1 Monday, 6 December 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we start the cross-examination of the next witness, I'd
11 like to raise one procedural issue, although only briefly. The Chamber
12 has received the response by the Defence on the new, I would say, series
13 of 92 bis witnesses. In many instances, the Defence thinks it is not
14 necessary to call that witness for cross-examination if certain redactions
15 are ordered by the Chamber, or at least if it's taken out. Has there been
16 any communication between the parties to see whether they could agree
17 on -- so that the Chamber could focus on those redactions where the
18 parties would not be able to reach an agreement.
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we haven't seen that yet, but based on
21 prior experiences with the Defence, I think we oftentimes have been able
22 to agree to redactions. I'm not sure precisely which ones you're
23 referring to, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the new series. So that's not the Prijedor,
25 but I think it was filed the 29th of November. Is that --
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. The response was
2 due on the 29th of November. It was filed on the 29th of November.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. LOUKAS: So the Prosecution should have it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit surprised.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Of course, I think that Mr. Gaynor, of course, has
7 quite some carriage of the 92 bis issues for the Prosecution. I don't
8 know if he's in a position to clarify matters any further. But in any
9 event, what Mr. Hannis has indicated to the Court is correct. We have not
10 had any discussions in relation to those redactions since we filed the
11 Defence response in relation to that second series of municipalities.
12 MR. HANNIS: We'll take a look at the first break, Your Honour,
13 and see if we have, and if not, we'll track it down, and we'll try to give
14 you a response right away. But based on our past experiences we've often
15 been able to agree.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I notice very often it's lines referring to an
17 opinion of the witness or if it's a rather general statement where the
18 witness does not clarify what the source of his information is, and
19 sometimes it even might not hurt that much for the Prosecution to the
20 extent that there may be other elements of evidence that would perhaps
21 cover and sometimes in more factual terms the issue at stake.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would very much like to hear from the
24 parties whether there's any agreement on that by next Wednesday, if that
25 would be possible.
1 Then Ms. Loukas, are you ready to cross-examine the witness,
2 Mr. Mujkic?
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I am, Your Honour, but I had a short
4 conversation with Mr. Gaynor prior to coming into court this morning, and
5 there's a question of a slight amendment to the indictment that the
6 Prosecution seeks to make. It's just in relation to moving a particular
7 mosque from one municipality to another, as it were, in the indictment.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that both parties agree that
9 the municipality in which the Ahatovici mosque is supposed to be located
10 is not a correct one and it should be in Novi Grad rather than in -- I've
11 forgotten which one it is. Is that correct?
12 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour. I think it was
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was not Vogosca, I think but another
15 municipality. The parties both agree that whether or not proven, but it
16 makes no sense to situate that mosque anywhere else than in Novi Grad.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. That seems to make complete
18 sense and the Defence has, of course, no objection to that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I take it it is an oral application to
20 amend an annex to the indictment to that extent.
21 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour. I can read out the
22 details now for the record if you wish.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Question. If you would please do so, Mr. Gaynor.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, schedule D to the indictment, the mosque
25 listed as mosque 17.5, which states: "Mosque at Ahatovici" is erroneously
1 listed under the indictment of Nevesinje. It should be listed under the
2 municipality of Nevesinje. It should be listed as being within the
3 municipality of Novi Grad. We don't suggest any massive renumbering of
4 the indictment. What we suggest is that Novi Grad be inserted as
5 municipality 17B and that the mosque at Ahatovici could be referred to as
6 17.B.1, and we would seek leave to amend the indictment in that way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, you told us already that you would
8 agree. You also agree with the technicality of the solution,
9 renumbering -- giving Novi Grad the number 17B for the mosque and identify
10 the mosque under 17.B.1.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. The Defence has no objection to
12 that course.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The request is granted, Mr. Gaynor.
14 Now I suggest that you at least make that list perhaps only that
15 page if you could fit it in new so that we get a new copy. At least one
16 of the whole list, but ...
17 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Your Honour. Would you like us to file with the
18 Registry an amended page?
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think if you amend that page and if it fits on one
20 page, and if the pages are numbered, I don't have that in my mind, but at
21 least the items are numbered, then I think that that would be sufficient.
22 Everyone is now warned not to use old versions of that page.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then if there's no other procedural issue to be
2 discussed at this moment, I'd like to ask Madam Usher to escort Mr. Mujkic
3 into the courtroom.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Mujkic. I do not receive any
6 translation. Is the -- because I heard you say good day, but ... Are the
7 microphones, are they on?
8 Could you perhaps come a bit closer to the microphone, Mr. Mujkic.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, it's really quite some time ago that you
11 were here and that you gave testimony, that you were examined in chief.
12 Since such a long period of time has passed by, I'd like you to renew your
13 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
14 nothing but the truth, and may I invite you, Madam Usher, to hand out the
15 text of the solemn declaration to Mr. Mujkic.
16 WITNESS: RAMIZ MUJKIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mujkic. Please be seated. Mr. Mujkic,
21 you'll now be cross-examined by Ms. Loukas, counsel for the Defence.
22 Ms. Loukas, please proceed.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:
25 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, good afternoon.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 A. Good afternoon, Madam Loukas.
2 Q. Mr. Mujkic, I think that you've given a total of three statements
3 to the -- in relation to these matters, and I'll just take you through
4 them. The first one was in 1996, to the Bosnian authorities; correct?
5 A. Yes. Yes, to the Bosnian police.
6 Q. And the second one was to the Tribunal in 1997?
7 A. That is correct. This was just a newer version of the earlier
9 Q. And I think you gave a further short statement in 2001; correct?
10 A. I stayed in the offices of the Tribunal at Nedzarici, in Sarajevo,
11 two times.
12 Q. Two times. Now, and I think just before coming here to give
13 evidence on the 3rd of November, you also supplied the Prosecution with
14 some additional information on the 1st of November, 2004; correct?
15 A. Yes. Because it was here at the Tribunal that I was given some
16 telephone intercepts, wherein my name was mentioned, and I merely gave
17 some remarks by way of an addition.
18 Q. Now, you indicated that you gave -- you stayed in the offices of
19 the Tribunal at Nedzarici in Sarajevo two times. Do you recall the dates
20 of those two occasions?
21 A. No, Ms. Loukas. I wasn't really interested in the dates, because
22 at the time I did not really know that I was going to come to The Hague.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, on the last occasion when you gave evidence, on
24 the 3rd of November, you gave some evidence in relation to the position of
25 Mr. Krajisnik's house. You recall that, of course?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I take it you're aware that Mr. Krajisnik was not living in that
3 house in the period April to December 1992?
4 A. I am not aware of that, and I cannot testify to that. As for the
5 time in question, at that particular time, I was in prison.
6 Q. Well, of course, Mr. Mujkic, not from April to December, not the
7 entire period, of course. You're not saying that, are you?
8 A. In April there were already barricades in place, and one could not
9 cross the bridge at Reljevo. It was in late March that the first
10 barricades or checkpoints were placed, put up for the Muslims. And there
11 was no need for me to go down there, because we would go to Sarajevo,
12 across the bridge at Bojnik, near Butmir. That was the main communication
13 link with the town.
14 Q. But in any event, it's not correct to say that you were in prison
15 for the entire period of April through December of 1992, is it,
16 Mr. Mujkic?
17 A. No. I was in prison between 6 August and 25 October.
18 Q. Now, just in relation to another aspect of the evidence you gave
19 on the last occasion. You'll recall that you gave evidence in relation to
20 speaking to certain of your neighbours in relation to the killing of a
21 number of people in what has been described as the bus incident. Do you
22 recall the aspect of the evidence that I'm talking about here?
23 A. I did not mention the bus, because I wasn't present there. I only
24 said that from the stories of the survivors, because there were eight
25 survivors of the bus massacre. All of them had identical stories to tell.
1 Q. Precisely, Mr. Mujkic. That's the aspect of your evidence that
2 we're talking about. Now, these people you indicated in your evidence are
3 your neighbours; correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And they're people that you know well?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you give the Court the names of these eight people?
8 A. I'm not sure if I'm going to remember them all. Do you want me to
9 take the order of their age, from the eldest to the youngest, or
10 vice versa? Anyway, the bus incident was survived by the following
11 villagers: Asim Gacanovic, Dzemal Mujkic, a relative of mine; Emir
12 Mujkic, a relative of mine. Novalija Osman. He was my peer. We went to
13 school together. Elvir Jahic. He was here. You know him. Muhamed Usto.
14 He was the only one that remained unchafed, wasn't hurt at all at the bus.
15 Dzemal, another person who survived the bus incident but whose family name
16 I cannot recall. He went to Austria and lives there to this day.
17 I might have left someone out, but these were more or less the
18 people who survived. And also Zaim Rizvanovic who was the fifth son --
19 there were five sons in that particular family, and he was the only one to
20 survive. The other four died.
21 Had I known you would have asked me this, I could have taken --
22 brought a list with me, because as secretary of my local commune, I was in
23 charge and drafted myself the lists of all those who were killed, not only
24 at the bus but in general. And you can find that at the Dobrosevici local
25 commune, because I communicated with all the relatives to write down their
1 fathers' mothers' names and ages. Among them were these eight survivors,
2 and had I known, I would have brought these papers with me.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mujkic. That's quite adequate for my purposes.
4 Now, just going to your statement from 1997, on another topic. You
5 indicate there that: "On the 31st of May, I left Ahatovici. We had been
6 informed that two platoons from Visoko had been sent to help us."
7 Now, these two platoons from Visoko that you refer to in your
8 statement, how many men were in these two platoons?
9 A. Your Honours, my relative who was killed in the bus, he sent me,
10 he was the -- he was a member of the Crisis Staff, because I did not have
11 any small children nor elderly at my home, and I had the weapons, and I
12 was familiar with the area. And I was asked to join a unit belonging to
13 a -- run by a member of the Crisis Staff. We were supposed to clash with
14 two -- to actually meet up, link up with two platoons who had -- who were
15 coming to help us, and we wanted to go ahead and meet them in order for us
16 to avoid friendly fire. However, this other man, Novalija, I was unable
17 to find him because he got under fire from the Serb forces, who attacked
18 Bioca and started heading towards Ahatovici. So I actually came across
19 the Serb army, but there were bushes there and luckily I could hide from
20 them. I noticed that these were not Meho and his group. I never saw them
22 As for the two platoons, it is true, and I heard a story later on
23 from those who were members of the platoons, they did head up and heard
24 shelling halfway and actually returned. So I cannot tell you how many
25 there were in these platoons, because in actual effect they never showed
1 up, although they set out initially.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, you finally came to the answer to the
3 question. It took you approximately three minutes to get there. If you
4 say "I don't know the size" and if Ms. Loukas is interested to know why
5 you could not know the size, she'll certainly ask you. So perhaps begin
6 with the core of the question when answering. You always can add
7 something if needed.
8 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
9 MS. LOUKAS:
10 Q. And do you know the --
11 A. I cannot know how many men there were, because the men never
12 showed up. And I never met up with them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- it's now clear to us.
14 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, you're aware, of course, from your giving
17 evidence on the last occasion that we are of course subject to time
18 limitations, and I just want to echo what His Honour has said. If you can
19 answer a question with a "yes," then please do so. If you can with
20 a "no," please do so. If you want to explain a little further, the
21 importance is that you actually answer the specific question that I'm
22 asking. Because I have some questions to ask you, and we don't want it to
23 be that you stay here longer in The Hague than you need to. Do you
24 understand that?
25 A. I do, and we will go along that way. But your question had to do
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 with how many men there were, and I had to tell you that I did not know
2 their numbers.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, what was the ethnicity of the men in these
5 A. Well, what sort of a question is this? I never met these people,
6 because I stayed in the woods, because I came across the Serb forces, and
7 the following day I went back to Ahatovici.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, you do understand that the Judges have to decide
9 this case. You understand that, don't you?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And you don't take offence at me asking you questions, do you? I
12 take it that's a no.
13 A. No, Ms. Loukas.
14 Q. Okay. Because you understand that the Judges need to hear your
15 answers to questions from both the Prosecution and the Defence; you agree
16 with the way that the system works, don't you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I mean, and you also understand that neither you nor I are going
19 to decide this case. That's for the Judges. You appreciate that fact;
21 A. It is only logical.
22 Q. Okay. And that it's only fair, in terms of justice, that both
23 sides --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, Ms. Loukas, please proceed with your next
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. But, Your Honour, I mean, I want to avoid the
2 sort of problem that we had before.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not see that the answers until now create
4 any necessity to ask a fourth question in this direction. Please proceed.
5 MS. LOUKAS: I'm happy to leave it at three, Your Honour.
6 Q. Now, of course, the platoons that you were going to meet, you had
7 some awareness that the men in the platoons were predominantly of Muslim
8 ethnicity; you were aware of that, were you not, Mr. Mujkic?
9 A. No. I was not aware of that, because I was not a member of the
10 Crisis Staff and did not have any information as to who was going to Hum.
11 I was just told that these were two platoons. But one can assume that
12 they were Muslims.
13 Q. Okay. Now, you referred to a relative of yours being a member of
14 the Crisis Staff. Who was that?
15 A. Hasan Mujkic.
16 Q. Now, Hasan Mujkic was, of course, the commander of a paramilitary
17 formation in Ahatovici, or I take it you disagree with that proposition?
18 A. I disagree because the Territorial Defence, of course now
19 depending on one's perspective, had the purpose for the people to defend
20 their own houses. It did not have the equipment and materiel that an army
21 disposed of. It simply meant that every family would dig up trenches in
22 front of their houses, in front of their homes, to defend themselves.
23 Now, whether you can speak of the TO in military terms, I wouldn't agree.
24 Q. So your answer is no?
25 A. Hasan Mujkic was the commander. But what I meant to say was that
1 I don't know why that would be a paramilitary unit, when the person is
2 actually simply defending one's own home.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter notes that the earlier answer also
4 had a paramilitary, not a military, mentioned by the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Ms. Loukas, you are a bit confusing the
6 witness, I take it, because where you said so your answer is no, your
7 question was whether he disagreed with that proposition. If the answer
8 would be no, then it would mean that he did agree, but that's not what I
9 had in mind you put to him.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I see, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. LOUKAS: It's the negative.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MS. LOUKAS:
17 Q. Now, you'll recall that you gave certain evidence on the last
18 occasion in relation to Mr. Mirko Krajisnik. Do you recall that evidence?
19 A. Yes. Mirko Krajisnik -- or rather, there was this third
20 delegation, if one could say so, that arrived on the 6th of August, 1992,
21 past midnight, and that was the commander of the Rajlovac Brigade,
22 Apostolski, who I had known as an active-duty-officer, a captain, and he
23 introduced me, the archduke Nikola Poplasen, who demanded that I tell him
24 who was present there at Ahatovici, and since my jaw was broken, I was
25 unable to speak and he told them, Well, give him a piece of paper. He is
1 literate. He can write down. And Mirko Krajisnik was with him. There
2 was another man who had a very -- he was very well-groomed, had a beard,
3 but he was not introduced to me, and I don't know him, whereas Mirko
4 Krajisnik I had known from before, and there was no need for him to be
5 introduced to me.
6 Q. Right. So you're saying that Nikola Poplasen was there; is that
8 A. Yes, and as was said, the archduke, "nadvojvoda."
9 Q. And who is the archduke?
10 A. Mr. Vlasto Apostolski, the commander of the Rajlovac Brigade
11 military police, told me that he was the archduke. Later on, he was also
12 the president of the Serbian Republic.
13 Q. Okay. So you're saying that Apostolski was there and Poplasen was
14 there, and Mirko Krajisnik was there; is that correct? Is that a correct
15 summary of what you've just said?
16 A. There was another person, a man who had a very neat beard. He was
17 not introduced to me, so I could not tell you who he was.
18 Q. Okay. I just want to take you back to some evidence you gave on
19 the previous occasion. Now, before we go to that, so you're certain of
20 that, that these are the four people that were there; correct?
21 Apostolski, Poplasen, Mirko Krajisnik, and a man with a neat beard;
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. I'll just take you back to something you said on the last
25 occasion you gave evidence here, on the 3rd of November, 2004?
1 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, could we request page numbers when
2 reference is made to previous--
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, certain. Page 80 of the transcript of
5 Wednesday, the 3rd of November, 2004.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have the transcript of the day and not the
7 numbering going through.
8 MR. GAYNOR: That's exactly right, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, well, let's be -- we all know how
10 to count, isn't it? If you would know what the first page of the day is,
11 Mr. Gaynor, you add 80, you arrive at the right page.
12 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, just getting back to what we were talking about, that was, of
15 course, the 7th of August, 1992 that we were talking about, the early
16 hours of the morning; correct? Correct?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, Ms. Loukas is asking you whether it's
18 correct that you're talking about what happened in the course of the
19 morning of the 7th of August, 1992. Mr. Mujkic, I take it that you cannot
20 confirm that that's on page 80 -- you have that in your mind.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thought she was addressing you.
22 That's why I kept quiet and did not respond. Yes, these were the early
23 morning hours of the 7th of August. Right.
24 MS. LOUKAS:
25 Q. Okay. Now, I'll take you back to a question and answer on the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 last occasion. I hope Mr. Gaynor has found the relevant portion of the
2 transcript. Now, you were asked this question: "I'd like to take you now
3 a few hours after that incident, the early morning of the 7th of August,
4 1992. Is it right that you were visited by a number of men?" That was
5 the question asked of you by the Prosecutor on the last occasion you gave
6 evidence. And this was your response: "Yes, that was my third visit, the
7 third visit to my cell that night. It was towards morning, towards dawn
8 on the 7th of August. Major Vlasto Apostolski came in. He was the
9 commander of the military police of the Rajlovac Brigade. And three men
10 came in after him. He introduced them and said first: This is
11 nadvojvoda, or super-leader, and the other two were Mirko Krajisnik, who I
12 recognised. I didn't recognise the third man and he didn't introduce him
14 And then your evidence goes on in relation to the conversation
15 that occurred, and you were asked this question on the following page by
16 the Prosecutor: "Do you know the name Nikola Poplasen?" And your
17 response was: "Not until that time, but the man was the president of the
18 Serbian Republic and President Petric replaced him."
19 The next question was this: "Did you see Nikola Poplasen at any
20 time in August 1992?" And your answer was: "I didn't see anybody, just
21 the people who came to my cell. So no."
22 Now, you recall those questions and answers that were asked of you
23 by the Prosecutor on the last occasion?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, today you tell the Court that Nikola Poplasen was there. You
1 agree with that; correct?
2 A. Ms. Loukas, he was introduced to me by Vlasto Apostolski. He
3 said: "This is Archduke Poplasen."
4 Q. Okay. So I take it the Prosecution concede that he denied that
5 Mr. Poplasen was there on the last occasion. So I can shorten this
7 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, we agree that in the -- that the
8 transcript reads as was reflected by Ms. Loukas. I'm not sure that
9 there's any concession involved.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the Prosecution agrees on the text, not
11 necessarily on your interpretation of it.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I think the interpretation is
13 clear. I would have expected a concession from the Prosecution on that
14 point. I take it there's no concession forthcoming.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I do not hear any such thing at this moment.
16 MS. LOUKAS:
17 Q. So, Mr. Mujkic, you said on the last occasion that, that's on the
18 3rd of November, that you didn't see Nikola Poplasen, but today you tell
19 the Court that you did see Nikola Poplasen; correct?
20 A. I don't know that I ever saw that he wasn't there then. I may
21 have said I hadn't known him before. I saw him even later on television.
22 But I don't recall saying that I never saw him.
23 Q. Okay. Now, let's have a look at your statement in relation to
24 this matter, from 1997, page 5, for the benefit of the Prosecution. In
25 your statement, when dealing with your being visited in the cell - this is
1 the statement taken in 1997 for the Tribunal - you said that: "When I was
2 in Rajlovac," and I quote, "I was visited by Goran Lemez and a Major
3 Vlasto Apostolski on the 7th of August, 1992. I asked Goran for a
4 cigarette. The Major told me his name is not Goran. He is a duke. Goran
5 had a lot of paper regarding other prisoners."
6 So in 1997, the people you have visiting your cell on the morning
7 of the 7th of August, 1992 are Major Vlasto Apostolski and Goran Lemez?
8 A. Yes. But that was around 10.00 a.m. on the 7th. Goran Lemez was
9 a neighbour of mine. He was the duke of that part of Ahatovici, which was
10 a surprise to me, because we had been very close before. We had been good
11 neighbours. I asked him to bum a cigarette. He refused. And Vlasto
12 Apostolski told me: "He's not Goran. He's a duke. That's the way you
13 should address him." And I hadn't known that.
14 Q. Okay. Let's have a look at your statement from 1996 that you gave
15 the Bosnian authorities. You there refer to again the 7th of August,
16 1992. This is at page 9 for the benefit of the Prosecution. You say that
17 Mile Tintor came in to see you, with Vlasto Apostolski. So that's another
19 A. Yes. Yes. It was already the afternoon, the same day.
20 Q. Well, Mr. Mujkic, you don't mention Mirko Krajisnik in your
21 statement in 1996, do you?
22 A. I don't know how this submission came about, or why, but my point
23 in telling all this was to show how we were treated by people who were our
24 neighbours until the day before. And I concentrated on Mile Tintor and
25 the other one, what's his name? Thanks to Tintor, I wasn't beaten again
1 in my cell, because he had ordered Vlasto Apostolski to stop the beatings.
2 My jaw was broken by that time and I couldn't speak. And nobody, indeed,
3 took me out for beatings any more.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, no one's arguing that you have suffered a lot.
5 This is not what this is about. This is about the fact that you mention
6 Mr. Krajisnik's brother, Mirko Krajisnik, in your evidence on the 3rd of
7 November, and you don't mention him in your 1996 or 1997 statement, and
8 you concede that, of course; yes?
9 A. Your Honours, I just want to add one thing here to give you a more
10 realistic, broader picture. I hadn't known anything about the stories
11 concerning my exchange, because nobody contacted me directly. I was only
12 allowed to speak when given permission or when asked something. But when
13 I was shown those intercepts, where Bakir Alispahic and Mirko Krajisnik
14 were discussing me, then the memory came back that he had visited me in my
15 cell to make certain -- to make sure that it was me. And in the telephone
16 intercept, he says: "Yes, I know the man."
17 The first time I gave a statement, I hadn't been aware of that.
18 In fact, I didn't know about that until I came to The Hague. And at the
19 time, it didn't seem important or relevant, in 1996. If I had known the
20 whole story, I would have mentioned it in my statement.
21 Q. Well, in fact, when you gave evidence today, you said that Nikola
22 Poplasen visited you in your cell, and you don't say anything about him
23 visiting you in your cell in 1996 or 1997 either, Mr. Mujkic, do you?
24 A. No, I didn't mention Nikola Poplasen or Mirko Krajisnik or the
25 third gentleman, because at that time it was just a meaningless visit to
1 me. It was here for the first time that I realised that it was important
2 for my exchange and that he had come to make sure that I was indeed the
3 person he was interested in. Because the stakes were rising. Fifteen
4 sniper shooters were required in exchange for me.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, I want to take you back to your supplying the
6 additional information to the Prosecution on the 31st of October and the
7 1st of November, 2004, just prior to giving your evidence on the 3rd of
8 November. What you told the Prosecution then was that Nikola Poplasen,
9 Mirko Krajisnik, and a bearded man came to question you in the military
10 police building in Rajlovac, in the early hours of the 7th of August,
12 You agree with that, correct, that that was what you told the
13 Prosecution the weekend before you gave evidence; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then, when you come to give evidence, you leave out Nikola
16 Poplasen, on the 3rd of November; correct?
17 A. Are you asking me?
18 Q. Yes, I am.
19 A. I hadn't really understood you. Could you please repeat.
20 Q. Well, when you gave evidence before this Court on your solemn
21 declaration, you said that you hadn't seen Mr. Poplasen that morning;
23 A. I cannot confirm that, because why wouldn't I mention it here if I
24 saw him?
25 Q. Okay. When you were specifically asked the question, I'll quote
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 it directly to you: "Did you see Nikola Poplasen at any time in August
2 1992?" Your answer was: "I didn't see anybody; just the people who came
3 to my cell. So no." So we're agreed that when you gave evidence on the
4 3rd of November, you said that?
5 A. Maybe -- you took the whole month of August to deal with -- maybe
6 I skipped it accidentally, but on the 7th of August, he did come into my
7 cell. He was introduced to me by Vlasto Apostolski. Otherwise, I
8 hadn't -- I wouldn't have known who he was. His surname is very unusual,
9 and I don't know anyone else with the same surname in our area.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, being fair, 12 years after the event, are you
11 prepared to concede that you could be wrong about seeing Mirko Krajisnik
12 in your cell in the early hours of the morning, 7th of August, 1992?
13 A. I'm not wrong, because with Mirko Krajisnik, Momcilo Krajisnik,
14 and with their father, in early spring 1992, I sat at the same table.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. 1991.
16 A. It was the funeral of their relative, Vlado Gogic. I was 44 years
17 old at the time. I was not wet behind the ears. And I'm not wrong,
18 because I know the man.
19 MS. LOUKAS:
20 Q. So what was the date of this funeral that you sat next to
21 Mr. Krajisnik?
22 A. It was early spring, maybe late March or early April. I cannot
23 tell you the date because it wasn't important to me. The relative had
24 been killed in a car accident. He lived near the Butile barracks, and I
25 saw him every day and was on nodding terms with him for years. So I came
1 to the funeral of this Vlado Gogic. He took my arm and he said: "You
2 belong at our table." I cannot be wrong, because only a year later, the
3 same man came into my cell.
4 Q. Now, my question was the date of this funeral, Mr. Mujkic. So if
5 you could please answer my question.
6 A. I told you: Early spring. And I cannot tell you the date because
7 it had nothing to do with the war. It was 1991.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas --
9 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate that, but the answer is very long and it
10 doesn't -- you did answer my question, but it took you a long time to get
11 there and we have a lot of material to get through, Mr. Mujkic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, but you can't blame the witness for
13 not answering your question, because that's the first two lines of his
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he said: "It was early spring, maybe late
18 March of early April. I cannot tell you the date because it was not
19 important to me." That's what --
20 MS. LOUKAS:. I'm talking about the previous answer, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's proceed.
22 MS. LOUKAS:
23 Q. Okay. So this is -- this is -- the date is 1991. This is the
24 funeral that you say you sat next to Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Well, let me take you back to the information you gave the
2 Prosecution on the weekend before you gave evidence in relation to this
3 matter. What you said there was that you sat next to Momcilo Krajisnik at
4 a funeral in 1987.
5 A. 1987?
6 Q. That's correct. That's what you told the Prosecution on the
7 weekend of the 31st of October and the 1st of November, 2004, just before
8 you gave evidence a month ago.
9 A. I don't know why the year was recorded that way here, because I
10 corrected the paper two or three times, and it was sent back for retyping.
11 I don't know how this mistake found its way into my statement.
12 Q. Okay. So you say that the Prosecution made a mistake; is that
14 A. In the course of the proofing - and the Prosecutor is here, he can
15 confirm - I returned this statement two or three times for retyping
16 because of interpretation errors. I don't know how come this error
18 Q. Perhaps Mr. Gaynor would care to confirm.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I'd be happy to clarify one small point
20 here. Mr. Mujkic is talking about the intercept sheet of analysis which
21 he was shown several times, which he corrected and then signed. That's
22 what he's been referring to right now. Ms. Loukas, on the other hand, is
23 referring to the supplemental information sheet which the witness did not
24 have an opportunity to correct, that was drafted by me on the basis of
25 answers received during the proofing session and then disclosed to the
1 Defence and to Your Honours. So there is a slight misunderstanding in
2 relation to what he was shown.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I take it that Mr. Gaynor's not saying that he
4 put the piece of paper together, the supplemental information sheet,
6 MR. GAYNOR: No. As I said, the supplemental information sheet
7 reflects what the witness told me. But he did not himself correct it
9 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, you've heard what the Prosecutor has had to say
11 in relation to this. Are you prepared to concede that it's possible that
12 you've made a mistake?
13 JUDGE ORIE: When, Ms. Loukas? Giving his statement, giving his
14 testimony? And apart from that, the possibility to make a mistake is, I
15 would say, a general statement. Could you please be specific.
16 MS. LOUKAS: I'm more than happy to be specific.
17 Q. Mr. Mujkic, are you prepared to concede the possibility that
18 you've made a mistake in giving your evidence today in relation to saying
19 it was in 1991?
20 A. No. It was indeed in 1991. The error is 1987. I don't
21 understand how this error was made, because it's pretty far away from the
22 truth. I told you: I knew the man very well. He lived three houses
23 further down the road from the barracks. I saw him literally every day
24 for years. I don't know how I could be so badly mistaken. It couldn't be
1 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, you, of course, listened in court to the
2 intercept of a conversation between Mirko Krajisnik and Bakir Alispahic on
3 the last occasion you gave evidence. You recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And of course, in that intercept, you will recall Mr. Mirko
6 Krajisnik does not say anything about actually seeing you, does he?
7 A. He did not mention seeing me, but he said: "I know him," which
8 means that he had seen me.
9 Q. So when you were shown the intercept between Mr. Mirko Krajisnik
10 and Mr. Bakir Alispahic, was that what prompted you to make the mistake of
11 saying in court that you'd actually seen him on that morning, the 7th of
12 August, 1992, something you'd never mentioned in any previous statement
13 that you'd signed?
14 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I would like to object to that
16 JUDGE ORIE: There are a few matters mixed up in your question,
17 Ms. Loukas.
18 MS. LOUKAS: I'm happy to break it up, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. LOUKAS: I'm happy to break it up, but I think the general
21 sense of what I'm putting to the witness is there and it contains its
22 various aspects. But I'm more than happy to break it up.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
24 MS. LOUKAS:
25 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, you were shown the intercept between Mr. Mirko
1 Krajisnik and Mr. Bakir Alispahic, and that intercept, as you know, was
2 dated the 20th of August, 1992; correct?
3 A. I don't remember the date of the intercept, whether it was the
4 20th or some other date, but I did listen to it here, and it was this
5 intercept that triggered the memory of his visit to my cell. Because in
6 his conversation with Bakir Alispahic, he says: "I know." However, the
7 warden of the prison, Vlaco Brane, brought me a paper and said: "You can
8 be exchanged this evening, tomorrow, or never. Five people from the other
9 side in exchange for you. Of course, if they are unharmed."
10 I at that moment had no idea who was negotiating what. All I
11 could see was that piece of paper. And then when I heard the intercept, I
12 realised what the role was of Bakir Alispahic and how the stakes were
13 rising in my exchange.
14 Q. And your evidence is the Prosecution showing you the intercept
15 triggered your memory of seeing Mr. Mirko Krajisnik there; correct?
16 A. Yes. Otherwise, I would have never mentioned him.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, I'm just going to show you the transcript of the
18 intercept between Mr. Mirko Krajisnik and Mr. Bakir Alispahic, which is
19 P381A.1, exhibit?
20 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the original will be shown to the
21 witness, that is, P381A, Ms. Loukas?
22 MS. LOUKAS:
23 Q. Now, have you got that intercept before you, Mr. Mujkic? Can you
24 please have a read of that intercept --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. -- and tell the Court where in that intercept Mr. Mirko Krajisnik
2 says that he knows you.
3 A. This is something that can be a basis for the inference that he
4 knows me. He says: "He is badly injured." So he means -- that means he
5 knows me, and I think there is another reference.
6 Q. So that's what you're relying on for the indication that Mr. Mirko
7 Krajisnik knows you?
8 A. There is -- yes. And Bakir says at one point: "You know, his
9 father had only one leg." And the answer is: "Yes." There is no reason
10 for me to lie about the two of us knowing each other. Perhaps somebody
11 else minds, but ...
12 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, let's move on to another topic. On the last
13 occasion you gave evidence, you indicated that when you were at Planjo's
14 house, -- before we go on to that, just a second.
15 Just in relation to that last answer, where you say: "Bakir says
16 at one point, you know, his father had only one leg, and the answer is
17 yes." Right? Can you tell me what page that's on, Mr. Mujkic?
18 A. I haven't managed to find it here now, because of the shortage of
19 time. I don't know whether it's contained in this particular intercept or
20 some other. But let's take a look.
21 Q. Mr. Mujkic, it might help if you go to the page number that has
22 03288029 at the top of the page. Right at the bottom of that page, there
23 is: "What can you do to pull that man out? He will lose --"
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. -- that he also lost his leg. Mirko Krajisnik doesn't say he
1 knows. He says: "We agreed on some kind of exchange for him."
2 A. Yes. I can see it here now. That's what it says.
3 Q. So why were you telling the Court that that was in the transcript
4 when it wasn't, Mr. Mujkic?
5 A. I could have sworn to have heard him in this intercept saying: "I
7 Q. Okay. Mr. Mujkic, let's move on to another topic. The last
8 occasion you gave evidence, you were giving evidence in relation to what
9 happened at Planjo's house. For the benefit of the Prosecution, the
10 transcript reference is page 91. You give some evidence there in relation
11 to people being forced to eat cigarettes and a matter -- a sexual matter
12 connected with that. And also, people being told to jump from a first
13 floor and being asked to jump onto concrete. Do you recall that evidence
14 you gave on the last occasion, Mr. Mujkic?
15 A. Yes. I'll remember it as long as I live, and that's true, but it
16 wasn't concrete down there; it was gravel.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you will agree with me, Mr. Mujkic, that you did not
18 mention any of these matters in your 1996 statement; correct?
19 A. Yes. Let me tell you something. My statement given to the police
20 in 1996 was actually a result of them asking me vaguely: Where were you?
21 Nobody was putting specific questions to me. When I came to Sarajevo from
22 Zenica in 1995, there was this high-ranking officer there and I was
23 supposed to clear out my status. And he told me: Well, you were living
24 with the Chetniks for four months there. And it nearly turned out as if I
25 had been supporting the Chetniks. And then I started talking and then
1 they said: "Okay. Why don't you give us a statement." And there I did
2 not mention all the events, the Planjina house and other troubles that I
3 went through.
4 Q. But of course when the Prosecution interviewed you in 1997, the
5 next statement you gave, of course they did ask you questions, did they
7 A. 1997. We were simply sifting through my 1996 statement and
8 practically it did not change much.
9 Q. And of course your 1997 statement was very detailed; correct?
10 A. Well, yes. We were going into some detail because the gentleman
11 from the OTP then told me that there was a possibility for me to go to
12 The Hague to testify and whether I was willing or whether I had any
13 apprehension in relation to that.
14 Q. And of course, before you signed it, they asked you if you had
15 anything to add; correct?
16 A. I cannot recall now. I didn't see the statement again.
17 Q. So I take it you're saying that these serious matters that you
18 left out of your 1997 statement with the Prosecutors is because they
19 weren't asking you the right questions; is that right?
20 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, we must object to that. This is another
21 example of wrapping up things that the witness clearly hasn't said. It's
22 a summary based on evidence which the witness hasn't given.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, whether the right questions or the
24 wrong questions are asked, the issue is whether he was asked about it.
25 That's what the witness says. You're introducing a few matters that do
1 not reflect the testimony of the witness. But of course you can seek
2 confirmation on whether it was because he was not asked about those
3 matters that he did not say anything about it. And you could ask him
4 whether he considered those matters to be serious matters.
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. LOUKAS:
7 Q. So let's just go back to that, Mr. Mujkic.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honours. I was just checking a matter on
9 the transcript.
10 Q. When the Prosecutors were taking your 1997 statement, of course,
11 they did ask you to tell them everything you knew, did they not?
12 A. I was not asked to say anything. It was the gentleman who was
13 putting questions to me, he just simply had in his hands this 1996
14 statement that I gave to the Bosnian police, and he said: "Well, would
15 you want to read the statement perhaps?" I said: "There's no need for
16 that. I know what I went through." And then he put some questions to me
17 that were not really in any sort of an order, like the questions you're
18 putting to me now, and I was simply answering him from my knowledge.
19 Because this is something that I lived.
20 Q. Okay. Well, I'll show you a copy of your statement. Mr. Mujkic,
21 if you could turn to the last page. Would you like to read out to the
22 Court what it says there under "witness acknowledgment"?
23 A. "This statement has been read over to me out loud in the Bosnian
24 language and it is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I
25 have given this statement voluntarily and am aware that it may be used in
1 legal proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
2 prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international
3 law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, and
4 that I may be called to give evidence in public before the Tribunal."
5 Q. So are you saying that's not true, that you signed something that
6 wasn't true there?
7 A. Well, fine. If this is the original. Because I don't see my
8 signature here. I don't see it anywhere.
9 Q. Well, I can show you the original.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you're putting to the witness that he has
11 not stated to the truth. Do you mean that while not everything is in
12 there, that that's the reason why it's not true, or is it ...
13 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, he indicated that he gave his
14 statement and he -- let me see the precise wording there.
15 JUDGE ORIE: "It's true for the best of my knowledge and
17 MS. LOUKAS: In relation to his answer, Your Honour.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry. In relation to his answer at page 30, Your
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. LOUKAS: I don't want to go any further with the witness with
23 his headphones on.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, could I ask you to take off your
25 headphones for a second.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour will see that answer the answer at
2 page 30. The question I asked is: "When the Prosecution were taking your
3 1997 statement, of course, they did ask you to tell them everything you
4 knew, did they not?" His answer was: "I was not asked to say anything.
5 It was the gentleman who was putting questions to me. He just simply had
6 in his hands this 1996 statement that I gave to the Bosnian police and he
7 said, Well, would you want to read the statement perhaps? I said, There's
8 no need for that. I know what I went through. And then he put some
9 questions to me that were not really in any sort of an order, like the
10 questions you're putting to me now. And I was simply answering him from
11 my knowledge, because this is something that I lived."
12 JUDGE ORIE: I still do not understand what the basis is for
13 your -- did you not tell the truth. I mean --
14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, he's indicated that the statement
15 was not read out to him.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, the original statement, the statement he gave to
17 the -- to the Bosnian authorities.
18 MS. LOUKAS: And, well, Your Honour, the 1997 statement. Because
19 my question was related to the 1997 statement.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then it's still not completely clear to me.
21 But if you perhaps ask specifically in what respect the statement might
22 not have been true.
23 Mr. Mujkic, could you please put on your earphones again. That's
24 what you can't hear.
25 Ms. Loukas.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, just to go back to this question of the 1997
3 statement: Was it read out to you?
4 A. 1997 or now?
5 Q. Your 1997 statement, was it read out to you when you finished
6 giving it to the Prosecution?
7 A. I really can't remember. Believe me, I can't remember.
8 Q. Well, obviously you were asked if you wanted to add anything, were
9 you not?
10 A. Well, I would not have really added anything. That was the gist
11 of it. Or rather, an outline of everything that had happened. Had I
12 known that the situation was going to be as it is today, I would have
13 written it down for you.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, in your 1997 statement, you don't mention these
15 matters that you gave evidence of on the last occasion about what had
16 occurred at the Planjo house. We're agreed on that, are we not?
17 A. I don't know whether I mentioned it at the time. You see, the
18 questions put to me were: How did this happen or that other thing, how
19 did it happen? But other specific questions were never put to me, for the
20 exchange, when I was in the hospital, I had nothing to eat there. I lost
21 33 kilos at the time. And there were other such matters that I never
22 mentioned at the time.
23 THE INTERPRETER: The witness has to be asked to speak at a decent
24 pace. This is impossible to follow.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, the interpreters have some difficulties
1 in following the speed of your speech. May I ask you to slow down.
2 And Ms. Loukas, if you could find somewhere in the next two or
3 three minutes, a suitable moment for a break.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I'm happy to -- I'm about to go on to
5 another topic. I'm about to leave Planjo house behind.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will have a break first, Mr. Mujkic, and
7 we'll continue at a quarter past 4.00.
8 Madam Usher, could I first ask you to escort Mr. Mujkic out of the
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, do you have any idea on how much time
12 you'd still need for the remainder of the cross-examination?
13 MS. LOUKAS: Actually, Your Honour, there's not much left at this
14 stage. We're in the home run, as it were.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for this information.
16 We'll then have a break until a quarter past 4.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, the Chamber apologises for this late
20 start, when the Chamber urged the parties not to come late. But it had
21 good reasons.
22 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Mujkic into the
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, Ms. Loukas will resume her
2 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honours please.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Mujkic, in late May 1992, you met a group of Albanian
4 soldiers who suggested to you that you come into the army barracks with
5 members of the TO while they were on guard duty, so that you could take
6 over the army barracks in Butile?
7 A. Yes. Because the soldiers of Croat ethnicity were leaving the
8 army, whereas those of Albanian ethnicity were unable to, because the
9 Croat soldiers had their certificates testifying to the fact that they
10 were students enrolled at a university, and there was this procedure that
11 every six months you had to go and renew this booklet. Whereas those who
12 were ethnic Albanians among the soldiers, they were mostly uneducated,
13 illiterate and were unable to obtain such certificates. On one occasion,
14 it was after the 20th of May, I was on my bicycle passing near the Butile
15 barracks on my way to a friend of mine. There were those PAMs there, the
16 anti-aircraft guns. And one of those in the barracks recognised me. They
17 came -- they approached the wire fence and they told us: Mujkic -- they
18 told me: "Mujkic, could you get us out of here? We've been here for a
19 while." I responded to them that I was unable to help them because I was
20 no longer able to enter the premises after the 9th of May. They told me,
21 Well, that only drunken soldiers were standing guard there now at the
22 time. But I knew that this was an impossible mission to fulfil for these
23 people to be freed, and this never took place.
24 Q. I'll just indicate, Your Honours, I'm informed by Ms. Cmeric that
25 there's an omission in that -- the last sentence of the translation,
1 whereby it should include: But I knew that this -- right. That these
2 Albanian soldiers could take over the barracks was an impossible mission.
3 So there's just that small bit missing there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I --
5 MS. LOUKAS: That was the impossible mission being referred to.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I highly appreciate this, especially also the
7 assistance of Ms. Cmeric in not losing any part of the transcript.
8 Originally spoken words. At the same time, Ms. Loukas, I have to stress
9 that it's not just a matter of correcting the translation. It's always a
10 matter of finding out whether. So therefore, the best way is to, if
11 something seems to be missing, to ask the witness whether he remembers
12 exactly what he said and then invite him to repeat it that so that we get
13 the missing part included in it, rather than to say: What was missing?
14 Because then of course you could listen at the audiotape again.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, but I'm trying to avoid that
16 situation, because I think Ms. Cmeric is rather overloaded with listening
17 to audiotapes and making corrections on transcripts.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But you could resolve that then and
19 say Ms. Cmeric draws my attention to the fact that there might be a
20 part missing. And then you ask the witness to repeat that part of his
21 answer, and I take it he'll repeat that in a complete sense, and we have
22 the missing part there instead of already telling us what is missing.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But I'm happy for the witness,
24 if he remembers to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need at this moment. I don't think that
1 there's a -- it's of such relevance that -- although you never know.
2 Please proceed.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
4 Q. Now, just in relation to this question of taking over the army
5 barracks in Butile, Mr. Mujkic. The situation is that you informed
6 Mr. Hasan Mujkic about this; correct? This proposal from the Albanian
8 A. Yes. I went to the Crisis Staff, that is, to Hasan Mujkic's
9 house, where the Crisis Staff was based, and I conveyed to them this
10 information. However, this was cynical, because I was a member of the
11 communist league, and this was almost a precondition for a person working
12 for the JNA. So I was for them a Commie, a communist, and as I was
13 working at the JNA barracks, he told me: Well, we were TO. We had no
14 units to take control over anything. The orders were not to move anywhere
15 but just to stay put and defend our homes.
16 Q. Well --
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the last sentence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your last sentence,
19 Mr. Mujkic, because the interpreters could not grab it.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As concerns Hasan Mujkic and
21 the Crisis Staff, for them, I was a communist, because I was a member of
22 the League of Communists and worked for the JNA for 24 years. And he
23 cynically told me: You Commies, what are you doing here? What do you
24 want here? We have no units to go around conquering anything. We can
25 only defend our own homes.
1 And this was simply out of the question.
2 MS. LOUKAS:
3 Q. In fact, I think Mr. Mujkic, when you told him about this plan,
4 said to you that he operated exclusively by the order of Mr. Alija
5 Delimustafic, did he not, the minister of the interior at the time?
6 A. Yes. He said that. He added that, that they had the orders.
7 Alija Delimustafic was a person that I report to, and there were no orders
8 to go around taking control of anything, but merely to stay put and defend
9 our homes.
10 Q. And in fact, three or four days after that, a message did come
11 from Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in Butile should be taken
13 A. I was not a member of the Crisis Staff and I'm not aware of this.
14 Q. What, you're not aware that three or four days later, a message
15 came from Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in Butile should be
16 taken over?
17 A. I repeat that I was not a member of the Crisis Staff. I was a
18 communist to them.
19 Q. Well, Mr. Mujkic, is it possible you've said something like that
20 before, that Mr. -- that a message came three or four days later from
21 Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in Butile should be taken over?
22 A. This was a story that went around the village. I personally was
23 not involved in any of it. I wasn't a member of the Crisis Staff. I
24 merely heard the story talked about by the women concerning what the
25 Crisis Staff was saying.
1 Q. So who did you hear that from, that a message had arrived from
2 Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in Butile should be taken over?
3 A. I was just telling you now: These were women spreading these
4 stories. I was not any sort of a military observer, nor did I receive any
5 information from anyone that would make me informed. I merely heard these
6 rumours, and I did not hear anything about the attack or any of the orders
7 to that effect.
8 Q. Didn't Mr. Mujkic actually show you a fax from Mr. Delimustafic
9 saying that the army barracks in Butile should not be attacked?
10 A. He had a fax in his office, and when I said what I said, namely,
11 that I was given a call by soldiers of Albanian ethnicity, he sent a fax
12 to Delimustafic immediately, and shortly afterwards, he received the
13 answer: Don't touch the barracks. And I saw that answer.
14 Q. Okay. And three or four days later a message came from
15 Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in Butile should be taken over.
16 Didn't you hear that from -- is it possible that you also heard that from
17 Mr. Hasan Mujkic?
18 A. No. No. I never went again to the Crisis Staff, because that
19 same evening, they told me: "You Commie have no place, no business being
21 Q. Okay. Well, I'll show you, Mr. Mujkic, a copy of your 1996
22 statement in B/C/S. Do you see the portion there on that page that
23 relates to -- at page 4 in the B/C/S version, in about the middle of the
24 page, do you see the portion that I am referring to there: "I informed
25 the commander of the TO, Hasan Mujkic, about this, but he told me that he
1 exclusively operated by the order of Alija Delimustafic, minister of the
2 interior, at that time, and he showed me a fax message that he had
3 received which said that the army barracks in Butile should not be
4 attacked. Three or four days later, a message came from Delimustafic that
5 the army barracks in Butile should be taken over. It was already too late
6 because we found out in the meantime the intervention units of the Serbian
7 volunteers called White Eagles had arrived there."
8 Do you see that portion of your statement there, Mr. Mujkic?
9 A. Yes. And in this first paragraph, where it reads that he showed
10 me the fax, that was on the occasion when I told them about those Albanian
11 soldiers, and he never showed me the second fax and I never said he did.
12 It was just a rumour making the rounds around the village, and nobody
13 showed me anything.
14 Q. Now, you'd agree with me, Mr. Mujkic, that you don't say anything
15 there about that order from Mr. Delimustafic that the army barracks in
16 Butile should be taken over was just a rumour being put about by women?
17 A. It doesn't say so here, but that's the truth, because I didn't see
18 the second fax and the statement doesn't say that I saw it.
19 Q. Now, you've gotten that last sentence there it was already too
20 late because we found out in the meantime. Who was the "we"?
21 A. Well, the Crisis Staff.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mujkic. Now, on the last occasion you were here,
23 Mr. Mujkic, giving evidence on the 3rd of November, you indicated there
24 that, in relation to this question of arming, you indicated - and this is
25 page 8, for the Prosecution's benefit and the Trial Chamber - the
1 villagers of Ahatovici were armed with hunting weapons. There were two
2 hunting carbines. You also indicated there that they were people who were
3 hunters and so they had carbines for hunting. And also 15 people went to
4 Visoko at the end of April, and even at the beginning of May, perhaps, 12
5 people came, and they were exchanged at Pale from Bratunac and they stayed
6 in Ahatovici. So they brought their weapons with them.
7 Do you recall giving evidence to that effect on the last occasion
8 you were here, Mr. Mujkic?
9 A. I don't remember that this was discussed here at all, but it is
10 true. Don't pin me down on it, on the number of people who left, but when
11 they came back, there were 12 other people with them who had been
12 exchanged at Pale and who had families in Sarajevo. Because this was the
13 only way to reach Sarajevo. They reached the checkpoint at Bojnik bridge,
14 which stopped them and didn't let them go on towards Sarajevo. So they
15 stopped in Ahatovici and stayed there.
16 Q. Yes. Now, you were aware that people from your village were going
17 to buy weapons and get supplies from the Territorial Defence in Visoko in
18 about May, Mr. Mujkic?
19 A. That's something I heard from other people. I didn't know that,
20 because I wasn't part of the Crisis Staff so as to know the details about
21 who went where, who bought what or got whatever, by whichever means. This
22 was just the talk of the village.
23 Q. So I take it that you wouldn't be able to disagree, then, that
24 some 85 weapons were brought, approximately 85 weapons were brought at
25 around about that time?
1 A. I cannot agree because I didn't count them. I don't know how many
2 weapons were brought in. Nobody ever gave me that information. Because I
3 told you in their book I was a Commie and I was at the barracks until the
4 9th of May, so they didn't trust me.
5 Q. Now, it was the situation in your local area that checkpoints had
6 been set up in your villages, in the villages of, in fact, Ahatovici and
7 Dobrosevici, and in fact night patrols, in about April of 1992?
8 A. There were no checkpoints in Ahatovici. That's an error. There
9 were checkpoints only at the two bridges across the Bosna River, in
10 Reljevo and in Bojnik. There were no other routes.
11 Q. You say there were no checkpoints in Ahatovici; is that correct?
12 A. No.
13 Q. I'll show you your 1996 statement, Mr. Jukic -- Mr. Mujkic, sorry.
14 It's open at page 3 there. It's towards the bottom of the page in B/C/S.
15 Have you found the portion there where it says: "Armed Serbs set up
16 barricades on the road as early as March, as an introduction into war
17 activities, and they controlled the traffic and passages with a constant
18 maltreatment. As a reply to their activities, we also set up checkpoints
19 in the villages of Ahatovici and Dobrosevici, and night patrols
20 subsequently complemented the day patrols." Do you see that portion?
21 A. This is rather hard to read. I don't see it.
22 Q. Does the Prosecution wish to concede it's there or should I get
23 Ms. Cmeric to read it out?
24 A. This is --
25 MR. GAYNOR: Well, Your Honour, Ms. Loukas appears to have read it
1 out correctly.
2 MS. LOUKAS:
3 Q. Mr. Mujkic, do you want to take back what you told the Court
4 earlier, that there were no checkpoints?
5 A. There were no checkpoints in Ahatovici. There was no passage, no
6 other route available except through Ahatovici, and the part of the road
7 between Dobrosevici and Ahatovici was free of checkpoints. A checkpoint
8 means a roadblock and control over who is passing through. There was no
9 such thing.
10 Q. Was there a headquarters of the 3rd Platoon of the Ahatovici
11 Company in your village, Mr. Mujkic?
12 A. Headquarters of the 3rd Platoon? I don't even know about any
13 division into platoons, because I really wasn't a member of the Crisis
14 Staff. I know nothing about such things.
15 Q. Now, were you aware of a meeting round about 12th of April, 1992,
16 held in Ilidza?
17 A. No.
18 Q. With --
19 A. Who went to which meeting? Meeting between whom and whom?
20 Q. It was a meeting with local municipal representatives of Ilidza,
21 Vogosca, Rajlovac. That rings no bells for you?
22 A. That was a Serbian meeting, then. I have no knowledge of that.
23 Q. So you are not in a position to confirm that at that meeting,
24 Mr. Krajisnik said neither Muslims, Serbs, nor Croats will leave Bosnia?
25 You have no knowledge of that?
1 A. I don't know. I don't know anything about that. It's not in my
2 statement and I cannot comment upon something I don't know. What is
3 reflected in the statement is my own life. I didn't say anything else,
4 and I can say nothing about places which I had never been to.
5 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Mujkic. Now, were you aware of a meeting
6 in the second half of April 1992 held in the cultural centre in Reljevo,
7 which was attended by Serbs, Muslims, and Croats?
8 A. No. I repeat: I was not a member of the Crisis Staff. I was
9 working at the barracks at the time. And some things were deliberately
10 kept from me.
11 Q. And were you aware of weapons being obtained in Zabrdje, both by
12 Muslims and Serbs, prior to the war?
13 A. Before the war. I hear it from you now.
14 Q. And I take it, Mr. Mujkic, that you were not aware of a plan by
15 paramilitary soldiers from Ahatovici to link Sarajevo and Visoko via
16 Rajlovac? A yes or no would be fine.
17 A. You have to explain first what you mean by "paramilitary."
18 Q. You don't know the word "paramilitary"?
19 A. I know the word "paramilitary," but in relation to whom, to what?
20 Q. That there were soldiers from Ahatovici that had a plan to link
21 Sarajevo and Visoko via Rajlovac. Were you aware of a plan of that
22 nature? That's what the question is directed to. And you can answer it
23 with a yes or no.
24 A. No. How do you conclude that it was a paramilitary formation when
25 people were defending their own houses? It seems that in your eyes the
1 best man is the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, initially the question is whether
3 paramilitary soldiers were linking or at least whether there was a plan.
4 Then since you explained to Ms. Loukas that you had some difficulties with
5 the paramilitaries, then she reformulated her question, and then she asked
6 whether there were soldiers from Ahatovici that had a plan to link
7 Sarajevo. So forget about the paramilitaries and answer the question,
8 please, whether there were soldiers who wanted to link Ahatovici to Visoko
9 via Rajlovac.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours: I repeat. I was
11 not part of the Crisis Staff. Things were being kept for me. And there
12 were no formations, no units there capable of mounting any such activity.
13 Because we didn't have a single machine-gun, not a single mortar.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The question whether you were -- was whether you were
15 aware. I do understand from your answer that you were not aware and that
16 whether it could have been the case is something you doubt, but you have
17 no personal knowledge of that. Is that a correct understanding?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't hear from anybody about
19 anything like that in that period. I really don't know.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Thank you, Mr. Mujkic. I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need to put additional questions to
24 Mr. Mujkic?
25 MR. GAYNOR: No, Your Honour. There will no re-examination.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I might have some questions for the witness, but I'd
3 first like to consult the parties on the issue that is on my mind.
4 Mr. Mujkic, would you please take off your earphones for a second.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to know from the parties, since we heard
7 some evidence, which it's not quite clear to me, as a matter of fact, how
8 relevant that is, about who visited Mr. Mujkic when he was in detention.
9 It seems to appear from the transcript that a Nikola, who was the best man
10 of Mr. Krajisnik, according to the interlocutors, visited Mr. Mujkic.
11 That's one. It also seems from this conversation on the 20th of August
12 that Mr. Mirko Krajisnik - and when I just said Mr. Krajisnik, I also
13 refer to Mr. Mirko Krajisnik - that there seems to be a need to inform him
14 about that visit of this Nikola. It's -- first of all, it's not entirely
15 clear to me how important it is to the parties, because is this Nikola, in
16 the view of the Defence, Mr. Poplasen, or I hope that I've pronounced his
17 name correctly, of which I understood the first name is also Nikola, is
18 that the understanding, that he might have visited, or is that -- I do not
19 know who the best man of Mr. Mirko Krajisnik is.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No. Okay. That's clear. So that --
22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I think, just in relation to this
23 particular aspect, it's certainly the situation on which I would certainly
24 be very interested in hearing from the Prosecution in what way they seek
25 to use this sort of evidence. I mean, if they don't seek to do anything
1 with it, one wonders, of course, why it's called. But if they call it, of
2 course, then we have to deal with it. Your Honour, and I would say, in
3 view of the fact that this information or this evidence in relation to
4 Mirko Krajisnik comes some 12 years after the event is not mentioned in
5 any previous statement, that Your Honours might --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now you're commenting rather than --
7 MS. LOUKAS: But Your Honours might consider excluding it in the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Gaynor, what's the position of the
10 Prosecution? If Nikola is not the Nikola, as we heard testimony about
11 before, then it's less surprising that if the witness correctly has
12 testified - I do not know whether he did or not - but if he has correctly
13 testified that if that Nikola Poplasen visited him together with Mirko
14 Krajisnik, then it's less surprising that Mr. Krajisnik is not aware of
15 that other Nikola to visit the witness. But it's not entirely clear to me
16 what the position of the Prosecution is in this respect.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I'll just confer with Mr. Hannis for a
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, in our submission, it's clear from the
21 witness's testimony that Mirko Krajisnik was at that meeting, and that's
22 the core point. The presence of Nikola Poplasen at that meeting will --
23 the relevance of that is not yet critical to us, but it may become
24 critical at a later stage in the trial, when more evidence concerning
25 Poplasen may be admitted. But it's certainly a matter which if Your
1 Honour wishes to explore further with the witness, we'd certainly welcome
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Ms. Loukas, you say, of course,
4 it's not in evidence, but what's the position as far as the best man of
5 Mr. Mirko Krajisnik is concerned, if it's not Nikola Poplasen? Is it
6 something you could reveal to the Chamber?
7 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. And I'm happy to reveal it.
8 It's not a matter of, of course, of which -- it's the forefront of our
9 minds when taking instructions, the best man. But in any event, Your
10 Honour, Mr. Mirko Krajisnik's best man is an entire different Nikola, who
11 now lives in the United States.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And are you in a position to identify him further,
13 apart from that he lives in the United States? There might be a few
14 hundred thousand Nikolas left.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, we can indicate that we think the last
18 name is Ateljevic. I hope my B/C/S pronunciation hasn't mangled the
19 pronunciation, but I think that Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik probably has a
20 better idea of the name of his best man rather than his brother's best
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand, but sometimes brothers know
23 from each other who their best men were. But I do understand there were
24 more of them, so ...
25 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I see. And I will explain another culture
1 nuance, Your Honour, that the term "best man" doesn't necessarily mean
2 best man at a wedding, as we might understand the term in the English
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for this information. Then there's
5 no need to ask any questions to the witness in this respect.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness please put his earphones on again.
8 You told us that -- let me find the right term, Mr. Mujkic. You told us
9 that there were no checkpoints in Ahatovici, and Ms. Loukas confronted you
10 with a portion of your 1996 statement. Perhaps we could try to see what
11 exactly you meant when you gave that statement.
12 Perhaps I could, if I may, Ms. Cmeric, ask your cooperation again
13 to read at page 3, and then the line where in English it reads: "Armed
14 Serbs set up barricades." I take it that it starts after the word [B/C/S
15 spoken]; is that correct.
16 MS. CMERIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please read that slowly, and could I
18 specifically ask the attention from the interpreters for the technical
19 terms used for whether these are checkpoints, barricades, control.
20 Could you please read it slowly, Ms. Cmeric.
21 MS. CMERIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 [Interpretation] "As early as March, the armed Serbs have, as a
23 prelude to the war activities, set up checkpoints on the roads and
24 controlled traffic and passengers with regular mistreatments, harassment.
25 In response to their actions, we also blocked the access roads to
1 Ahatovici and Dobrosevici. Gradually, we complemented the night patrols
2 with the daily ones."
3 [In English] I believe that's the relevant part.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the relevant portion.
5 Mr. Mujkic, hearing again what your statement says in the -- in
6 your own language, is this a correct statement? I notice, and I say this
7 to the parties, that the translation is not exactly what it is in writing.
8 For example, I draw your attention to that it's "access roads to" rather
9 than "in." And apart from that -- but let me first ask the witness.
10 You heard it in your own language. Could you tell us whether this
11 is a correct reflection of your statement.
12 A. I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but I can tell you
13 for a fact that except for the two roads across the bridges of Reljevo and
14 Bojnik that were held by the Serbs, there were no other checkpoints
15 anywhere controlling the passage of people or vehicles. Because these two
16 bridges were the bridges of the trunk roads leading to Sarajevo.
17 Dobrosevici were a predominantly Serb village, and there was no way that
18 any Muslims could have set up any checkpoints there, nor were there any
19 such checkpoints.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be shown his statement, the
21 original page 3.
22 Mr. Mujkic, may I invite you to not only to look at page 3, but
23 also to look at page 4, where more of a signature appears. Is this a
24 statement you signed?
25 A. The signature cannot really be made out. The one on page 5 is a
1 clear one. The one on page 4 is quite illegible. And the one on page 3
2 doesn't really seem to be a signature, at least not on this piece of paper
3 I have before me.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it's cut off rather than --
5 A. I don't see it here.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you see what I just read to you about the -- in
7 response --
8 A. I do see one half of it, whereas the lower part ... Your Honours,
9 if a checkpoint is set up, then there must be a round-the-clock crew of
10 people manning it 24 hours a day. Whereas here it says we blocked the
11 access roads to Ahatovici and Dobrosevici. There's no point really to
12 block both the roads to Ahatovici and Dobrosevici, because Dobrosevici was
13 a predominantly Serb village. Gradually, night patrols were complemented
14 by the daily ones. These were just guard posts. There was no actual
15 checkpoint as a barricade on the road, and I can guarantee that with my
16 own life that nobody ever placed a checkpoint there.
17 JUDGE ORIE: What was there, if there was no checkpoint? You
18 explained to us what a checkpoint would need and ...
19 A. The roads were passable, but there were these observation posts
20 some 20 metres or more on a hillock. It was on the point where the road
21 was forking off, actually, to the three villages: Dobrosevici, Ahatovici,
22 and another one. And there was just this observation point to observe who
23 was using this road, but nobody was really being restricted in their
24 movement, nor could they have been restricted. So there was no actual
25 checkpoint. There were two checkpoints on those two bridges I mentioned.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But I do understand that in response to those
2 checkpoints at the bridges, you were -- well, let's say your side also
3 took some initiative to have a better control on who or what moved on the
4 roads. Is that a correct understanding?
5 A. That was the sole purpose of it. There was no checkpoint, believe
6 me. Because if one is unable to move, then one is unable to move. If you
7 have water in a glass, then it can't go anywhere, and that was true for
8 us. We were unable to go anywhere.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And did these activities initially take place during
10 the day and later on also during the night?
11 A. During the day the whole place was being observed, whereas in the
12 evening we would stand guard. You had my house. That was next to a road.
13 And behind the house, in the courtyard, we would just place two sacks of
14 sand or something and then stand guard. And you were simply there to
15 observe who was moving around, to defend one's own home. But this was no
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, the only thing I'm doing is asking for
18 your comment on what seems to be your own statement. So, therefore, I
19 hope you don't blame me for doing that, because I'm reading the text which
20 is clearly part of at least a written statement on which your name appears
21 and which you have not denied is your statement.
22 A. Your Honour, to illustrate this to you: The arming of the Serb
23 population, for instance, there were no trucks with weapons using these
24 main roads. They were using side roads because they knew that we were
25 observing the area, not because there was anything blocking them from
1 passing. And the purpose of the exercise was to see who was going where,
2 what was going on. Because we wanted to see what it was that they were
3 bringing in with the military trucks, because the Serbs, they had weapons,
4 and of course they were using these side roads to bring in weapons.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That clarifies your testimony to me.
6 Is there any need to put further questions to the witness
7 triggered by questions put by the Bench?
8 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
9 MR. GAYNOR: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mujkic, this, then, concludes your testimony in
11 this Court. Unfortunately, you had to come twice to give your testimony.
12 The Chamber appreciates that you took the effort to come two times, that
13 you came this long way to The Hague two times, and we'd like to thank you
14 for having answered all the questions of both Prosecution, Defence, and of
15 the Bench. I thank you for coming and I wish you a safe trip home again.
16 Madam Usher, you may escort Mr. Mujkic out of the courtroom.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I would
18 just want the truth to come out, because, unfortunately, my people have
19 suffered, and this would be the greatest of rewards for me to prove their
20 innocence and to show that this was just senselessness ruling. I have my
21 wounds that will never heal. I have to say that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is fully aware of the wounds it may have
23 inflicted upon you, and this Chamber and the parties are seeking the
24 truth. That is important, and that also demonstrates the importance of
25 witnesses to come and to testify. Thank you very much.
1 Madam Usher, you may escort Mr. Mujkic out of the courtroom.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, perhaps we first go through the
5 exhibits, both those from the 3rd of November, and I don't think we have
6 gone through them already.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar will now read the list of exhibits
9 introduced through Mr. Mujkic.
10 THE REGISTRAR: P371, pre-marked map and legend. P372, order by
11 Rajlovac municipality Crisis Staff, dated 09/04/1992, and English
12 translation. P373, press release dated 11/05/1992, and English
13 translation. P374, bulletin of daily events, number 114, and English
14 translation. P375, declaration of Ramiz Mujkic dated 01/11/2004. P376,
15 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of BiH, handwritten notes of
16 conversation of 05 June 1992. And P376.1, English translation. P377,
17 report Romanija Birac Security Services Centre Sarajevo, dated 03/06/1992,
18 and translation. P378, ruling of the Vogosca Serb municipality dated
19 8 July 1992, and English translation. P379, photograph showing Planja's
20 house. P380, list of the Serb municipality of Vogosca prison unit
21 regarding persons detained in the prison on 3 September 1992, and English
22 translation. P381, CD of intercept between Bakir Alispahic and Mirko
23 Krajisnik. And P381A, transcript of P381, and English translation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Since there seem to be
25 no objections, all exhibits ranging from 371 up until 381 are admitted in
2 I suggest to the parties, since we had a rather long list at the
3 end of the testimony of Mr. Mandic, that the registrar will print out the
4 relevant part of that list, that the parties can review it, see whether
5 they agree with the description, see whether there's any objection, and we
6 don't have to read it all in court, and then go through them all in more
7 general terms. Since the exhibits are always identified when they are
8 introduced, so therefore it might not be necessary to read them all out
10 Then I have one other procedural issue, unless the parties would
11 have one they'd like to deal with.
12 MS. LOUKAS: There's just one matter in relation to the exhibits
13 just admitted. I can indicate there for the sake of the record, there is
14 a translation issue with one of the documents. But, of course, as usual,
15 we can liaise with the Prosecution in relation to that question. But I
16 just want to put that on the record so that we don't lose sight of that
17 particular aspect.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will hear from that if the parties
19 cannot -- even if the parties can resolve the matters, then nevertheless
20 we'd like to have the right translation in front of us.
21 The procedural issue I would like to raise is the issue of
22 adjudicated facts. The Prosecution was invited to reorganise its list of
23 adjudicated facts, or its list of facts tendered to be admitted as
24 adjudicated facts. I do understand that the -- we have now a list of 784
25 instead of 1147 facts on that list. I also do understand that from those
1 784, 100 facts are under appeal in the Kvocka case, and that from the
2 remaining 684 facts, that 500 have already been admitted by the Chamber,
3 whereas 184 now in the new reorganised list are pending.
4 The Chamber invites the OTP to file the list as it is right now,
5 so after it has been organised, but without the facts which are still
6 under appeal in Kvocka. We might come back to them at a later stage. So
7 the Chamber will then mainly concentrate on the 184 still pending, not
8 belonging to the Kvocka and not belonging to the 500 adjudicated facts
9 that have already been admitted. And then at a later stage, the OTP, of
10 course, will have an opportunity to file, and then of course in due
11 course, a list of items, if they wish to do so, from the Kvocka appeals
12 decisions, whether or not we should put a limit to the number of those
13 facts is still to be considered, but that might be the case.
14 Is there -- is this a clear explanation of what the Chamber
15 expects the parties to do.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Your Honour. That's perfectly clear. Thank
18 MS. LOUKAS: I agree, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the next witness is subpoenaed for
20 tomorrow, and therefore, I don't think -- I take it that he is not -- that
21 we are not -- no. I'm making a mistake. The next witness is expected to
22 appear tomorrow in the afternoon, upon the agreement of the parties, and
23 we'll hear his testimony for the remainder of this week, if needed, until
24 next Friday, and always in the afternoon.
25 The parties have been informed about that there's a fair chance
1 that the Chamber would not sit next week.
2 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I guess I would say we're almost
3 counting on that at this point, because the witness we had intended to
4 subpoena has been cancelled and we don't have a substitute at this point.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We wanted to avoid whatever is that witnesses
6 are travelling up and down without a proper reason. Then we adjourn for
7 the day and we'll resume tomorrow morning, quarter -- yes, I wanted to say
8 a quarter past 2.00, but that's in the afternoon. A quarter past 2.00
9 tomorrow in the afternoon.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.24 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on 7th, the December day of
12 2004, at 2.15 p.m.