1 Thursday, 14 April 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Ms. Loukas, I hardly dare to ask you whether you're ready to

11 continue your cross-examination.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Well it seems this morning, Your Honour, the gods are

13 against me.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That's even worse, Ms. Loukas. We've looked at the

15 time spent on examination-in-chief, the way it was spent, how parties

16 interrupted each other, but meanwhile, Madam Usher, I ask you to bring the

17 witness into the courtroom.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, before that happens, could I actually

19 formally introduce a couple of new faces to the Court.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I would rather first finish what I was doing and then

21 of course.

22 MS. LOUKAS: It's just that if the witness is being brought in

23 then we're going to run out of time because I have a matter to raise

24 before the witness ...

25 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I'd rather not discuss in the

1 presence of the witness the time allotted to you.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: So that we see new faces, they will be introduced

4 later today, I understand.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour, for the sake of politeness.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the Chamber has looked at

7 examination-in-chief, questions put by the Judges, interventions by the

8 Judges, objections by the other party, taken all together, there is no

9 reason whatsoever to grant in respect of this witness any more than 60 per

10 cent of the time taken by the Prosecution. That means, Ms. Loukas, that

11 you've got 1 hour and 13 minutes left for this witness and apart from

12 closing doors, this Chamber would very much appreciate if windows are

13 opened. Could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Prior to the witness coming in, Your Honour, I had

15 indicated I had a matter I wished to raise.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Sorry, could I ask you to wait one for moment.

17 Yes, Ms. Loukas.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that point Your Honour raised

19 about my first few questions in cross-examination yesterday, I did want to

20 point something out, Your Honour, and that is that the response to the

21 Prosecution's questions on that score gave an answer that only included

22 Croats and Bosniaks and the response to Your Honour's question elicited a

23 response that was -- firstly, that's on page 31 of the transcript in

24 relation to the Prosecution's evidence in chief. "It was a mixed group

25 including Croats and Bosniaks." That's at line 15.

1 JUDGE ORIE: I've noted the difference, Ms. Loukas. It's not a

2 vital difference, was it? I mean of course we can search now on whether

3 it was the same or almost exactly the same and of course there we have to

4 look at the relevance as well. I think as a matter of fact that the

5 matter as such was clear enough that you didn't pursue any further matter

6 and more or less if it were only 95 per cent where you sought confirmation

7 of the earlier answer, I do understand why because you thought it a very

8 important part of the testimony of the witness but that as such is not

9 enough to ask him the same question again. And even if his answer would

10 be 5 per cent different from the earlier one, in an area which is not the

11 key issue then that's no reason to use your time that way in

12 cross-examination.

13 Madam Usher, you may escort the witness into the courtroom.

14 MS. LOUKAS: If Your Honour pleases. While the witness is being

15 brought in, I can indicate that with me today I have our new case manager

16 Mr. Stefan Karganovic, and also from Seattle we have a high school

17 assisting us. That is Ms. Hannah Day and I would like to introduce them

18 both today to the Court and Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome in this courtroom, both of you,

20 Mr. Karganovic, I think that we'll see you more often whereas Seattle

21 might be only temporarily.

22 [The witness entered court]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Omeragic, our apologies for letting you in and

24 asking you to leave for one second again. You hear me, I take it?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. Good morning, Your

1 Honours.

2 WITNESS: SEAD OMERAGIC [Resumed]

3 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you are still bound

4 by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

5 And Ms. Loukas will now continue the cross-examination..

6 Ms. Loukas, please proceed.

7 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, you've mentioned Bosanski Brod in your

10 evidence. Just in relation to that, I take it that you are aware that in

11 late March 1992, the Croatian ZNG attacked the Serbian village of Sjekovac

12 located near Bosanski Brod just across the Savo river from the Republic of

13 Croatia. You're aware of that, of course, are you not?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And the Serbian villagers were killed inside their homes, you're

16 aware of that, of course?

17 A. Yes, I heard that six people -- six Serbs had been killed.

18 Q. Yes. Now, just in relation to your description of the events you

19 encountered in Bijeljina, would you agree with the assertion that Abdic

20 and Arkan issued a joint -- Mr. Abdic and Mr. Arkan issued a joint

21 statement over the local radio appealing to citizens not to worry and to

22 return to the streets? Would you agree with that assertion?

23 A. I'm not aware of that.

24 Q. Would you agree with an assertion that there were few reported

25 case of any atrocities or killings of Muslim civilians?

1 A. I wouldn't agree with you.

2 Q. Would you agree with the assertion that "The battle for Bijeljina

3 lasted two crisp days and did not in contrast to some of the more lurid

4 newspaper reports result in the widespread destruction of the town."

5 Would you agree with that assertion?

6 A. I cannot agree with an assertion that there was fighting going on

7 but that there was no destruction.

8 Q. Now, moving along, just in relation to some answers you gave

9 yesterday, I was asking you about a matter that had not been included in

10 your article and your response in relation to that -- yes, that's at page

11 82 of the LiveNote yesterday. This is in relation to the aspect of, "Did

12 you cut down those balijas," and a person's response being, "Yes, we have

13 killed quite a lot of them." You indicated there that it was covered in

14 your article, as far as you were concerned, at the top of page 83, a man

15 wearing a band around his arm, about the 25 bodies and what have you. You

16 recall your response in relation to that.

17 When I asked you about why it wasn't it your article, in essence,

18 and I'm paraphrasing here and I'm happy to be corrected in relation to

19 that but I'm trying to get through this as soon as possible in view of the

20 truncated time I have for my cross-examination, you said that because it

21 was a leading question, basically, that you'd asked this question, you

22 felt that you would be accused of extortion if you had quoted the

23 conversation as it occurred.

24 Is that basically a summary of what your response is to that?

25 A. I think I said that I may have done it on that account. But as

1 for mentioning that particular instance, I do mention it in my article.

2 Q. Yes, so you say -- you do mention it in your article, but the way

3 in which you put it in your article is as a result of your feeling that it

4 was from a leading question and you might be accused of extortion; is that

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And that, of course, is your complete answer in relation to that

8 question of not inserting that conversation into your article; correct?

9 A. Your Honours, throughout the time I kept thinking about those dead

10 bodies about which I heard over the radio as having been dumped at the

11 garbage dump, those 25 corpses, and I was with this frightening thought in

12 my mind, entering the town. And we know that it's the winners that write

13 history, we know that for a fact. We know that the Serbs were the winners

14 there and had they wanted to, the opposite side, they could have taken us

15 over to the garbage dump and shown us what had been done there.

16 In addition, I was interested in arriving at the truth and I

17 wanted to include as much as possible into my article in order to present

18 this to the general public.

19 Q. Yes, that's understood.

20 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not exactly what Ms. Loukas wanted to ask

21 you. I do understand that this is important for you to say, but

22 Ms. Loukas was especially interested to know why you did not include the

23 specific question that gave you the answer on this event.

24 Ms. Loukas.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll just ask the question

1 again Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS:

4 Q. Okay. I was asking a series of questions in relation to why you

5 say this particular aspect was not in your article in the exact way in

6 which it occurred. You've given an answer that says basically -- and you

7 respond to my question, you mentioned it in your article, but the way in

8 which you put it in your article is as a result of your feeling, that it

9 was a leading question and you might be accused of extortion. That's

10 correct, and that's your -- that's you reason for not inserting the

11 conversation into your article; correct?

12 A. If I may explain, Your Honours. We are talking about a sentence

13 that I wrote precisely 13 years ago. What it was that I felt at that

14 point in time under those circumstances is something I cannot tell you

15 today. But I wrote about it the way I did. And I wrote it 13 years ago.

16 How can I know today what my reasons for that were, and this is the way I

17 wrote it.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if there's any specific matter you'd like

19 to raise in relation to that answer given by the witness yesterday, then

20 please do so.

21 MS. LOUKAS: I'm about to do it, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm waiting for it.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic -- okay. So that's the way you wrote it 13

25 years ago and you've told the Court why you wrote it that way 13 years

1 ago, we're agreed on that point; correct?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, this is all ritual, please proceed.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said.

4 MS. LOUKAS:

5 Q. Well, then, Mr. Omeragic, that's not what you told the Court last

6 year on the 16th of October, 2003.

7 MS. LOUKAS: And for the benefit of Prosecution, page 27.706.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Chamber be informed about the testimony

9 given at that time by the witness as well?

10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I will be quoting the relevant

11 portion and --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.

14 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, you were asked by Mr. Milosevic last year, "How

15 come such a cardinal point was left out when you asked someone, 'Did you

16 cut down those balijas,' and he said 'Yes, we killed quite a lot of them.'

17 How come you didn't put that in the article yet you put it in your

18 statement in the year 2001? Did you invent that event, Mr. Omeragic?"

19 And your response was, "I'm just waiting for you to finish, to

20 complete what you're saying. I did not put into my text, into my article

21 even a tenth of what went on, of all the events that occurred in Bijeljina

22 because a newspaper article is always short, too short to include

23 everything, to publish everything. But I could tell you endless tales, go

24 on for days telling you what I experienced." And further on, question "So

25 you considered this not to be essential and that's why you didn't include

1 it into your article, this conversation." And your answer was "Yes,

2 perhaps because there are no names or proof."

3 Now, Mr. Omeragic, just last year in October of last year, you are

4 offering a Court a different explanation for why you didn't insert a

5 matter into your --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

7 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's October of 2003.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed. Well, 18 months ago. But of course the

9 truth changes for journalists, apparently.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --

11 MS. LOUKAS: I withdraw that. No, I withdraw that.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you refrain from those kinds of comments.

13 Yes, Please proceed.

14 MS. LOUKAS: I withdraw that.

15 Q. So Mr. Omeragic, you'd agree with me you gave the Court, this

16 Tribunal a different explanation in October of 2003; that's correct, is it

17 not?

18 A. Yes. I wasn't analysing all these texts in order for me to be

19 able to know what I stated, you know, 13 years ago, nine and a half years

20 ago, or one year ago. My memory fades and there are some questions that I

21 didn't have answers for and of course this may account for some

22 differences as to what I was saying 13 years and 9 years ago.

23 Q. Okay, Mr. Omeragic. You say that memories fade and of course when

24 you made your statement to the Prosecution, you had no notes to go on, did

25 you?

1 A. Yes, that's right, I had no notes.

2 Q. And of course you went into a great more detail in your statement

3 than your article; correct?

4 A. Witnesses do not need notes in order to testify. That's what I

5 wanted to say first. Secondly, as I was presenting all these details, I

6 tried to include all the different aspects in order to present a complete

7 picture of what was going on. That's why I was supplementing the

8 information and that's why I said that I could write five different pieces

9 of writing about what happened there. And of course the text that I wrote

10 13 years ago was written under very specific circumstances, under shelling

11 and sniping as I was on my way to work awaiting to get killed any moment.

12 Q. Okay. Now, you will recall that I asked you some questions

13 yesterday about why you hadn't included another matter in your article

14 which was having a gun in your face and you -- your basic response to

15 that, if you'd agree with this, is you didn't want to insert yourself into

16 the article; that's correct, is it not?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. So in your statement, you've indicated that "one man,

19 unknown to me appeared. Arkan's man approached him and asked him for his

20 documents. He did not have any documents so Arkan's man said, 'Take him

21 away.' They took him away and they asked for my ID card. At that time, I

22 heard a shot fired by I do not know what happened."

23 Can you point out where that is in your article?

24 If the article might be shown to the witness.

25 A. I don't have it.

1 MS. LOUKAS:

2 Q. It's being brought to you, Mr. Omeragic.

3 A. I can't find it. I'm sorry, I can't find that bit.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Would the Prosecution be prepared to agree that it

5 does not appear in the article?

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if an indication could be given to me

7 where this particular part of the story is depicted in the article and I

8 could review that part but I'm at the moment searching through the entire

9 article.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that this is supposed not to be

11 in the article. We can read the article. So let's just --

12 MS. LOUKAS: I'm happy to proceed.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- accept that it's not in the article.

14 MS. LOUKAS:

15 Q. So this is an indent that would be considered newsworthy by you,

16 surely?

17 A. There were lots of things. I'm telling you now, there were lots

18 of things that were newsworthy and that I didn't report nevertheless

19 because the circumstances when I was writing the text were completely

20 different from what they are now. I returned to Sarajevo from Bijeljina,

21 the town was under shelling already. Of all the horrors that I saw there,

22 I singled out only a number to put in the article; however, when I was

23 giving my statement for this Tribunal, I knew perfectly well what I was

24 saying and I stand behind every word. It's still vivid in my memory.

25 When I wrote my article, I had to write it on one single page, not

1 five pages like the statement.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I think yesterday I said that there was a

3 certain point which was not really worth of further exploring.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yeah.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I notice that where I kindly said this morning that

6 closing doors was not the issue but opening windows.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That you just go ahead in a similar way as if this

9 case was about how a journalist made the final selection of what he did

10 write down in an article, as if this case was about -- this case is about

11 different things.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And of course I cannot deny that there's any

14 relation, but let's focus on what the case is really about and let's not

15 revisit again the issue unless you've got really something important to

16 add and what we heard until now is the relevance of it is, I would say,

17 low to very low. And therefore I'd like you to use your time on relevant

18 matters or more relevant matters.

19 I don't want any debate at this moment, Ms. Loukas, because this

20 is not the debating club but this is a courtroom. Please proceed and keep

21 in mind what I just said.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I am entitled to respond to

23 Your Honour's assertion.

24 JUDGE ORIE: It's not an assertion, it's reminding you of the view

25 of the Court which is not an assertion.

1 MS. LOUKAS: And I wish to indicate on the record, which I'm

2 entitled to do, that I agree with Your Honour's specific indication there.

3 This is -- this is certainly not a witness that in any way would

4 directly implicate Mr. Krajisnik but the fact that a journalist puts

5 forward certain matters in relation to someone who was formerly a

6 co-accused and by that way the Prosecution seeks by some sort of jigsaw to

7 implicate in terms of joint criminal enterprise and awareness of what

8 happens on the ground the credibility of a journalist who has, when it

9 comes to this court, 13 years later --

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, please, if these submissions could be

11 made at the appropriate time and if the -- if this needs to continue --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if you would ask this witness, and you

13 start doing it in front of the witness, if you would have asked this

14 witness --

15 MS. LOUKAS: We really shouldn't be doing it in front of the

16 witness.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed. That's what I invited

18 you to do. But you said that you wanted to indicate on the record, which

19 you are entitled to do, and then you started the whole series.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed and if there's any need, we could do

22 that when -- at the end of your cross-examination.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can indicate that I have a whole

24 series of matters, critical and important matters that are not in the

25 article that appear in the statement. If Your Honour doesn't want to hear

1 about them, I'm happy to stop my cross-examination now.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, ask him why he didn't include certain

3 matters, and that's it, instead of first closing all doors and -- please

4 proceed but find a balance.

5 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate Your Honour's guidance in that regard.

6 Of course Your Honour I have to find a balance between my common law

7 training and the different approach in this court, which I attempt to do

8 daily. And if I get the balance wrong occasionally, I hope Your Honour

9 will understand.

10 JUDGE ORIE: We appreciate your effort, Ms. Loukas.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic -- we are on the topic -- of what had and had

13 not been included in your article. Now, let's go to another bit.

14 In your statement, you've got "The Serb civilians who came out of

15 their home were told that they had to have the white ribbon around their

16 arms." Where is that in your article? Can you tell the Court where that

17 is in your article?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, isn't it clear that it isn't in the

19 article. So ask the witness why he didn't put it in the article, fine.

20 But let's not go through all these rituals. I mean, we can see it's not

21 in the article. You can just put it to the witness that it's not in his

22 article and then ask him why.

23 MS. LOUKAS:

24 Q. Why isn't it in the article? Not newsworthy I suppose?

25 A. It's the same problem with the writing, the amount of words you

1 have at your disposal and the memory.

2 Q. Okay. But what you do put in your article, for example, is, "I

3 met a horrified and curious glance of a woman behind a curtain, a glance I

4 shall never forget." Now, surely the bits that I've indicated to you are

5 a bit more newsworthy and a bit more important than the horrified glance

6 of somebody at a window. You do agree with that as a journalist, don't

7 you?

8 A. Yes, there were other things that were much more important than

9 horrified looks, but that was the first look that I saw as I was entering

10 the town of Bijeljina. I didn't see any other people. That woman who was

11 speaking from behind a curtain some 10, 12 metres away from the road was

12 the only look that I caught.

13 Q. You were just going by in a car; correct?

14 A. Yes. Yes. It's almost a miracle. We were in a car, we were

15 going by fast, and still I caught that look and it was full of horror.

16 Q. What kind of car was it?

17 A. I don't remember, dark green or dark blue.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please move to your next subject.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm wondering if they were

20 politicians cars, the person might be horrified to see politicians.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's really -- that would assist this Chamber

22 to establish that on the view of the car, that someone behind --

23 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, that's not what I am doing.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Would know that this is a car which is specifically

25 used by politicians and therefore suddenly she changed the expression of

1 her face.

2 Ms. Loukas, please become realistic and please proceed.

3 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, I'm only hoping for some realistic

4 answers from the witness who leaves out --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, this is not a debating club, this is a

6 courtroom and you may continue your cross-examination.

7 Please proceed.

8 MS. LOUKAS:

9 Q. Let's go to another aspects that's not in your article. Tuzla.

10 Tuzla JNA headquarters, that bit. That's not in your article, is it? Why

11 isn't it in your article?

12 A. Because I think I personally was in the focus of those events and

13 that was at least my impression; however, there are more witnesses beside

14 me who can testify to that meeting, what happened there and how it

15 happened. I believe there are still people alive who remember what

16 happened there and what General Jankovic said.

17 Q. How about Vlado Mrkic, Mr. Vlado Mrkic, you gave evidence in

18 relation to that yesterday and you indicated that this was a highly

19 respected journalist who, on the 4th of April, said to Arkan, "You should

20 not have done this to Muslims. And Arkan took Mrkic's ID card," this is

21 in your statement and said, "You are a Croat. Plavsic was present and she

22 just made a wave with her hand and says he is a Serb but what kind of

23 Serb? After Plavsic made the gesture, Arkan pushed the ID card back into

24 Mrkic's hand. Arkan kept on walking and said 'Take him, Mrkic, away from

25 here, move back.'" Now that bit that's in the statement, that doesn't

1 involve you, does it?

2 A. Right but that's the way it happened.

3 Q. Yes. And you'd agree with me that that is highly newsworthy.

4 That's the kind of thing any professional journalist would have put in his

5 article; correct?

6 A. Yes, it's newsworthy and I believe I should have included it.

7 It's a very important thing because the person in question was a very good

8 journalist, very good professional, and I did not include it. But I do

9 remember it very vividly. It happened and it happened the way I

10 described.

11 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, I take it that in relation to your evidence

12 here that you would disagree with me if I were to suggest that you hadn't

13 entirely been honest with the Trial Chamber about what you witnessed

14 there.

15 A. Your Honours, for days and for months, whenever I would be

16 remembering all those events, not only in Bijeljina, but also in

17 Sarajevo. In Sarajevo perhaps every moment was 100 times worse than in

18 Bijeljina. I've been everywhere during the war. There was not a single

19 place in Bosnia from which I didn't report. And to doubt my honour, my

20 honesty is something that I really don't know how to comment. I always

21 told the truth. I've always been honest, and all I tried to do in this

22 article was present a faithful picture of what I saw in Bijeljina. I

23 don't know to what extent I was successful. But I was absolutely sincere,

24 that much is true.

25 And what you say about Mr. Mrkic is absolutely true. I remember

1 every detail because I was afraid for his life at that moment. It took so

2 much courage to face Arkan and to tell him something like that. Arkan, a

3 man who was superior to two members of the Presidency of that state, who

4 was above two Generals of that state's army, and that's the kind of

5 courage Mr. Mrkic had. And what Mrs. Plavsic said was some sort of

6 condescension, she was laughing at him like, "Yes, he is a Serb but I

7 might wonder." But nevertheless, Mr. Vlado Mrkic displayed the sort of

8 courage that I personally never had and probably never will have.

9 Q. So Mr. Omeragic, basically, what you describe is a situation in

10 Bijeljina where Arkan had total control of the town; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And he was being asked by Mrs. Plavsic to leave that town,

13 correct, to the JNA?

14 A. The most accurate way to put it would be to say that Mrs. Plavsic

15 was begging him at that moment to turn the town over to the JNA, to the

16 Yugoslav Peoples' Army.

17 MS. LOUKAS: No further questions, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.

19 Is there any need for further questions?

20 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Omeragic, there are no further questions for you.

22 Not that the Bench have no questions for you but they have been put to you

23 already during your examination-in-chief and your cross-examination. I'd

24 like to thank you very much for having come to The Hague and to have

25 answered all questions by both parties and by the Bench and I wish you a

1 safe trip home again.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you ...

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE ORIE: I had to ask Madam Registrar whether the necessary

7 technical facilities for face and voice distortion would be in place

8 already because one of them is broken, as far as I understand, and they

9 have to be transported from one courtroom to another.

10 We would need approximately half an hour to get them in place.

11 I'm just now calculating that would bring us to 20 minutes past 10.00

12 which would then have another -- yes, we could then have -- we would have

13 then the longer break now and then we can do with one more break this

14 morning.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's just one matter if this is an

17 appropriate juncture that I should place on the record.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MS. LOUKAS: And that is this: I of course appreciate

20 Your Honour's guidance in relation to the -- the hybrid system that we are

21 dealing with here between common law and civil law. I must indicate from

22 my perspective, perhaps my common law habits of closing the gates are so

23 ingrained they are very difficult to remove. But I do appreciate

24 Your Honour's guidance in relation to the approach that Your Honour

25 prefers and I continue to adjust accordingly.

1 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, your efforts are highly

2 appreciated, Ms. Loukas.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we have a break, however, we'd first like to

5 deal with the exhibits.

6 Madam Registrar.

7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, for your information, when we are we

9 dealing with the exhibits, I said yesterday something about three items of

10 interviews with Arkan where I never saw any interview with Arkan. I do

11 understand that Mr. Margetts and the registrar have found new descriptions

12 of it, just to draw your attention tension to it. We'll not read them

13 all, you can review them and if there's any comment you can make that

14 comment at a later stage.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I hope there is a copy for

16 me as well. That would be great.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibits 584 to P591A tendered through

19 Witness Omeragic.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Since I hear no objections, they are admitted into

21 evidence.

22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just one matter in relation to the

23 translation of P587.1, there was a reference to the LiveNote transcript at

24 page 28, lines 12 to 13, that Your Honour brought the Prosecution's

25 attention to. As it turns out, the translation in the transcript is

1 correct and we have amended the translation accordingly and provided a

2 copy to Madam Registrar.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that we now have another P587.1

4 which is in accordance with what you read in Court. Yes. That's clear.

5 MR. MARGETTS: And Your Honour, we will be providing a CD with

6 that amended translation to the registrar.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this version is the one admitted.

8 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Any further matters at this moment to be raised by

10 the parties? If not, I would have one -- I'd like to raise one issue in

11 view of the latest motion for protective measures. The Chamber has

12 received a motion from the Prosecution requesting protective measures for

13 the witnesses 84, 239, and 270. This motion was filed on Tuesday and the

14 Chamber would like to make a few comments on that motion.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour, I can indicate I received a

16 copy of that motion in court yesterday very helpfully from -- I think it

17 was the usher yesterday, so that was very helpful.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you received it. It was filed on the

19 Tuesday this week, I do agree with you.

20 The three witnesses referred to in this motion are expected to

21 testify that they were raped. They are also expected to testify about

22 other alleged crimes they witnessed and about the alleged perpetrators of

23 those acts. The three witnesses continue to live in or near the locations

24 where the alleged crimes were committed. One witness has received

25 suspicious telephone calls, and they are all concerned about their

1 personal safety and that of their family, should it become known that they

2 testified before this Tribunal about the alleged crimes.

3 The protective measures requested by the Prosecution for each

4 witness are pseudonym, image and voice distortion, private session for

5 that portion of their testimony dealing with the alleged sexual violence,

6 and private session for the testimony likely to reveal the identity of the

7 witnesses.

8 There is a long line of authority at the Tribunal that witnesses

9 testifying about sexual abuse committed against them shall have their

10 identity protected if they so request. Even if there were no related

11 safety risk, considerations of privacy call for that result. Therefore,

12 the Prosecution motion is, in the provisional opinion of the Chamber, very

13 likely to succeed for its request for private session in relation to that

14 subject.

15 The next question is whether the motion should also succeed for

16 protective measures requested in relation to testimony by these witnesses

17 on topics other than sexual violence. I would note that a person who is

18 inclined to intimidate or to harm a witness for divulging evidence of rape

19 may deduce from a sudden recession into private session that that is for

20 the purpose of dealing with the evidence of rape; therefore, to avoid that

21 risk, the witness testifying on rape should be accorded as well as private

22 session, both a pseudonym and image and voice distortion. But even

23 leaving aside that consideration, the parties will have gathered from

24 recent decisions of this Chamber that basic protective measures, namely

25 pseudonym, and where the witness is easily identifiable from the context,

1 also image and voice distortion will be granted in cases where there is a

2 threat to the witness's security as well as in cases where a combination

3 of factors not involving explicit threats gives rise to a risk of harm to

4 the witness.

5 As I noted in the decision delivered yesterday, one combination of

6 factors favouring a grant of basic protective measures is the following:

7 First, the expected testimony of the witness may antagonise persons who

8 continue to reside in the territory in which the crimes were committed,

9 for example, by implicating those persons in crimes.

10 Second, the prospective witness or his or her family live in that

11 territory, have property in that territory, or have concrete plans to

12 return to live in the territory.

13 And third, the general security situation is unstable and is

14 particularly unfavourable to witnesses and the families of witnesses who

15 appear before the Tribunal.

16 The Prosecution's motion provides evidence in support of those

17 factors for each of the three witnesses under consideration.

18 I therefore would invite the Defence to consider whether it

19 wouldn't make sense and save time for everyone concerned, and with no

20 negative effects on the fairness of the proceedings, if the Defence would

21 simply agree to the Prosecution's request for protective measures in this

22 particular instance, and if the Defence would be so kind as to respond to

23 this invitation by the end of tomorrow, it would be highly appreciated.

24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I can indicate that certainly the

25 question of rape victims is one on which we concur, but ultimately, of

1 course, it's a matter that I need to discuss with lead counsel in relation

2 to the further matters indicated by Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, therefore I didn't ask for an

4 immediate response. I appreciate that you would -- well, of course, the

5 first question is only whether you would consider, but I do understand

6 that you expect it to be --

7 MS. LOUKAS: We're always happy to consider, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, yes.

9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, in relation to this matter, I should

10 indicate that in further conversations with Witness 270 we've had an

11 indication that there will be a request for closed session in regard to

12 her testimony. I believe Mr. Gaynor filed a supplemental request in that

13 regard yesterday and I would advise the Court and counsel that that will

14 be coming to your attention shortly.

15 That witness is not scheduled to testify, I think, until the 27th

16 of April.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's good that you inform us. Of course, I

18 have not -- the Chamber has not seen this supplemental application and

19 neither, I take it, has the Defence.

20 We are going to have a break now, have a break for half an hour.

21 We'll resume at 10.30 and then I hope that all the technical facilities

22 are in place for the protective measures for the next witness.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.02 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 10.37 a.m.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, before I'll ask you whether you are

1 ready to call your next witness, I was informed that quite a number of

2 telephone intercepts are prepared to be played. I was also informed that

3 for at least quite a number of them, it's mainly for voice recognition.

4 MS. EDGERTON: Quite so.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first try to establish whether these --

6 the recognition of the voices, to what extent that's necessary. Is there

7 any dispute between Prosecution and Defence as to the identity of the

8 interlocutors.

9 Ms. Loukas, I'm also looking at you.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, I have not as yet had an

11 opportunity to go through all the intercepts so at this point, I can't

12 answer that question.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Of course sometimes it might not be expected that

14 there would be any dispute if interlocutors are addressing each other with

15 clear names, et cetera, and course some people have the same names that

16 I'm aware of, but sometimes even in the contexts, one could form its own

17 opinion on how likely it is that it would be anything else.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I must say, Your Honour, had we had a larger

19 Defence team and had I not been dealing with a whole series of matter in

20 court and out of court, then I think that these are the sort of matters

21 that could be settled between the Prosecution and the Defence quite easily

22 and actually shorten the time in court. But as Your Honour is well aware,

23 the Defence team is very small, we spend most of our time playing David

24 and Goliath.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas, it's a theme that comes back now and

1 then.

2 Ms. Edgerton, would we need those intercepts where you are seeking

3 voice recognition, could they be put apart and perhaps leave to the very

4 end of the examination-in-chief so that at least as there's a further

5 opportunity to see whether any agreement can be reached. That's one.

6 And the second is how much time would you need, I mean if -- just

7 for voice recognition, only a small part of the intercept would do to

8 recognise the voices, perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

9 MS. EDGERTON: In order to recognise the voices, I think in most

10 cases not a great part of the intercept is required, but it's the

11 Prosecution's position that in the great number of these intercepts, the

12 content is of such significance that they would, according to the past

13 practice, have to be played in court.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the witness -- of course if the witness

15 can comment on the content, fine; if he has some personal knowledge of the

16 events discussed between the interlocutors, fine. That could be a reason

17 to play it and ask a question about the content. However, if the witness

18 has no personal knowledge of anything that is discussed and is only there

19 for recognition of the voice -- first of all, of course, we should ask

20 ourselves whether there's another way of identifying those persons.

21 Second, then there is no need to play it all. I mean, even if you think

22 it's important, there might be other ways of presenting important material

23 such that we do not spend unnecessary time to it in court.

24 MS. EDGERTON: What I could offer Your Honours with respect to

25 the -- there are four conversations at the end of the list of potential

1 exhibits dating the 18th and 19th of April, 1992. Those are conversations

2 about which the witness has little or no personal knowledge and they would

3 be put in solely for the voice identification and perhaps those four are

4 the ones we could, over the course of time, and before the witness's

5 testimony is concluded, engage in some discussion over. That might be a

6 time saving.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how many intercepts do you have in mind as

8 a whole?

9 MS. EDGERTON: As a whole --

10 JUDGE ORIE: I mean all of them, the total number would be.

11 MS. EDGERTON: The total number is 14, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: So that means that there are 10 where the witness can

13 say something about the contents of his personal knowledge? 14 minus 4

14 makes 10.

15 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, give me just a moment if I may, Your Honour,

16 I'll just have a look and see if I can jog my recollection as to any

17 others.

18 Your indulgence for a moment, Your Honour, while I speak with

19 Mr. Hannis.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MS. EDGERTON: Additionally, additionally, Your Honour, there --

22 there are three dated the 7th of March and the 3rd and 4th of April, and

23 indeed the 6th of April, 1992, which I think would be a case of voice ID

24 only. So that would make --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Seven. We are at 50 per cent, Ms. Edgerton.

1 MS. EDGERTON: I was an English major not a mathematics major.

2 Thank you, Your Honour.

3 So our position, Your Honour, is we'd want the intercepts

4 available to the Trial Chamber to consider their content as well, but if

5 the witness doesn't have to comment on them, that group that I've just

6 identified, they don't need to be played in his presence.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 So the Defence is invited to see whether there would be any

9 specific reason to challenge the identity of the interlocutors in the

10 seven mentioned intercepts.

11 Well, Ms. Edgerton, it may be clear to you that content is

12 important but there are other ways of presenting that. If you say that

13 it's important for the public to know what these intercepts are about, I

14 mean the Chamber is still waiting for the first dossiers to be filed and

15 we accepted that documents or -- I would say objects that would be

16 together with documents in a dossier can be tendered into evidence already

17 when a witness who is testifying on approximately the same issue is in

18 court. So therefore, it would be possible to tender such intercepts if

19 there is no discussion about the identity of the interlocutors in such a

20 way that you briefly explain what is in it and you present it and we

21 decide whether or not to admit that into evidence. Then it's clear for

22 the public what we have and at the same time, we do not waste time in

23 court.

24 Ms. Loukas, you are on your feet.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, I was on my feet because I thought

1 that Your Honour was addressing me at one point. I can just indicate that

2 that seems a sensible approach to adopt. And as I indicated previously,

3 if there was a larger Defence team, I'm sure we could come to a lot more

4 agreement with the Prosecution and shorten the time in court.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 Then Ms. Edgerton, this witness is scheduled in chief for three

7 hours.

8 MS. EDGERTON: I can't recall at this moment if we estimated three

9 or four, Your Honour, but it's certainly lo no less than three.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm asking because very often on my schedules I

11 find three and then in court I find four, which is now and then a bit of a

12 surprise. But I think my suggestion has saved you already certainly more

13 than half an hour in playing intercepts. So therefore, let's get started.

14 Protective measures in place are voice distortion, face distortion, and

15 private session for -- pseudonym and private session for those parts

16 identifying the witness; is that correct?

17 MS. EDGERTON: That's correct, Your Honour, and just with respect

18 to the scheduling, provision has been made and the witness has agreed to

19 remain here until Monday to conclude if his testimony isn't concluded

20 today.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'd rather conclude the testimony of this

22 witness this week; good for the witness and good for proceedings as well.

23 Madam Usher, could you --

24 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I understand from an e-mail I received

25 from the Prosecution that there's another witness going to be here

1 tomorrow.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: And they propose to interpolate that witness into the

4 witness schedule between the evidence in chief and the cross-examination.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, tomorrow morning, there will be another witness

6 which -- I think there is a limit period of time still available for cross

7 examination. I'll carefully look at the list of Madam Registrar, how much

8 time was taken in chief, how much time is still available for cross, but

9 nevertheless, I think if we do it efficiently, there should be an

10 opportunity -- should be a possibility to finish with this witness during

11 this week.

12 Let's proceed and, Madam Usher, may I ask you to escort the

13 witness into the courtroom.

14 I would like to draw the attention of the parties again to the

15 need to switch off your microphones when the witness answers the questions

16 because otherwise, the voice distortion makes no sense at all.

17 Since we are waiting for the witness, I see that number one on the

18 list is a detailed coloured map of -- why not already look at it, unless

19 there is any specific information but I take it it's just for the

20 information the Judges, why not already start to distribute it and to --

21 yes, of course, if Madam Usher is -- has left the courtroom then

22 Madam Registrar, could you ...

23 Madam Registrar, that would be number ...

24 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Prosecution Exhibit P592.

25 JUDGE ORIE: 592.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I should say Witness 073 because we'll not use your

5 own name in these proceedings, we'll call you Witness 73. Your face

6 cannot be seen by the outside world; your voice will be distorted so that

7 it cannot be recognised by the outside world; and those parts of your

8 testimony that could reveal your identity will be in private session so

9 that the content is not known to the outside world either.

10 Witness 73, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of

11 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration. I'd like

12 to invite you to make that solemn declaration.

13 WITNESS: WITNESS 73

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly swear that I will speak

16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Witness 73.

18 You will first be examined by Ms. Edgerton, counsel for the

19 Prosecution.

20 Ms. Edgerton, please proceed.

21 MS. EDGERTON: We're just preparing a pseudonym sheet.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And the pseudonym sheet will have P593, I take it.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, and that will be under seal.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

25 Examined by Ms. Edgerton:

1 Q. Witness 73, you have a piece of paper in front of you. Can you

2 have a look at that piece of paper and tell us whether the name and date

3 of birth written there that you see there are correct?

4 A. Yes, they are correct.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MS. EDGERTON: And I think at this moment, Your Honours, as we

7 move into some personal details about Witness 73, it would be appropriate

8 to go into closed session.

9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session which.

10 MS. EDGERTON: Sorry.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Which is the same in this courtroom, if the public

12 gallery is empty.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 JUDGE ORIE: We are, please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

24 MS. EDGERTON:

25 Q. Now, Witness, I'd like you to give us some information about

1 Vogosca municipality itself and some events in the municipality in the

2 period leading up to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. First, could you

3 tell us, in the period leading up to the multi-party elections in November

4 1990, do you know how many municipalities made up the Assembly of

5 Sarajevo?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. How many was that?

8 A. Ten municipalities were represented in the Assembly of the town of

9 Sarajevo.

10 Q. Vogosca was one of those ten municipalities?

11 A. Yes, it was.

12 Q. Subsequent to the multi-party elections, did the -- did that --

13 the composition of the Assembly of Sarajevo change in any respect?

14 A. Yes, it did change.

15 Q. How?

16 A. Out of -- the Pale municipality left the Sarajevo Assembly so that

17 only nine municipalities remained there.

18 Q. How did you become aware of this?

19 A. It was reported in the media, the whole process took one month,

20 the Pale Municipal Assembly passed a decision to that effect and it was

21 much talked about.

22 Q. Now, Witness 73, I'd like you to look at a map which -- I wonder

23 if it could be given to the witness and placed on the ELMO.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That's P592.

25 MS. EDGERTON:

1 Q. Prior to coming to testify here this morning, you've had an

2 opportunity to look at that map; isn't that correct?

3 A. Yes, that's correct.

4 Q. Now, referring to that map, can you show us what direction Vogosca

5 municipality lies from metropolitan Sarajevo?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, first, whether the witness looked at

7 this map before is of no relevance for a (redacted) who has to look at

8 a map and give information. Second, this map, most parts of it is

9 already -- well, parts are in evidence and just a first glance at a map of

10 people who -- I would say not below a certain level of intelligence could

11 answer that question.

12 Let's try to come to the core.

13 MS. EDGERTON:

14 Q. Witness 73, can you tell us, do any significant road links go

15 through Vogosca municipality?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you explain what they are?

18 A. Yes, gladly. There's the Sarajevo-Zenica road that passes through

19 the Vogosca interchange and on to Zenica. The Vogosca interchange is a

20 very important one because that's where the road forks off to Tuzla and

21 Zenica. Vogosca is placed at the northern exit from the town of Sarajevo

22 and it is through Vogosca that one of the roads on the way to Sarajevo

23 passes; that is, through the Vogosca interchange.

24 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us, were there any JNA installations in

25 Vogosca municipality?

1 A. Yes, there were.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton. Witness, you are wearing a ring. I

4 don't know. My ring is the same as 500.000 people at least in the

5 Netherlands. Yes, please proceed.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can just indicate that Mr. Krajisnik

7 was not getting translation. I was just informed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 Mr. Krajisnik, if that would -- you have received no translation

10 at all until now or where did it start?

11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I don't have my interpreter in

12 court, he's translating --

13 JUDGE ORIE: I put a question to Mr. Krajisnik on where it

14 started. If he doesn't receive the translation of that, then of course we

15 have a problem.

16 Yes, Mr. Krajisnik, please say what you'd like to say.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do receive interpretation but the

18 witness speaks very softly and I cannot hear him because I do not get his

19 voice through my headphones.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll pay specific attention to that so that --

21 could the technicians take care that the originally-spoken B/C/S words are

22 transmitted in such a way that Mr. Krajisnik can hear it.

23 Yes, let's proceed. If there is any further problem,

24 Mr. Krajisnik, please tell us.

25 MS. EDGERTON:

1 Q. Witness 73, I asked you, were there any JNA installations in

2 Vogosca municipality?

3 A. Yes, there were.

4 Q. What were they?

5 A. There was the JNA barracks at Semizovac and the special purpose

6 industry called Pretis at the Vogosca industrial complex over here.

7 Q. Just dealing with what you mentioned as the JNA barracks at

8 Semizovac, can you tell us what -- are you aware of what JNA assets might

9 have been located there?

10 A. I can't hear. I haven't heard the interpretation.

11 Q. I'll try again. Are you aware as to what was located at the JNA

12 barracks in Semizovac?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What was that?

15 A. The weapons belonging to the Vogosca Territorial Defence were

16 stored there.

17 Q. Were there any troops stationed there to your knowledge?

18 A. Yes, there were. One company.

19 Q. Do you have any idea approximately how many people one company

20 might represent?

21 A. About 150 men.

22 Q. Do you recall who the commander was of the barracks at that time?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. And what was that?

25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they cannot hear the

1 witness unless the microphones are switched off. Could the witness please

2 repeat his answer.

3 MS. EDGERTON:

4 (redacted)

5 A. It was Cedo Crnogorac, captain in the Yugoslav Peoples' Army.

6 Q. Were there any villages or settlements located in the immediate

7 area of the barracks?

8 A. Yes. The barracks were surrounded by an inhabited area.

9 Q. Are you aware of the ethnic composition of the communities in that

10 area?

11 A. Yes. The population was mixed. There were Muslims, now they are

12 called Bosniaks, and there were Serbs. The population in the majority

13 across from the barracks and in the immediate surrounding of the barracks

14 in Srakovac [phoen] was Muslim.

15 Q. Now, Witness 73, you've mentioned Pretis was that a major industry

16 or employer in Vogosca?

17 A. Yes. This is one of the largest factories manufacturing arms in

18 the whole of Yugoslavia but there were other companies in metal industry.

19 Q. Do you have any idea how large the labour force was -- that was

20 that was employed at Pretis and this other company?

21 A. Some 15.000 people worked within the entire industrial complex.

22 Q. Now, if I can just ask you about the population of Vogosca

23 municipality. Do you recall the approximate proportions of its ethnic

24 composition?

25 A. Yes, I do.

1 Q. Could you tell us what that was?

2 A. Yes, I can. There was 51 per cent Muslims, 35 per cent Serbs, and

3 4 to 5 per cent were Croats, and then there were the rest.

4 Q. Do you also recall the results at the Vogosca municipality level

5 from the multi-party elections in 1990?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. What were those?

8 A. In the Municipal Assembly or rather the municipal parliament had

9 51 seats. The SDA won 18, the SDS 15, and the other parties 18 seats.

10 Q. Now, like other municipalities in pre-war Bosnia and Herzegovina,

11 were the municipal administrative positions in Vogosca divided according

12 to the municipal election results?

13 A. Yes, they were.

14 Q. Do you know who received the two highest posts in the municipality

15 administration?

16 A. Yes, I do. The SDA won the position of the president of the

17 Municipal Assembly and the SDS won the post of the president of the

18 Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly.

19 Q. So did they have candidates who they put to those posts, then, and

20 what were their names?

21 A. Yes. The SDA nominated for the post of the president of the

22 municipal Assembly, Mr. Bilal Hasanovic [phoen], and the SDS nominated for

23 the post of the president of the executive board Mr. Rajko Koprivica.

24 Q. Now, to your knowledge, did Mr. Koprivica have a high-ranking

25 position within the municipal SDS?

1 A. Yes, he did. He was the president of the municipal SDS.

2 MS. EDGERTON: I think it's appropriate for us to move into

3 private session again at this time, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 12097-12130 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session, please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

9 MS. EDGERTON: The transcript bears the number 0328-8714 to

10 0328-8718.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And would have as exhibit number, Madam Registrar.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P596 and P596.A for the

13 transcript both under seal.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I think -- aren't we going to play them in open

15 session? Not play, but hear the testimony about it in open session.

16 Should it be under seal?

17 MS. EDGERTON: I don't think it's necessary, Your Honour, to --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, not under seal. Please

19 proceed.

20 MS. EDGERTON:

21 Q. Witness, you've had an opportunity to review this transcript in

22 some detail prior to testifying here today and listen to the corresponding

23 conversation; isn't that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did you recognise any of the interlocutors in this

1 conversation, the voices of any of the interlocutors?

2 A. Yes. Jovan Tintor and Mico Stanisic.

3 Q. And on the second page of this conversation, MS and JT make

4 reference to a man by the surname Andjelic.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Having read the conversation and keeping in mind what you've told

7 us before, do you have an opinion as to who they might be referring to

8 when they refer to the man with the surname Andjelic?

9 A. Radoslav Andjelic, head of the administrative and legal affairs.

10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And I think it would be appropriate to

11 move back into private session, please.

12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 12133-12137 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 MS. EDGERTON:

7 Q. Witness 73, having had an opportunity to review this transcript,

8 can you tell me whether you recall listening to the conversation that it

9 records?

10 A. Yes, I've listened to it.

11 Q. And did you recognise one of the interlocutors to this

12 conversation?

13 A. I recognized both of them, Jovan Tintor and Ratko Adzic.

14 MS. EDGERTON: I think we could move back into private session,

15 please.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session again.

17 [Private session]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 12139-12143 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 THE REGISTRAR: May I ask if there is going to be an audio

1 tendered?

2 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Then the audio will be P599 and the transcript

4 P599A.

5 MS. EDGERTON: The transcript bears the number 0328-8675 to 8679.

6 And that's the B/C/S version. The English has the prefix letters ET, and

7 the date of the conversation is 8th of January, 1991.

8 Q. Witness, you had an opportunity to --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mine is 1992, Ms. Edgerton.

10 MS. EDGERTON: My apologies.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

12 MS. EDGERTON:

13 Q. Witness, you've had an opportunity to review this transcript and

14 listen to the conversation to which it relates; is that correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And you were able to recognise or were you able to recognise

17 either of the interlocutors to this conversation?

18 A. Both. Both speakers, Jovan Tintor and Rajko Koprivica. I did

19 recognise them.

20 MS. EDGERTON: And now if we could move into private session for

21 one question for the witness.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We turn it to private session.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 12146 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 [The witness stands down]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, I do understand that you'd like to

13 discuss scheduling. Do you have any proposal? Because tomorrow, we

14 expect the witness back who left us last Friday.

15 Ms. Loukas.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you think that cross-examination could be

18 finished by tomorrow?

19 MS. LOUKAS: Cross-examination of which witness?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Of the witness who will appear tomorrow who returns.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can indicate that I have

22 received no firm estimate of time from Mr. Stewart, of course Mr. Stewart

23 will be dealing with the cross-examination of that witness, that's the

24 witness that he commenced the cross-examination of, and I understand that

25 Mr. Stewart has another conference with Mr. Krajisnik this evening. So I

1 don't think there's any final estimate in relation to how long

2 Mr. Stewart's cross-examination, the remainder of his cross-examination of

3 the witness will take, unfortunately, at this point.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we would follow the guidance of the 60 per

5 cent, then there would be -- there would remain approximately a little bit

6 over four hours, four and a half hours which would, under normal

7 circumstances, fit within the day.

8 So therefore, for scheduling reasons, I ask Madam Registrar where

9 the usual effective time is four hours, whether there could be found any

10 solution for tomorrow to have a little bit over four hours unless you say,

11 well, we can improve efficiency in such a way that we would gain half an

12 hour on four hours. You gave a splendid example today, Ms. Loukas. I'm

13 just looking to Madam Registrar because it was not easy from what I

14 understand.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour can I just indicate, I'm sending out

17 Ms. Day to make a phone call of Mr. Stewart so that we can perhaps be of

18 more assistance in relation to the Court on the question of scheduling.

19 Unfortunately, we don't have a phone on our bar table on this side of the

20 room like the Prosecution.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The Judges neither have.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I'm just wondering what the splendid

23 example was, I must say.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You indicated that you would need until the first

25 break, then I told you that you would get 1 hour and 30 minutes and

1 finally you finished in approximately 35 to 40 minutes.

2 MS. LOUKAS: That was a splendid example. Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we wait for a second ...

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn for one minute so that not only the

6 Defence can make phone calls so that the Chamber can make phone calls for

7 rescheduling, it's about court rooms, it's about other cases. So I'll try

8 to make a phone call. We'll adjourn for a very short period of time.

9 --- Break taken at 1.45 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 1.53 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, any news to report from your phone calls?

12 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed I do have news, Your Honour. Mr. Stewart

13 seems to be of the opinion that he could be as low as [French on the

14 English].

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes we now receive the French translation on channel

16 4. I apologise, but sometimes I'm not aware what I'm listening to. Let

17 me just see -- yes, I think now French is again on 5.

18 [No interpretation] ...

19 THE INTERPRETER: Testing on channel 4, is that okay.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I now hear channel 4 in English.

21 So Ms. Loukas, you said two hours.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I might just repeat what I said.

23 First of all, might I just indicate very impressive French on

24 Your Honour's part. Yes, Mr. Mr. Stewart conveyed a message to Ms. Day

25 that the cross-examination in terms of time estimates could be as low as

1 two hours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then the result of the phone calls if I made, if

3 there would be any need to have a little bit more than four hours which

4 would be under the 60 per cent rule, then we would find a solution by

5 moving to courtroom I, but given this information now, that two hours

6 would do, is there any idea on how much time re-examination would take?

7 No, but I take it this that could be easily done within half an hour or

8 something like that.

9 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Tieger's indication to me this morning was that

10 he expected to be quite quick in re-examination. There were only a few

11 issues.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, these are vague terms which for scheduling

13 purposes are not very suitable. While the Judges have used already two

14 hours and nine minutes on that witness, but let me first consult with the

15 registrar.

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we don't want to make any mistake. Under

18 on the basis of what Mr. Stewart said, do you -- would you agree with

19 staying in this courtroom, that means that two and a half hours would be

20 the maximum or, well let's say, two hours and 45 minutes. We have four

21 hours during the whole day, we might have some additional questions. If

22 not, then we'll move to courtroom I, and then we would have altogether

23 four and a half to five hours available. That, of course, asks a lot; I

24 lay it more or less in your hands. If you say it's too risky to do it, to

25 bind Mr. Stewart to two and a half to two and three-quarters of an hour,

1 then we'll move to courtroom I. If you say well that's acceptable and

2 within the limits, then we'll just stay where we are.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm always averse to binding

4 Mr. Stewart.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MS. LOUKAS: But it seems quite clear the message conveyed was

7 about two hours so I'm in Your Honour's hands in terms of risks.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand but it might be difficult if we

9 don't move now it might not be possible at a later stage anymore and of

10 course it asks a lot from others because they have to move from court

11 rooms an initial appearance.

12 MS. LOUKAS: It seems to me if we are looking at about two hours

13 and the Prosecution re-examination is going to be very short in terms of

14 Mr. Trbojevic, then I imagine Your Honour's questions, because you've

15 asked a lot of questions throughout his evidence, would be quite

16 curtailed. It really should be enough for that witness.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, could you, in case there would be a need

18 to do so, commit yourself to not more than 30 minutes.

19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe, based on past conversations

20 with Mr. Tieger, that that will be adequate. I think we should be able to

21 finish, based on that estimate of the time for cross-examination, I think

22 we will be able to finish.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then an absolute maximum would be if needed, --

24 is there be close to three hours, we have four hours available, four

25 effective hours. If that is acceptable they'll stay where we are.

1 MS. LOUKAS: In this courtroom for tomorrow for Mr. Trbojevic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry in this courtroom -- I think it's come down on

4 the transcript in any event.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Because my microphone wasn't on. Just one matter

7 before we go, if I may, and I note that it's we're taking a lot of time

8 from the interpreters but there is one matter I wanted to place on the

9 record because Your Honours could consider it overnight, and that is on

10 the transcript today from pages 71 to 74 a topic was dealt with in terms

11 of a ten-year span of permits. Now, Your Honour, I let it go to see if it

12 would become in any way relevant but it seems to me that that entire span

13 between 71 and 74 on this topic should be struck from the record because

14 it is no in way relevant to the issues before the Trial Chamber. If we're

15 talking about a time span during which the Communists were in power, the

16 SDS did wasn't formed until 1990, it strikes me, Your Honour, as evidence

17 that is simply not probative.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 Ms. Edgerton, I take it that you will give this a thought.

20 Then the next scheduling, we would continue with this witness on

21 next Monday?

22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, that's fine.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00,

24 irrespective of any traffic jams, any wrong clocks, we start tomorrow

25 morning at 9.00 in the same courtroom.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 15th day of April,

3 2005, at 9.00 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25