, too.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
6 MR. OLMSTED: I just point out that the document doesn't go
7 directly to the acts and conduct of the accused. It does not mention
8 Mr. Hadzic himself and therefore we believe it can be tendered for the
9 purpose that the Prosecution is presenting it for. With regard to the
10 issue of whether the provider of this document should come for
11 cross-examination or direct examination, that's an issue that can always
12 be raised down the road. As Your Honours has mentioned with regard to
13 other documents that the Defence have added to their list that may
14 require re-call of a witness or calling of an additional witness.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I -- my position is we would be deprived, really
16 deprived, to -- of our rights, of the rights of the accused to
17 cross-examine the witness who allegedly made this document, and who --
18 who -- allegedly stated and gave just one piece of paper from his alleged
19 book, notebook.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, can we have the first page on the
22 screen. Not for the public and not for the witness.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Certainly. We'll just have to turn off the
24 monitors and then ... certainly.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: And perhaps the witness should take his head
1 phone off for a moment, please.
2 We are not quite sure we understand, Mr. Olmsted. This seems to
3 be a witness statement by the author of the notebook; is that right?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. And if we could turn to the next page, we
5 could see that his statement is really just authenticating what that
6 document is. It's a one-paragraph statement describing what it is.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, do we understand that you are
9 tendering the -- this document for impeachment purposes?
10 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: The document is admitted and marked and the
12 objection is overruled.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 6685 will be Exhibit P3316.
14 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can - yes - take the documents off the
15 screen and the witness can be ... thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Susa, you testified last week that Goran Hadzic left the
17 meeting before it was concluded, and I think you mentioned that a moment
18 ago as well. In fact, it was Goran Hadzic who concluded the meeting,
19 wasn't it?
20 A. After he left, the meeting continued for another ten minutes or
21 so. He did not conclude the meeting.
22 Q. All right. Let's look at your 1998 statement. And if you could
23 turn to paragraph 32. You state: "I think it was concluded by Hadzic
24 who was discussing some general subject and inviting us to get together
25 again in Erdut. I cannot recall when. Probably later that week."
1 It was Mr. Hadzic, I put it to you again, who concluded the
3 A. If Hadzic concluded it, it must be definitely Mladen Hadzic. And
4 it concerned the ministers present.
5 Q. So it's your evidence that Mladen Hadzic concluded the meeting
6 and then invited the government members to another meeting later that
7 week in Erdut.
8 A. It's definitely about Mladen Hadzic. And there was no other
9 meeting in Erdut. It had already been scheduled in Beli Manastir and
10 that's where it was held.
11 Q. Mr. Susa, you never mentioned Goran Hadzic leaving the meeting
12 early in your 1998 statement, your 2014 statement, or your Dokmanovic
13 testimony. The first time you ever asserted that was during direct
14 examination last week; isn't that the case?
15 A. I cannot know that. But it was definitely as I testified. And
16 on this topic, I could always, discussing it again, add some additional
17 element that I happen to remember.
18 Q. Certainly. But an important element such as that, you would
19 agree would be something that you should provide in your prior
20 statements; correct?
21 A. Throughout this meeting, Goran Hadzic was completely inactive,
22 and that's why I was not sure whether he left earlier or later. Because
23 he acted as if he was not there at all.
24 Q. You testified last week that you had a conversation after the
25 meeting with Goran Hadzic as you were passing through the gate of the
1 Velepromet, about what was decided at the meeting. Again, Mr. Susa, you
2 made no mention of this conversation in your 1998 statement, your 2014
3 statement, or your Dokmanovic testimony; isn't that correct?
4 A. As I was led through those proceedings -- through that procedure
5 in 1998, I answered. I answered the questions of the Prosecution, of the
6 Defence, sometimes even the Judges. But it's quite sure that nobody
7 touched upon this topic.
8 Q. Well, it's not even in your 2014 statement, is it, that you gave
9 two months ago.
10 A. I talked about that a moment ago. If I had been aware I was
11 presenting erroneous facts, I would have made sure to mention it in the
12 statement that followed. However, these proceedings brought up in my
13 memory some details that I had not remembered before. I wouldn't even
14 know who I was standing with if I hadn't been asked: While you were
15 there, when you saw him in passing, did you make any sort of agreement?
16 Q. Let's look at paragraph 3 of your 1998 statement. And in this
17 paragraph, you're talking about the end of the meeting after it was
18 concluded by Hadzic. And you say: "I am sure that I said good-bye to
19 Dr. Mladen Hadzic and to Goran Hadzic. Those two were the only people
20 who were able to leave immediately."
21 Again, I put to you: Nowhere in this paragraph, or anywhere else
22 in the statement, do you mention the conversation you claim you had with
23 Mr. Hadzic after the meeting.
24 A. I did not restrict the meaning of "greeting" to "hello" or
25 "good-bye." Greetings are words that you exchange with somebody before
1 actually parting.
2 Q. Mr. Susa, you did not mention that conversation in this
3 paragraph, did you?
4 A. Quite possibly. But I maintain that it was just an accidental
5 omission, or it was an omission on the part of somebody who was supposed
6 to tell me what I need to say.
7 Q. Let us have P2922 on the screen.
8 And what we have in front of us is a 21 November 1991 Politika
9 article, and if we could blow up the original. We see at the beginning
10 of the article that it was reported from Vukovar on 20 November, so the
11 date of the Velepromet meeting, and it quotes Mr. Hadzic as stating:
12 "The government of the Serbian District met in session for the first time
13 today in liberated Vukovar. And the only item on the agenda of the
14 session was the question of how the most hardened criminals were to be
16 Mr. Hadzic then states: "We have already agreed with the army
17 leadership that justice will be administered here, at least during the
18 first-instance proceedings."
19 Mr. Susa, that is what Mr. Hadzic publicly announced after the
20 Velepromet meeting and that was the truth, wasn't it?
21 A. As we see in this interview, quite a lot is not true. This is an
22 improvised statement, a ex prompto statement given by Goran Hadzic and we
23 know by now that this discussion at Velepromet did not sound like this.
24 Why he said this, I suppose he should explain.
25 This is not reflective of the actual spirit of the talks. I
1 don't know why this statement is made. It's political in nature. It
2 must be a political statement, but it certainly does not reflect the
4 Q. I would like to show you another document -- well, I actually --
5 I don't want to show it to the witness. This should not be broadcast at
6 this stage.
7 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, I apologise. I should be able
8 to wrap up in ten minutes here.
9 If we could have on the screen, 65 ter 2320. This is tab 101.
10 I'm interested in page 45 of the e-court. This should be transcript page
12 Q. Mr. Susa, you were aware -- I'm sorry, yes, please.
13 Mr. Susa, you were aware that Goran Hadzic testified in the
14 Dokmanovic case; correct?
15 A. Believe me, I really don't remember.
16 Q. Well, you testified one day after Mr. Hadzic testified in the
17 Dokmanovic case; isn't that correct?
18 A. Nobody told me that, and I did not meet Goran here.
19 Q. Sometime prior to your testimony in the Dokmanovic case but after
20 the arrest of Mr. Dokmanovic, you met with Mr. Hadzic informally to
21 discuss the Velepromet meeting and what happened during it, didn't you?
22 A. That didn't happen that I know. We met several times after the
23 arrest of Slavko Dokmanovic. Maybe we discussed why Slavko Dokmanovic
24 was indicted, but we never discussed that session at Velepromet as a
25 special topic. I discussed Dokmanovic and his indictment with other
1 people too.
2 Q. Well, I'm not suggesting to you that it was a special topic of
3 discussion, the Velepromet meeting and the events surrounding it. But
4 during these informal discussions with Mr. Hadzic and perhaps other
5 witnesses in the Dokmanovic case, you were told that the JNA
6 representative at that meeting was Vojnovic, weren't you?
7 A. Vojnovic himself told me that. Nobody needed to remind me.
8 Maybe some people forgot, but I didn't.
9 I explained why I remembered so easily that he was Vojnovic,
10 because there was another Vojnovic sitting to my left. If not, it is
11 quite possible I would have forgotten the last name of this person.
12 Q. During these informal meetings with Mr. Hadzic, you discussed
13 that the person or the JNA representative who led that meeting was
14 Vojnovic, didn't you?
15 A. I think we didn't mention the people who appeared at that meeting
16 at all.
17 Q. During these informal discussions with Mr. Hadzic, you discussed
18 what decisions were made, if any, at this Velepromet meeting, didn't you?
19 A. We didn't really have anything to discuss at that meeting -- on
20 that subject, and no decisions were made.
21 Q. Mr. Susa, in your 1998 statement, you assert that in January or
22 February 1992 people around Vukovar were talking about the events at
23 Ovcara. That's correct, isn't it?
24 A. Yes. They discussed it in the sense that something had happened
25 there and there was some sort of grave.
1 Q. And people were discussing that prisoners from the hospital
2 were -- was in -- were in that grave; isn't that correct?
3 A. No, no. That definitely wasn't discussed. It was not said at
4 all who was in the grave. It was only said that there was some sort of
5 grave containing a number of bodies. It was not even said whether they
6 were Croats or Serbs. It was all pretty mysterious and inaccessible
7 because it was guarded by the army, and very soon after that, by UN
9 Q. The police and the judiciary in the SBWS never investigated this
10 grave at Ovcara, did they? They never investigated what that was about,
11 did they?
12 A. I'm not sure about that. Maybe they tried. I was not informed
13 about that by anybody. And I was not informed about many other places
14 where buried bodies had been found.
15 Q. The SBWS and RSK governments never took any actions to ensure
16 that the police and the judiciary uncovered what happened at Ovcara;
17 isn't that the case?
18 A. Well, it was primarily up to the police and investigative organs
19 who should have taken steps. It was not the government's job. The
20 government was not even informed of possible problems.
21 Q. Well, you didn't issue any mandatory instructions to the police
22 or judiciary to look into this, did you?
23 A. No, it was not within my remit to issue mandatory instructions on
24 this, and I had absolutely no information that would indicate I need to
25 do something.
1 Q. Final question, Mr. Susa. The SBWS and RSK governments never
2 took any actions because you, Goran Hadzic, and the other participants at
3 the Velepromet meeting on the 20th of November, 1991 were aware of what
4 happened at Ovcara and did not want to publicly expose it; isn't that the
6 A. You said a very serious thing now which is completely untrue. It
7 is opposite to the truth. If I had known about Ovcara, what it
8 represented, and what had happened there, I would have taken every step
9 to investigate it. It is not only a tragedy to the families involved to
10 whom I express my deepest condolences, it is also a tragedy for my
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, thank you for your indulgence. I have
13 no further questions.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
15 Mr. Zivanovic, re-direct.
16 Re-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Susa.
18 A. Good day.
19 Q. I will put to you a few questions arising from cross-examination.
20 Let me begin with an exhibit shown to you by the Prosecutor.
21 That's P2522. It's L10.
22 You remember the Prosecutor showed you the Law on National
23 Defence; namely, Article 91. In the original, it's page 16; in English
24 it's 59.
25 The Prosecutor showed you Article 91, saying that the armed
1 forces are the Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial Defence as
2 independent components.
3 Let me ask you something: Do you know whether these armed
4 forces, that is to say, the Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial
5 Defence, at the time, did they have a single command?
6 A. I think that at that point in time they had a single command.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at Article 108 of
8 this law. That is page 18 in the original and page 108 in the English
9 translation. It seems that it's a bit before that in the English
10 translation. Perhaps one or two pages. So could we see the previous
11 page. No.
12 We've found it. We've found it. All right. Can we now take a
13 look at Article 102.
14 I do apologise. It's Article 106.
15 Q. Could you please take look at Article 106 that says: "The SFRY
16 Presidency, as the supreme command and control organ of the armed forces,
17 shall," and then 13 items follow.
18 To the best of your knowledge, the Presidency of the SFRY, was it
19 the highest organ of command and control of the armed forces at the time?
20 A. According to its definition and according to its constitutional
21 powers, yes.
22 Q. Further on, in Article 108, it says that the Presidency can
23 transfer certain duties in relation to command and control over the armed
24 forces to the federal secretary for national defence.
25 Do you know whether in 1991 when all of this happened, the
1 federal secretary had certain command and control duties vis-à-vis the
2 Territorial Defence?
3 A. Practically all the duties of the Presidency of the SFRY were
4 transferred to the secretary for national defence.
5 Q. Could you please take a look at Article 110 of the same law?
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We're just waiting for it to
7 appear on our screens.
8 Q. "The federal secretary for national defence shall exercise the
9 duties of command and control of the armed forces in accordance with the
10 powers transferred to him," et cetera.
11 Do you know that that did happen at the time?
12 A. I've already said that that is what happened for the most part.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] P2522, please, could we have that
15 Q. Could you take a look at this first order. Can you read what
16 kind of order this is?
17 A. This is an order on renaming the General Staff of the
18 Yugoslav People's Army into the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the
19 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
20 Q. Can you tell us when this order was adopted?
21 A. Yes, that can be seen. On the 1st of October, 1987. And it is
22 signed by the then-president of the Presidency of the SFRY, Lazar Mojsov.
23 Q. Do you know that the General Staff of the armed forces had
24 command over the JNA and the Territorial Defence, the armed forces, that
1 A. Well, the General Staff, that's its name, and it's self-evident
2 that it had absolute authority over all of them.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go back to the
4 previous document, Article 92. In the English version, it is page 59,
5 and in the original, it's page 16.
6 Q. First of all, let me ask you before we take a look at this. Do
7 you remember what the tasks of the armed forces of the SFRY were at the
9 A. No, I really cannot tell you anything about that. I really don't
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at
12 Article 92 now.
13 Q. Can you see what the task placed before the armed forces of the
14 SFRY was?
15 A. It says: "The armed forces safe-guard the independence,
16 sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the social order as defined by
17 the SFRY constitution. The armed forces may carry out certain tasks in
18 relation to social self-protection."
19 Q. Can you tell me, in 1991, say from the summer of 1991, were any
20 of these things under threat, what you mentioned a moment ago?
21 A. Yes. It was the independence and territorial integrity of the
22 SFRY that were under threat and thereby the sovereignty too. Actually,
23 all elements of Article 92, paragraph 1, had been satisfied.
24 Q. Can you tell us who it is that endangered these values that you
25 mention now.
1 A. The two republics that pointed out their separate right to
2 self-determination, including secession. That was Slovenia and Croatia.
3 Q. With a view to this, which we have been discussing until now did
4 they resort to armed rebellion?
5 A. Yes. That is generally known.
6 Q. Do you remember perhaps when this actually, how this would be
7 punished to the law if somebody would jeopardize the independence,
8 sovereignty, territorial integrity and social order as defined by the
9 SFRY constitution. Was that punishable by law then?
10 A. Yes, like in any other country that is the general rule. That is
11 how any state protects itself.
12 Q. During the cross-examination, the Prosecutor showed you a number
13 of criminal reports of the Beli Manastir SUP, if you remember. I think
14 that one of them, actually, included 1.400 persons. I think that there's
15 over 2.000 persons included in these criminal reports all together.
16 A. I remember that.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Zivanovic please
18 be asked to speak into the microphone.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, could you please read the
20 interpreter's note.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, sorry. Yes, I will do.
22 [Interpretation] Can we take a look at P3291.
23 Q. This is one of those criminal reports that were shown to you by
24 the Prosecutor. Names follow. Of course, we're not going to look at all
25 the names, but we can move onto the last page straight away.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe we can look at the
2 penultimate page in the English translation first.
3 Q. That's the criminal report that includes the largest number of
4 suspects, 1.432 of them. Now I'd like to ask you to take a look and see
5 why these -- this report was filed against them. We don't have to read
6 all the details, but we can establish that enemy activities were carried
7 out. The crime of enemy activities. And then various articles are
8 cited. Not to go into all of that now.
9 Could you please tell me whether these were punishable acts? We
10 can read what the specific charges against them were. During 1990 and
11 1991, and so on and so forth, I'm not going to read all of this, but I
12 will say to you that they resorted to armed resistance, I believe the
13 wording is.
14 Can you see that?
15 A. I thought that this could not be seen properly only when it
16 involved the Prosecutor. It is hard for me to find my way through all of
17 this. I cannot see it very well.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I see the time for -- so I would
19 continue after the break.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. We take the second
21 break, 30 minutes, and we will come back at 12.45.
22 Court adjourned.
23 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Susa, it is hardly legible on the screen, so
6 I will read out to you this text that is just below the names.
7 It says: "There are grounds to suspect that the above-mentioned
8 citizens committed the crime of association for the purpose of hostile
9 activity and aiding and abetting, described in Article 106.1 at the
10 detriment of the Serbian people and other peoples and nationalities that
11 live in the area of Baranja."
12 "In the course of 1990, the above suspects during the
13 pre-election campaign in Croatia, joined the HDZ party for Darda, and in
14 the course of their activity after the elections in Baranja, they
15 actively worked to topple the constitutional order of Yugoslavia. And in
16 the area of Baranja, they directly worked against the Serbian people by
17 dismissing Serbs from certain workplaces and disturbing them at their
18 homes. During 1991, as part of their party activity and through the
19 Darda police station, they armed citizens of Croat nationality, all
20 within the HDZ party. With the same weapons in the month of June, they
21 intensified their activities to disturb Serb citizens and other citizens
22 who did not join the HDZ party. On that occasion, Milivoj Stojakovic was
23 killed in Darda in Proleterska Street, and after that killing, they
24 pressed on more intensively to expel Serbs and abuse them in various
25 other ways. The above suspects, all males, attacked the JNA using
1 weapons, after which the citizens of Serb nationality, organised
2 themselves and joined the Territorial Defence of Baranja. Some Serb
3 citizens and some citizens of other nationalities, meanwhile, joined the
4 JNA. On the 21st/22nd August 1991, the above-mentioned citizens fired at
5 ethnic Serbs and at members of the JNA. Following the liberation of
6 Darda, they withdrew to Bilje, where they were from. They continued to
7 attack the JNA and citizens of Serb nationality who had joined the Darda
8 Territorial Defence. After the liberation of Bilje, the aforesaid
9 persons withdrew to Osijek wherefrom they continued with non-stop attacks
10 in the Baranja area. The women mentioned in this report actively
11 assisted in monitoring the citizens of Serb nationality and prepared food
12 for paramilitary units and with them, they withdrew to Osijek."
13 You've heard this. According to the laws that prevailed at the
14 time, did this constitute a crime?
15 A. Yes, it did.
16 Q. What were the duties and obligations of the organs of internal
17 affairs, if they received such a report?
18 A. Their duty was to inspect the crime scene, if possible, and if
19 such massive occurrences were concerned, then they were required to
20 submit reports about any acts that qualify as crimes and make them
21 available to the competent authorities.
22 Q. Did the laws at that time allow the organs of the interior not to
23 do anything if they had such information? Did they have such powers?
24 A. No, they did not. If they had information about a crime, they
25 were required to act upon it. Otherwise, they would not be doing their
1 job, possibly due to an abuse of authority or something else.
2 Q. Cited here are certain interviews conducted by the organs of the
3 internal affairs with certain persons, five, or six, or maybe even ten of
4 them, it doesn't matter, is it the usual procedure to take statements
5 from various persons and attach them to the criminal report to be
6 submitted to the competent prosecutor?
7 A. Yes, that's an obligation. That's how pre-investigation
8 proceedings begin.
9 Q. Do you know about this incident? Were these people ever tried?
10 Were they indicted? Was there a judgement in the case?
11 A. I don't know that.
12 Q. The Prosecutor showed you P3275.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at it briefly.
14 It's tab 165 of the Prosecution.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've seen this document.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. The military court pronounces itself unqualified and they say
18 it's because there was a case against Dusan Boljevic for theft of
19 weapons, and, for that reason, the court is undertaking to try him for
20 other crimes for which it was not actually competent.
21 Do you remember this?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You probably remember the Prosecutor showed you also Article 13
24 of the Law on Military Courts, stipulating that they are only competent
25 to deal with military personnel, and you provided some answers.
1 A. Yes, I remember.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D103.
3 Q. As you can see, this is a special report from the Secretariat of
4 Internal Affairs, Beli Manastir. It was written on 25 December 1991 and
5 sent to the military prosecutor in Belgrade. His military P. O. Box is
6 listed. You can see who the accused are.
7 A. Yes, I see it is Jagoda Boljevic and Dusan Boljevic.
8 Q. I believe you had occasion to see this special report. I
9 wouldn't like to go through every page, but there is a large number of
10 murders listed in which they are suspects.
11 But let us look at the last page. If we can look at the last
13 A. I see.
14 Q. It says that the first suspect, Dusan Boljevic, at the time of
15 the commission of the aforesaid crimes was a member of the Territorial
16 Defence of Bilje.
17 So he was a military person, and for that reason, the case is
18 submitted to the military prosecutor, and the suspects are placed within
19 the jurisdiction of military bodies.
20 Were you aware that the military organs had taken over the case
21 or, rather, that the report was sent to military organs.
22 A. Yes, I believe I said as much to the Prosecutor.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could now look at 1D949.
24 It's tab 637 from our list.
25 Q. Before that, tell me, when such a criminal report is sent, what
1 was the military prosecutor supposed to do?
2 A. He was supposed to file a request to conduct an investigation,
3 but before that, he had to interview the suspect.
4 Q. If he finds that he is not competent, what does he do?
5 A. He pronounces himself not competent and cedes the case to the
6 competent prosecutor. That's how it was done earlier.
7 Q. You see the date is 26 December 1991, so that's one day after the
8 two Boljevic persons were turned over to the military authorities, and
9 this is a record of the interview with the accused. Can you see who
10 questioned the accused?
11 A. Yes, I see. The military investigating judge,
12 Captain Branko Stosic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to the next page.
14 Q. After all the personal details listed at the top, can you read
15 the first paragraph typed out.
16 A. On the 25th of December, 1991, he was taken before the duty
17 investigating judge. Dusan Boljevic was brought before the investigating
18 judge because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he and his
19 wife, Jagoda, as a co-perpetrator, had committed several acts of murder
20 under Article 35, paragraph 2, item 6, of the Criminal Code of the
21 Republic of Croatia.
22 Q. Can you see from this text whether any theft of weapons was
23 mentioned during this first questioning before the judge?
24 A. I can't see it from this. What I see here is murder punishable
25 under Article 35, paragraph 2, item 6.
1 Q. You probably noticed that the military judge established that he
2 was a civilian, as a matter of fact?
3 A. Yes, I noticed that.
4 Q. Can we move onto the next pages of this document. I mean, can we
5 look at this entire interview with him.
6 I mean, you don't have to read it out loud. But can you tell us
7 whether you can see whether there is any mention of any theft of weapons
9 A. No, there's no mention of that. And the text wouldn't look this
10 way. This is not now a further elaboration but it's not contained in the
11 initial description of the crime.
12 Q. Briefly, he actually asked to have a lawyer because he did not
13 have a lawyer and then that request was met. Now, this is what I'm
14 interested in. The investigating judge of the military court, if his
15 finding was that murder is not being prosecuted before courts or do not
16 fall under the jurisdiction of the military court, what is he supposed to
17 do then according to the law?
18 A. He would cause a conflict of jurisdictions. He would address a
19 higher court and ask whose jurisdiction this fell under, ultimately.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document into
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 1D949 will be Exhibit D230.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Now I'd like to ask you to take a look at another document that
2 the Prosecutor showed you. That is P3276.
3 Let me just remind you. This is a decision in which the military
4 court states that it is not in charge of the case of -- against two
5 particular individuals and the case is referred to the district court in
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask that we look at
8 page 2 of this decision or, rather, the statement of reasons.
9 Q. Let us look at the first paragraph where it says: "During the
10 investigation and based on the official letter from the commander of the
11 volunteer detachment Leva Supoderica, dated the 3rd of April, 1992, the
12 investigative judge established that the status of servicemen of the
13 accused Mile Stevanovic has been terminated on the 5th of December,
15 This is probably a mistake. It would have to be 1991.
16 And it says: "The day when he was removed from the records of
17 the volunteer detachment Leva Supoderica."
18 Can you tell me now, these volunteers from the Leva Supoderica
19 detachment and other volunteers that were in Slavonia, Baranja, and
20 Western Srem, under whose authority were they while they were there as
22 A. Under the command of military organs and under their authority.
23 Q. And who was in charge of, say, criminal proceedings if one of
24 these volunteers commits a crime?
25 A. The military court that has jurisdiction.
1 Q. On this basis, can you conclude that the volunteers from the
2 Leva Supoderica detachment - and probably beyond but we're not going to
3 go into all of that - did they have the status of a member of the armed
4 forces of the SFRY?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 3278, please. Could we take a
7 look at that.
8 Q. This is a criminal report. It is barely legible. I think that
9 Vekic, Momcilo is the name of the accused person. And I think the
10 Prosecutor showed us a document from the military court where they say
11 that they are not in charge.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at
13 the second page now. Let us try to clarify why this person was being
14 charged in the first place and what kind of crime it involved.
15 Q. Can you see what the crime is that he's been charged with? What
17 A. Obviously this is a typical property-related crime. That is to
18 say, that he unlawfully tried to gain some property.
19 Q. This property-related crime of this nature, were criminal reports
20 sent to the military authorities, the military organs for that kind of
21 thing? Were they in charge of things like ordinary theft and so on?
22 A. Obviously the criminal reports were sent to them, and they would
23 accept them and process them further.
24 Q. In this case, I see that the report was sent in 1992. I'm
25 talking about the 10th of March, 1992. I think that this is the basic
1 prosecutor's office, or the district prosecutor's office; I cannot
2 actually see from the original text.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to the
4 first page, just for a moment. Yes. The district prosecutor's office in
6 Q. This is what I'm interested in: In March 1992, the judiciary of
7 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, did they start dealing with crimes
8 like this?
9 A. We were definitely capable of dealing with this, so this could
10 have been referred to that judiciary even earlier.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now take a look at P1865.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, this document seems to be
14 confidential but there is a public redacted version.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. It should --
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- you want the confidential one?
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'd like it -- I'd like to have it. I don't
18 know --
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Shall we go into private session.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes, please, and it should not be
21 broadcasted, of course.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 12376-12377 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. The Prosecutor showed you this document, 3228. It's a letter
23 written by the district public prosecutor, Milorad Trosic. It relates to
24 the request for assignment of vehicles. But the most interesting are the
25 first two sentences which say that the prosecuting organisation of the
1 Serbian District began to really work in early November 1991 and is
2 currently most engaged in detecting and prosecuting Ustasha criminals, as
3 well as protecting property primarily in Vukovar but also in the whole
4 district. If you remember, the Prosecutor told you that the main focus
5 of the judiciary was on prosecuting Croats suspected of crimes against
6 Serbs and that everything else was neglected, including cases where Serbs
7 may have committed crimes against Croats.
8 You have already discussed this. I'm interested in the following
9 sentence, which says: "Until now, we have received over 70 criminal
11 Does this figure sound realistic to you, that, by that time, the
12 public prosecutor's office had received about 70 criminal reports?
13 A. Well, a large number of crimes were committed. Whether it was
14 70, less, or more, I cannot say. The prosecutor at that time knew the
15 exact number, and I didn't. If he is reporting to the government, then
16 this figure must be correct.
17 Q. Are you able to see from this text that all these 70 criminal
18 reports involved the prosecution of Ustasha criminals, as it is put here,
19 or is it the number of all criminal reports involving all types of crime?
20 A. The latter, I believe.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 3282.
22 P3281, sorry.
23 Q. You probably remember the Prosecutor showed you this document
24 too. This case file where three Croats from Luzac village were indicted.
25 The first one is Josip Horvat.
1 I would like to look with you at the second page of this
3 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Defence counsel made a
4 reference to that -- this -- that this document relates to the case
5 against Josip Horvat. I don't see where that is specified in this
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, sorry. It is next document. It is next
8 document. It is not against Horvat.
9 Q. [Interpretation] This is a request to initiate investigative
10 measures, to question witnesses. And it says the JNA Identification
11 Commission had filed a number of criminal reports for war crimes. And
12 the lower court in Vukovar is asked to urgently begin questioning
14 What does it mean, "request to take investigative measures"?
15 From the legislation, can you remember what this meant.
16 A. I was a prosecutor for a -- many years. Let me draw your
17 attention to the number of this document. It's KTR. There are different
18 codes in prosecution documents. This code, KTR, indicates that there
19 is -- there are still no grounds to take any specific steps, that first,
20 one needs to shed more light on the circumstances to see if there are
21 elements of a crime, or this case will be filed with a note that no
22 elements of crime were found and no further action would be taken.
23 In any case, the prosecutor had to explain in detail what his
24 intentions were and what he was trying to achieve. This is not that type
25 of prosecution document.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 3282.
2 Q. Now, this is a request to open an investigation against three
3 citizens from Luzac village. The first is Josip Horvat. Can you read
4 what they are charged with.
5 A. Murder. Triple murder.
6 Q. What happened -- what was going on with the accused at the time?
7 Where were they at the time when this request was filed? You can look at
8 page 2.
9 A. From this text, I can't deduce where they were. This contains
10 just incomplete information about them.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
12 MR. OLMSTED: I'm just -- just to clarify for the record, they
13 are not, in fact, charged with murder. But perhaps the document speaks
14 for itself. I don't know if the Defence counsel wants to clarify that
15 they were charged with genocide.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct, it is qualified as genocide but
17 it enumerated some murders, to -- to the murders.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Can you look at page 2.
19 A. I'm sorry, it's important to explain that on the first page I
20 read that the investigation is opened into a case of triple murder. Just
21 so that is there no doubt, I've read that. I'm not making anything up.
22 Q. Can you tell me on page 2, if you had time to look at it, what's
23 going on with these three people? Were they arrested at this moment?
24 A. From item 1, I conclude they were not yet arrested because it
25 says they need to be found and questioned about all the circumstances of
1 the perpetration of the crime of genocide.
2 Q. You've said that the military took over serious criminal cases
3 into their hands. Can you tell me, why, for instance, didn't the
4 military take this case?
5 A. Probably because we had no access to these accused. The state
6 authorities could not get at them.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 3284.
8 Q. This is also a criminal report -- no, sorry, it isn't. Yes, it
10 You cannot really read the original we have. It's filed against
11 five accused persons, and it relates to 17 people killed in Paulin Dvor.
12 Sixteen Serbs and one Hungarian.
13 Do you remember an incident that happened in Paulin Dvor?
14 A. There was a major incident in Paulin Dvor and Karadzicevo
15 village. I'm surprised I didn't see the second one anywhere. Twenty
16 people were killed in that small Serbian village.
17 Q. Do you remember if any of the people who were suspects in this
18 crime were arrested in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem or the RSK?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. And do you know if maybe that case was tried, maybe in Serbia,
21 after the war, or in Croatia?
22 A. I know nothing about it.
23 Q. I also see that this was sent to the district public prosecutor
24 in Vukovar. Is it the same reason why the military authorities didn't
25 take it over?
1 A. If these people were inaccessible, then it's possibly for that
2 reason again.
3 Q. The Prosecutor asked you about your visits to Sremska Mitrovica
4 in December 1991, and you answered when you went there, when Goran Hadzic
5 went there, when you entered the prison, and when you didn't enter the
6 prison. Now I'd like to show you a document I received from the
7 government of Serbia about this visit.
8 Would you please look and see if these allegations are correct.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's D817, tab 17, on our list.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, the document is marked as
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. It should be -- it should be -- it should
14 be in private session and should not be broadcasted.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
16 [Private session]
11 Pages 12384-12386 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session and if I can correct
6 the record 1D817 is Exhibit D321. Thank you.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The Prosecutor asked you, inter alia, about prisoners of war and
10 about status and how they were treated or rather what their status was
11 and how the JNA treated them. I'm going to show you some instructions of
12 the JNA.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... D101.
14 Q. [Interpretation] This is a set of instructions that was issued by
15 the Command of the 1st Military District on the 26th of September, 1991,
16 and you will see that it has to do with the treatment of persons who are
17 involved in internal armed conflict in the territory of the SFRY, those
18 who find themselves under the authority of the JNA.
19 Actually, do you know that, at that time, they were not called
20 prisoners of war. Rather, this: This clumsy name.
21 A. We thought they were prisoners of war. I didn't know about this.
22 This is strictly confidential. I don't know how they called them in
23 their own communications. All the time, we called them prisoners of war.
24 As a civilian, as a layperson, the most accurate way to speak of them is
25 by using the term "prisoners of war." Those are those persons, whatever
1 we call them. Those are these persons, these individuals.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now take a look at page 5
3 of this document. In the original, it's page 5. I think it's page 8 in
4 the English translation. No, I'm sorry, it's page 7.
5 Q. Could you please take a look at paragraph 9. Actually, what is
6 stated is that -- not to refer to the entire name used for these persons,
7 that for treating them a particular commission is being established and
8 now the tasks of this commission are listed here.
9 This is what I'm interested in. In relation to what you know
10 about paragraph 9, do you know whether these JNA organs did actually
11 carry out this work that had to do with members of the armed forces of
12 Croatia that could have been taken prisoner?
13 A. I don't know what they did. I don't know all the work they did.
14 What I know is that they took in persons who had been arrested. I don't
15 know how they identified them, how they checked their data, I don't know.
16 I don't know how they carried out this order. I am not familiar with
17 this order. I cannot say anything about it.
18 I don't know what they did, considering all of these things. I
19 had no insight into any of this.
20 Q. I'd like to put one more question to you before we're done for
21 the day. It has to do with a petition that was shown to you by the
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] P3294 is the number.
24 Q. I'm not going to ask you specifically about the petition. You've
25 already given your answers about that but I'm interested in something
1 else. Since you worked in the judiciary before this war had broken out,
2 and then also later on, did you have an opportunity or, rather, did
3 petitions appear at all with this kind of content or similar content? Is
4 this how citizens addressed the judiciary organs at the time?
5 A. Well, yes, that kind of thing did happen. I received things like
6 that as a prosecutor. Sometimes it was registered in KTRs. If I had
7 some indication that this was something more serious, that a crime had
8 been committed and if the petition does not refer to a particular
9 individual, then I try to find out what this was actually about.
10 In the system that functioned then, it was a system where
11 citizens would address the organs in charge. There were different
12 petitions. They were not submitted only to judiciary organs but also to
13 municipal organs, he is. In principle, petitions are not binding on
14 anyone, and it is really up to the competent authorities to see whether
15 something was well-founded or not, whether they refer to things that
16 should simply end up in some archive or whether some action should be
18 Q. Can you say something from the point of view of legality. Was
19 this kind of thing allowed, or was this an unlawful way of addressing the
20 state organs, or was this considered to be something that is permissible?
21 A. I think that's permissible in any system, unless no one is being
22 threatened or offended in any way.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I see the time, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
25 Could I ask you, Mr. Zivanovic, what your planning is for
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think I'll be finished tomorrow.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Microphone, please.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think one hour will be enough.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: To complete my re-direct.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: And with the next witness who is scheduled for
8 one -- for two days?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thanks.
11 There is a short oral ruling.
12 On 8 September 2014, the Defence filed its third motion to amend
13 its Rule 65 ter exhibit list. The Defence has indicated in the motion
14 that six documents - 1D03739, 1D03740, 1D03741, 1D03742, 1D03743, and
15 1D03488 - are intended for use with DGH-101. The Chamber notes that all
16 but 1D03488 were added to the exhibit list on 10 October 2014 in the
17 decision on the Defence motion for admission of evidence of DGH-101,
18 pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
19 The Prosecution does not object to the addition of the remaining
20 document, 1D03488, to the Defence's Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
21 After considering the submissions of the parties, the Chamber is
22 satisfied that, taking into account the specific circumstances of this
23 case, good cause has been shown for amending the Defence's exhibit list
24 to include 1D03488. This document is relevant and of sufficient
25 importance to justify its addition at this stage of the trial.
1 The Chamber is satisfied that the addition of this document will
2 not result in undue prejudice to the Prosecution.
3 The Trial Chamber remains seized of the motion in all other
5 Mr. Susa, we will see you tomorrow at 9.00 for one more -- well,
6 a little bit more than one more. There could be some questions from the
7 Judges as well.
8 In the meantime, you remain a witness with all that that implies.
9 Court adjourned.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.02 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of
13 October, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.