Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20729

1 Tuesday, 31 January 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

9 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11 Mr. Margetts, are you ready to continue?

12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Savkic, I would like to remind you -- well,

14 you're getting used to it already, that you're still bound by the solemn

15 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

16 Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.


19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Margetts: [Continued]

21 Q. Mr. Savkic, on the evening of the 16th of May, 1992, did you

22 discuss with Rade Bjelanovic the cleansing operations that had been

23 conducted by the police subordinated to him during the course of that day?

24 A. Gentlemen, this is a very serious insinuation, and in order to be

25 consistent with everything that I have said so far, the answer absolutely

Page 20730

1 is no.

2 Q. Mr. Savkic, you referred to my question as "a very serious

3 insinuation." Why did you refer to my question in that manner?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, let's be just -- if I ask someone

5 whether he killed another person, that could be understood. There's no

6 need for an explanation of this witness that this is a serious

7 insinuation. The question, as such, leaves it entirely open that

8 Mr. Savkic would have had knowledge and would have discussed these kind of

9 matters. So please put your next question to the witness.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Then, Your Honour, I'd like to produce the next

11 exhibit.


13 MR. MARGETTS: In fact, it's two exhibits, and if they could be

14 distributed. They're not in the tabs. And they're both dated 16 May

15 1992, and they are both reports submitted to the commander of the police

16 station Milici, and they're both authored by Milan Bacic. The

17 distinguishing feature is --

18 MR. JOSSE: Can you just wait, please, until we've got a copy.

19 MR. MARGETTS: I'm informed that you do have a copy.

20 MR. JOSSE: I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was the documents

21 handed out yesterday. Apologies.

22 MR. MARGETTS: The distinguishing feature, for the purpose of the

23 registrar, is the introductory paragraph. One of these duty reports

24 refers to the author having taken over duty at 0700 hours, and the other

25 one refers to having taken over duty at 15, being a reference to 1500

Page 20731

1 hours. So if the one where the duty was taken over at 0700 hours could be

2 marked with the first number.

3 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P1069, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see whether I -- yes, my confusion is

5 that I've got two copies, both 1500 hours and -- yes, I'd like to --

6 MR. MARGETTS: And, Your Honour, you may see that the report for

7 the one that refers to 0700 hours commences with the item "patrols,"

8 whereas the report for 1500 hours commences with the item "parties."

9 Yes, Your Honour, and also my case manager has helpfully pointed

10 out that the 0700 hours document is marked with the B/C/S -- the stamp on

11 the B/C/S 01782489, and the original for the 1500 hours is marked with the

12 stamp 01782488.

13 Your Honour, may I --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, documents so similar need a moment of

15 attention so that -- yes, please proceed.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Mr. Savkic, you'll see in the documents before you that this is a

18 report submitted by a subordinate officer to Rade Bjelanovic, and it

19 states on both of them that -- in the section referred to as "patrols,"

20 that "ciscenje terena" - in the B/C/S - was conducted by the police on the

21 16th of May, 1992. And during the course of your evidence in chief you

22 pointed out on numerous occasions your close affiliation with

23 Mr. Bjelanovic. And one -- in response to one answer -- one question, you

24 said that Mr. Bjelanovic came every evening, or in most cases, and you

25 exchanged information. It is the case, isn't it, Mr. Savkic, that on the

Page 20732

1 evening of the 16th of May, 1992, you discussed with Mr. Bjelanovic, these

2 "ciscenje terena" operations.

3 A. Gentlemen, the question -- the person who submitted the report is

4 a person whom I don't know. On the 16th of May, 1992 - this is already a

5 historical fact and time - fierce battles were being waged on the road

6 from Derventa towards the mine in an attempt to return hijacked or

7 kidnapped passengers from hijacked buses and trucks.

8 Q. Mr. Savkic, I must stop you there. We're not talking about those

9 incidents; we're talking about the "ciscenje" operations conducted by the

10 police. And as your evidence in chief demonstrates, the hijacking of the

11 buses took place on the 21st of May. This is a very specific day. If

12 you'd like, I can give you a very specific time that I'm interested in the

13 "ciscenje" operations. The fact, you discussed with Mr. Bjelanovic the

14 "ciscenje" operations, that took place in Zaklopaca between 1400 --

15 between 1600 and 1800 on the 16th of May, 1992, didn't you?

16 A. Gentlemen, this is a construction by the Prosecutor on the 21st.

17 I can prove it's just a construction. It's all absolutely incorrect. On

18 the 21st - we can check in our transcript. You will see that this is an

19 ambush. This has nothing to do with this date. You can conclude, based

20 on documents, that we're talking about widespread fighting from Derventa

21 towards Milici, and that it's about an attack on two Serb villages,

22 Vasiljevic [phoen] and Ervici [phoen], during which fighting there was a

23 total of five killed. This is stated in certain documents. You can find

24 it also in Ivanica's book, but it's a generally known fact and there

25 exists -- I mean, when you're talking about cleansing the terrain, we're

Page 20733

1 speaking about these villages that were attacked and it was an attempt to

2 re-take that territory. And when we're talking about that area towards

3 the mine, these two documents, if they are legal, actually indicate that

4 the police at that point in time -- and now that we're mentioning Mr.

5 Zaklopaca, then according to all this information, and investigations are

6 still underway, in the evening hours, then this is an absolute

7 confirmation that the public security station police officers were out in

8 the field where I said they were. And this is a historical fact.

9 Everything can be proved --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, the simple question was whether you

11 discussed this --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's an answer to the question.

14 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


16 Q. Mr. Savkic, you purported to be providing an accurate history of

17 events in Vlasenica to the Trial Chamber during the course of your

18 examination-in-chief; however, you didn't mention in your evidence in

19 chief that on Saturday, the 16th of May, 1992, over 60 Muslim men were

20 killed in Zaklopaca. That's the truth, isn't it?

21 MR. JOSSE: Because he wasn't asked. I didn't object to that in

22 relation to certain aspects yesterday --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Margetts, would you please point at the

24 relevant questions where you would have expected the witness -- where you

25 would have expected the witness to give a complete answer, including the

Page 20734

1 facts you have just mentioned.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that wouldn't -- that's a task I

3 haven't undertaken. I thought that it would be a matter understood by the

4 Trial Chamber --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can't --

6 MR. MARGETTS: -- in light of Your Honour's --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can't expect the witness to give a complete

8 -- I mean, events, a couple of weeks' area, where a lot of things

9 happened during the day, you should at least be in a position to point at

10 a question where this would have -- should have been part of a complete

11 answer to the question.

12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I accept that.


14 MR. MARGETTS: And I withdraw those comments, but I'll simply say

15 this:

16 Q. On Saturday, the 16th of May, 1992, over 60 Muslim men were killed

17 in Zaklopaca. Correct?

18 A. I do have relevant information. While reading the reports of

19 survivors, and the numbers range from 60 upwards, the investigation was

20 carried out by the IPTF. There was also an investigation by the competent

21 prosecutor's office. At the moment, the cantonal prosecutor's office of

22 Tuzla is conducting an investigation. I don't know what the information

23 is that they have.

24 Q. You referred to the investigation by the IPTF. In recent years,

25 Mr. Milomir Milosevic was suspended from service at the Milici police

Page 20735

1 station due to the fact that the IPTF concluded he had a role in this

2 massacre in Zaklopaca. Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You also referred to the investigations of the cantonal

5 prosecutor's office in Tuzla. You are a suspect in those investigations,

6 aren't you?

7 A. Nobody ever told me that I was a suspect.

8 Q. You also referred to the reports of survivors. At least two of

9 them identify you as present, one of them identifying you as present as

10 part of the militia that conducted the killings. That's correct, isn't

11 it?

12 A. That was never correct. There is a student of mine, Fikret

13 Dugalic, many other students as well, just like all the citizens who came

14 to Zaklopaca, with whom I talked. There wasn't a trace of any kind of

15 strain in the relationship at any point. Nobody ever said anything like

16 that to me. The person whose brothers, one or two brothers, were killed

17 in this crime would not speak to somebody in such a friendly way, the way

18 that person spoke. I state responsibly before this Tribunal that I found

19 out about this two or three days later, and I can now in this time, in

20 this moment, if I was connected -- if I were to be connected to a thousand

21 polygraphs, I can guarantee that not a single one would --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, whether these two people speak the truth

23 or not is not part of the question. The question is just whether at least

24 two persons identify you as being present. Right or wrong? That's the

25 question: Are you aware of two people --

Page 20736

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm hearing about this for the first

2 time. I'm hearing it for the first time from this gentleman now.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore you say: I spoke about the

4 reports of survivors. I'm not aware of two people identifying you as

5 being present. You hear for the first time about such statements.

6 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour.


8 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure the Chamber will forgive the witness going

9 into it in a little bit of detail. He's just been accused of mass murder.

10 It's not altogether surprising --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, his explanation is if he starts telling us

12 there wasn't a trace of any of the persons, whose brother, et cetera, the

13 Chamber has got no idea what he's talking about, so let's just stick to

14 the questions. And of course, if you think it would be fair that these

15 matters be further clarified, you have an ample opportunity, on the basis

16 I interrupted the witness also, because he speaks about a lot of things

17 the Chamber isn't aware of. Whether this is in the report of the

18 survivors, whether these two people were the people who identified him as

19 being present, or whether he thinks that these people might have

20 identified him, the Chamber is not aware of it. So it doesn't add to it,

21 but it's certainly -- if you have good grounds for further clarifying, or

22 if you think it's important, of course you have an opportunity to do so.

23 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


Page 20737

1 Q. I would like to change the topic, Mr. Savkic, and move to your --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Now you have confronted the witness about two people

3 identifying him as being present, which of course has some suggestive

4 power. Is there any follow-up you're going to present to the Chamber in

5 this respect?

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the reason that that reference was

7 made in the questions was in response to the witness's answer, to clarify

8 -- he said he'd read statements of survivors.


10 MR. MARGETTS: We don't intend at this stage to proceed any

11 further in relation to that issue.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course this is a -- more or less an

13 allegation, to the extent that you said: There are good reasons to

14 believe that you -- that you were present.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --

16 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, if such kind of allegation is made,

17 and I'm now thinking about what I would call the Davidovic --

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, can I please respond?


20 MR. MARGETTS: He said that he'd read the statements of survivors,

21 and I then asked him whether he'd read those statements that referred to

22 him.


24 MR. MARGETTS: We did not make an allegation that there were good

25 reasons to believe he was there. What we said was --

Page 20738

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you think that these survivors who say this had no

2 good reasons, then we are slowly coming in the area, in the realm of what

3 I would call the Davidovic issue. It's not exactly the same, but we are

4 coming close to it, and therefore I think a warning is -- is justified.

5 And at the same time, you leave the Chamber with question marks rather

6 than with information. If you say, "Well, these two persons identifying

7 Mr. Savkic as being there are not reliable witnesses of the event," then

8 of course still the suggestion is there, and it's put to the witness and

9 he says, "I do not know about it," then of course the Chamber would like

10 to know what the good grounds -- what good grounds exist to put that to

11 the witness as people identifying him as being present.

12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I can assure the Trial Chamber that we

13 have good grounds for asking this witness as to whether he's read

14 statements of the survivors that refer to him --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have the report?

16 MR. MARGETTS: -- and we have both of those statements with us.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you discuss the matter during the next break

18 with the Defence to see whether by presenting -- even if these were only

19 small portions, that at least you have good grounds to put this to the

20 witness.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's only time that prevents me from

23 putting the full allegations to the witness. If I was allowed more time,

24 I'd be more than happy to do it in open court.


Page 20739

1 MR. MARGETTS: It is the Prosecution's position, having read the

2 statements, that both of them appear to be highly reliable. But --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's say the following: This is a -- if there

4 is a report -- if the witness says: I've read the report, then there

5 should be a possibility, at least, to speak with Mr. Josse and to see

6 whether you could agree on -- the mere fact -- no, Mr. Savkic, I'm talking

7 to the parties at this moment. The mere fact that two people identify him

8 is in those reports, just for the purposes I just mentioned, that Mr.

9 Margetts had at least reason to put this to the witness who said that he

10 had read the survivor reports, I take it that would be possible, wouldn't

11 it, without going through the whole of the report.

12 MR. JOSSE: Well, I'd like to think about that.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.

14 Mr. Margetts.

15 MR. MARGETTS: And of course, it is -- Your Honour, I -- this

16 arose in the context of the witness referring to the cantonal

17 investigation and raising it himself, and me -- and I only made a further

18 inquiry in relation to that. Secondly, it arose in the context of him

19 saying he read survivors' reports.


21 MR. MARGETTS: So I'd just like to put this in that context, Your

22 Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.


25 Q. Mr. Savkic, you were asked about the comments of Mr. Redzic, and

Page 20740

1 in response to his comments regarding an alleged threat you made that

2 tanks would come to Vlasenica and draw the borders in blood, you said that

3 was nonsense. And you said: As for this attack from Milici or Zvornik,

4 it's also a fact that neither place had a tank unit at that time. The

5 relevant time being the time of the protocol, 11 April 1992. It's a fact,

6 Mr. Savkic, that the tank unit, the 336th Motorised Brigade was stationed

7 in Zvornik at that time, wasn't it?

8 A. For that brigade -- well, I've never heard about it. All I know

9 is that in Milici and in Han Pijesak, at that period of time there had

10 never been a single tank brigade there. We're talking about a tank,

11 armoured brigade that Redzic is referring to, and you are referring to

12 some kind of motorised brigade in Zvornik, apparently.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, could you please point me at the day.

14 Was it --

15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, it's -- yes, Your Honour. It's page 20.540.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got different page numbering. Do you have

17 the day?

18 MR. MARGETTS: Which I understand would have been Thursday.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thursday was the -- just let me have a look --

20 MR. MARGETTS: 26th January.

21 JUDGE ORIE: 26th January. Thank you.


23 Q. So, Mr. Savkic, the statement that you made to the Trial Chamber

24 that there wasn't a tank unit in Zvornik, that statement's incorrect,

25 isn't it? Or, alternatively, you don't know whether there was or not, so

Page 20741

1 your statement to the Trial Chamber was not based on any knowledge; it was

2 just speculation on your behalf.

3 A. I did say specifically earlier on that there had never been one in

4 Milici, but you mentioned a motorised brigade, but Redzic referred to an

5 armoured brigade. And I never knew anything about a motorised brigade.

6 They would go through the area, but ...

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, let me just read to you exactly what you

8 said on the 26th when confronted with the allegations made by Mr. Redzic.

9 You said: "It is an obvious nonsense. At that moment in Han

10 Pijesak, there was not a single tank unit of the Yugoslav People's Army,

11 not even in the reserve forces or in the rear where the infantry battalion

12 was stationed. As for this attack from Milici or Zvornik, it's also a

13 fact that neither place had a tank unit at that time and not only at that

14 time."

15 These are your literal words as they appear in the transcript.

16 Please proceed, Mr. --

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we can introduce tab 48, and if

18 that could have an exhibit number. And also my case manager reminds me

19 that the second exhibit presented this morning didn't receive the number,

20 which I assume is P1070.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the report of the duty officer dated

22 16th May, 1992, referring to the 1500 hours commencement will be given

23 P1070.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I think this -- I think the reference

Page 20742

1 to tab 48 may have been mistaken.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps come up with --

3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, sorry, Your Honour. It's tab 45 I wish to

4 refer to.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then check, Mr. Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1071, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: P1071, and that -- and that is a -- let me see what

8 the description is.

9 MR. MARGETTS: It's a report from Commander Major General Savo

10 Jankovic to the 17th Corps command, dated 9 April 1992.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore the description changes as well.

12 Please proceed.


14 Q. Mr. Savkic, if you could look at paragraph 5 of that report, it

15 states that: "A 336th Motorised Brigade tank, T-55, slipped off the road

16 at Sapna bridge in the village of Celopek near Zvornik."

17 Now, you made the distinction between an armoured brigade and the

18 336th Motorised Brigade. It's the fact that the 336th Motorised Brigade

19 was formally known as the 4th Armoured Brigade and was a tank unit

20 commanded by Dragan Obrenovic in Zvornik as at the time that Mr. Redzic

21 alleges you said tanks were in the vicinity and could come to Vlasenica.

22 A. Your Honours, the Sapna area is on the road between Tuzla and

23 Zvornik. Therefore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Zvornik. The

24 interpretation provided by the gentleman here, according to which in a

25 motorised brigade there would be tanks and such-like, well motorised

Page 20743

1 brigade is one thing -- it is true that they have tanks, but a tank or an

2 armoured brigade is totally different because they only have tanks. And

3 it is quite clear here that we are not talking about Zvornik, but we are

4 talking about a totally different direction. And it has nothing to do

5 with the Zvornik-Milici line.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we could move to another topic, and

7 that is Exhibit D130.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just put the following to the witness.

9 The whole issue, Mr. Savkic, arose from the -- the words of

10 Mr. Redzic, and he said that the Serbs had tanks ready. And you say

11 that's all nonsense because there were no tank units. Now, that's not

12 what Mr. Redzic said. He didn't say "there were tank units," but "there

13 were tanks."

14 Now Mr. Margetts puts it to you that even if this would not be a

15 tank unit, that at least a tank was nearby. And to that aspect -- to that

16 extent your statement that it's all nonsense, he puts it to you that it is

17 not nonsense because there was at least, as he referred to, one tank.

18 That's the issue.

19 We're not talking about organisation of the army, about whether

20 the unit was full of tanks or -- we're just talking about an allegation

21 made by Mr. Redzic that tanks were ready. You said it's nonsense because

22 there were no tank units, suggesting that there were no tanks either. And

23 now Mr. Margetts confronts you with at least one tank at least mentioned

24 in a report.

25 Yes, could you please respond to that.

Page 20744

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, apart from saying that it was

2 utter nonsense, I also added -- and I don't suppose that he had mentioned

3 that at all. That's my first point. And the second point is that at this

4 moment in time, due to the withdrawal of all the army units of the JNA

5 from Croatia, et cetera, what I said in my comment was that when we talk

6 about Milici, Zvornik, and the entire area, columns of JNA army soldiers

7 from Croatia were going through. This was what may have been mentioned at

8 this trial for reasons having to do with the fact that many units

9 transited through the area at the time. And it can be seen that this

10 column was coming from the direction of Tuzla. It is quite clear, it is

11 crystal clear, on the basis of this order. And that's what it says here

12 in the text.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has nothing to do with Zvornik,

15 nothing whatsoever.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


18 Q. Mr. Savkic, you presented an exhibit to the Trial Chamber, it's

19 Exhibit D130, and it was a list of policemen who were invited for training

20 in Sarajevo. And you told the Trial Chamber that of the 448 names,

21 according to your analysis, 313 were Muslims and 135 were Croats. We have

22 taken the opportunity to review that list with an expert demographer. The

23 fact is, Mr. Savkic, that at least 55 of the people on that list are

24 certainly Serbs. Your evidence was misleading and incorrect, wasn't it?

25 A. You're misquoting me totally. Could we go back to the transcript,

Page 20745

1 and in that case you will see that I said specifically that on the basis

2 of the list --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Go back to the transcript. Mr. Margetts, the date

4 was?

5 MR. MARGETTS: It was on the Thursday, the 26th of January.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we're talking about the list.

7 MR. MARGETTS: And the relevant portion --

8 JUDGE ORIE: If you have text, that's easier for me to get that on

9 my screen.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Okay. I can read that to you.


12 MR. MARGETTS: "135 were non-Muslims --"

13 JUDGE ORIE: I think "135" would be a good thing to search for.

14 Yes.

15 You said the following, Mr. Savkic -- you said: "On the last

16 page, it is to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates that met

17 the requirements, 135 were non-Muslims -- actually, those were all Croats.

18 The rest were all Muslims. However, I have to clarify one more thing --"

19 and -- and then the word is not -- "and do a reality check. During that

20 period - and not only during that period of time - to send Serbs to Zagreb

21 for training, given the well-known developments would have been crazy."

22 So these were your words. Now Mr. Margetts puts it to you that,

23 according to people he consulted, that there are at least 55 Serbs on that

24 list. He confronts you with that and he asks you for a comment.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But he said out

Page 20746

1 of those 400-something - everything on the list, that is - and on my

2 statement it says clearly out of 313 of those invited. That's what you

3 just read out. Those who went on the course, 135 were not Muslims and the

4 others were all Muslims. You've only just read it out, so the gentleman

5 is absolutely and totally wrong then.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But -- Mr. Margetts, perhaps in your next

7 question you could clarify this issue. It seems that the witness says:

8 I'm starting from 313, I did not count them all. And you started a longer

9 list.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the words that the witness spoke were

11 the following: "135 from the list were non-Muslims."

12 He says --

13 MR. JOSSE: Do it to the witness, not to the Judge, please.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, what I'm saying is this: Is that the

15 question that the Court has put to Mr. Savkic does not equate --

16 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I object. This is not an argument.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts --

18 MR. JOSSE: -- cross-examination.

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Josse invites you to put to the witness what he

20 said. And by putting questions to him you'll certainly be able to further

21 clarify the matter.

22 Could I have the list in front of me. That's D130, I think, yes.


24 Q. Mr. Savkic, you said the following --

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 20747

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, first of all the registrar draws my

2 attention that where you said "D130," you most likely wanted to refer to

3 D133. Is that correct? D130 to be a -- no, no, no.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think a mistake was made by me. We are talking

6 about tab 9. Is that --

7 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour --

8 MR. JOSSE: Tab 16.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 16. Tab 16 is D133.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Apologies, Your Honour. D133 is the document I

11 wish to refer to.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.


14 Q. Mr. Savkic, you told the Trial Chamber, reviewing the document

15 D133: "It's easy to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates that

16 met the requirements, 135 were non-Muslims -- actually, those were all

17 Croats. The rest were all Muslims."

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Margetts, the issue seems to be that

19 -- that Mr. Josse asked about the list.

20 "The documents, for the purpose of translation, have been split

21 up, but as you understand it the list of 448 names was effectively

22 attached to the letter from Mr. Srebrenikovic."

23 So there we start discussing a list of 448 people. Then later on,

24 Mr. Josse asked: "But what was the result of your research through these

25 448 names? I think you've marked it, haven't you, on the very last page,

Page 20748

1 the very last page, of the bundle?"

2 And then the witness continued: "Yes, yes. On the last page, it

3 is to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates --" so as a matter

4 of fact that met the requirements -- "135 were non-Muslims ..." Now, if I

5 add 313 with 135, that brings me to 448.

6 So therefore, I am a bit surprised that the 135 are now deducted

7 from the 313 instead of deducted from the 448. But most important is,

8 Mr. Savkic, that this list you seem to have analysed, and where it says at

9 the very last page 330, 135, we are talking about that list. One of the

10 things I would be inclined to do is to count them and to see whether we

11 have a list of 313 or a list of 448.

12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I think we are all in agreement that

13 it's a list of 448.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, are we in agreement that the list

15 is --

16 MR. JOSSE: Yes, absolutely. That's quite clear.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, secondly, may I say this: I think

18 we're all in agreement that it's the witness's handwritten annotation on

19 that list which makes the distinction between 313 and 135.

20 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now his testimony -- but let's first ask you.

22 From your answer it appears that one could not possibly -- it

23 would be very illogical - as you said, crazy - to have any Serbs on that

24 list. Now, we have a list of 448 people. You made a distinction between

25 313 on the one-hand side and 135 remaining. Please explain now to us

Page 20749

1 whether there were -- no, Mr. Savkic. Please, one moment. A bit

2 impatient.

3 Explain to us, are there any Serbs on this list as you saw it,

4 where both counsel agreed that it's a list of 448 people? Are there any

5 Serbs on that list? Yes, could you please answer that question.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this list, out of 430-something

7 people, there were some Serbs; I'm not arguing with that, Mr. President.

8 But in case the translation into English is correct, what I'm referring to

9 is people who were admitted. They were surrounded by Mr. Srebrenikovic,

10 and those people who went through that medical training, this 313 who

11 passed -- or rather, their names were underlined there, and 135 Muslims.

12 I can't tell for sure on the basis of every single name, but almost all of

13 them, both this 135, are Croats, and I said that out of this 135 there may

14 be some Serbs and it would have been a lunacy to send a Serb to Zagreb at

15 that time; that's what I'm saying. You've read it out, but perhaps your

16 translation is bad or whatever. 313 admitted and 135 were non-Muslims,

17 and then I added what I added.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So your testimony is that, by coincidence, the

19 number of 135 is also the number that -- of people that were not selected.

20 But did I understand -- but I have to verify that. Did I understand you

21 well when you said that this was all a secret operation of people being

22 trained in Croatia?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From previous SDA orders, you could

24 have seen that initially it was a covert operation. On the basis of this

25 list, you can see that out of 435 individuals, those whose names are not

Page 20750

1 encircled, who supposedly failed that medical, you will see that they're,

2 all of them, Serbs. And let me stress once again, out of 313 whose names

3 are indicated as having gone through this training, 135 are non-Muslims,

4 mostly Croats, on the basis of their names and the geographical area of

5 provenance. Just look at the names which are not marked, not encircled.

6 Out of these 434 [as interpreted] you will see that all of those names are

7 Serb names, almost all of them.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So now the present situation is that the

9 witness says that those names that are not encircled, that those are the

10 Serbs.

11 I don't know, Mr. Margetts, whether it's possible for you to seek

12 verification of this.

13 But at least, Mr. Savkic, if this was such a secret operation, why

14 would there be so many Serbs as candidates on that list? I mean, if you

15 want to keep something secret, then you would not expect quite a number of

16 Serbs to be on that list.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You should ask candidates from the

18 ranks of the Serbs whether they were even invited to that medical at all,

19 whether they went, and for what reason they failed. How come only the

20 Serbs failed? If indeed there had been a kind of medical there.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes -- well, of course, that's still to be

22 seen.

23 Mr. Margetts.

24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, a witness who has given evidence --

25 well, not given evidence, but evidence from this witness has been produced

Page 20751

1 as an expert report, KRAJ 618, has prepared a demographic study. We don't

2 have a B/C/S copy, so we're not in a position to put the entire document

3 to the witness; however, we would like to introduce that as an exhibit.

4 And it appears at tab 46 of the bundle, and if that could be given a

5 number.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 46 will be P1072, Your Honours.

8 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'm going to object. This is rebuttal

9 evidence, in effect. I mean, it's not an original document; it's been

10 prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. We've got no opportunity

11 to challenge this; it's rebuttal evidence in another guise, and I object

12 to it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will have to decide on whether or

14 not it will admit this evidence at this stage of the proceedings.

15 Mr. Margetts, is there any -- did you intend to confront the

16 witness with this expert report or --

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I've already confronted the witness

18 with one of the major conclusions set out in this report, which is that at

19 least 55 of the persons were certainly Serbs.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the witness now gave us his explanation

21 that -- which was certainly not clear in the beginning, that the circled

22 persons were the ones selected and the non-circled persons were Serbs not

23 selected. That at least was not clear to me.

24 MR. JOSSE: I accept, for what it's worth, I didn't bring the

25 evidence out terribly well, having looked at the transcripts, excuse me

Page 20752

1 making that comment.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you revisit the matter --

3 MR. JOSSE: I'm not sure I'm going to do that, Your Honour, but

4 could I say, in fairness, this bundle was handed to us yesterday, and I

5 didn't look at these particular documents overnight, but this is an expert

6 report that is served as the witness is giving evidence. I mean, the

7 Prosecution is at least under a duty to draw it to my attention and say:

8 In the bundle of exhibits is an expert report, you need to consider it.

9 This really is not the way to conduct cross-examination, I submit firmly

10 and strongly.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, Mr. Josse blames you for not having

12 drawn his attention to presenting a -- well, a report which was drafted as

13 an expert report since the witness has given his testimony last week.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's self-evident that this is an

15 expert report. Mr. Josse had the opportunity to review his bundle. It

16 would have been condescending to explain to him what that was; it's

17 obvious on its face.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, does it appear on the index? Because I

19 can imagine that if I were Defence counsel, I would first have a look at

20 the index to see whether --

21 MR. JOSSE: It's described as a "Declaration on ethnic

22 distribution of selected names in BiH population census, 31 March, 1991."


24 MR. JOSSE: Could I make this observation --

25 MR. MARGETTS: That's not a complete description. "Dated 26th

Page 20753

1 January, 2006."

2 MR. JOSSE: Could I make this observation, Your Honour? My

3 learned friend knows that, unusually, I actually went through the exhibit

4 up to tab 41 on Friday when they were handed out. He knows that because I

5 sent Mr. Harmon an e-mail, making various observations about that bundle.

6 42 onwards was handed out yesterday. As I've already said, I didn't look

7 at those overnight. Whether I should have done is neither here nor there.

8 Generally, the Defence can't complain about the way that these documents

9 are dealt with in cross-examination - it's perhaps a matter for another

10 day - but this is completely different, as I've already submitted, and it

11 has no part at all in the cross-examination of a witness. The assertions

12 contained in it my learned friend put boldly, I didn't object to that,

13 that an expert says X, Y, and Z. What then happened thereafter,

14 confusion, well, that's neither here nor there, but this is really a

15 radical departure from the Rules on a matter that's going to need, in my

16 submission, closer and further analysis in due course --

17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid the Rules are not very explicit in this

18 respect, Mr. Josse, so the Chamber will have to find its way through the

19 Rules to see how to deal with the matter.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may we say this: That we're more than

21 happy for Mr. Josse to take his time to consider that exhibit and then to

22 put his position.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The parties are -- I do see that at least --

24 and that's the first step, perhaps, we should take is to compare whether

25 -- to look at whether this report -- I'll do it over the next break and --

Page 20754

1 because we might not finish before the first break.

2 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.


4 Q. Mr. Savkic, is the case in fact that nine of the Serbs who were

5 listed as being candidates for this training went on to serve in one of

6 the leading police units for the Republika Srpska, the special forces

7 attached to the Ministry of the Interior, isn't it?

8 A. I don't have the text in Serbian here; I have it in English.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you talking about the expert report?

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this information is not contained in

11 the expert report.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You were asked whether -- let me first -- if

13 you said: "I have only the text in English," what document were you

14 referring to?

15 MR. MARGETTS: The witness has the declaration open before him; I

16 can see that from here.

17 JUDGE ORIE: The declaration -- yes. Don't worry about that.

18 That's another matter. The question is put to you whether -- whether nine

19 of the Serbs you find on the list -- and I'm changing the question

20 slightly, Mr. Margetts, because "selected" and "selection," as the witness

21 told us, goes in two stages. That is a list of selected people, and then

22 they had to undergo a medical examination, and then the selection was

23 refined on the basis of that, if at all there was a medical examination.

24 So let's talk about Serbs on the list. Are you aware that nine of the

25 Serbs who appear on this list went on to serve in one of the -- that

Page 20755

1 doesn't appear on my screen.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we can --

3 JUDGE ORIE: One of the police units for the Republika Srpska.

4 That's the question. And it was specified as being the special forces

5 attached to the Ministry of the Interior.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, Mr. Savkic is again referring to the

7 declaration before him.


9 Mr. Savkic, put the declaration, the English text, aside; that's

10 not relevant at this moment. Are you aware that nine of the persons on

11 this list served later on in the Republika Srpska police force?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall any Serb first or

13 last name from that list right now.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we could refer now to tab 47.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 47, yes.

17 MR. MARGETTS: And that's a list of members of the special

18 detachment of the Ministry of the Interior. That's the elite special

19 force attachment.


21 MR. MARGETTS: And if that could be given an exhibit number.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 47 would be P1073, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.


25 Q. Mr. Savkic, you are aware of the elite special force unit attached

Page 20756

1 to the Ministry of the Interior, Republika Srpska, aren't you?

2 A. Special unit, yes.

3 Q. Mr. Savkic, look at the list before you. On the first page, look

4 at number 13, Miroslav Subotic. On the second page, look at number 35,

5 Mladen Kusmuk?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would it be possible to refer to D133

7 as well so we can compare the names and see whether they actually appear

8 on the list, and of course for the Chamber also important to see whether

9 they are encircled, yes or no.

10 So first one being 13, Miroslav Subotic, and we find him on the

11 other list where?

12 MR. MARGETTS: Number 50, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Number 50. Yes, that's the first name. The second

14 one, Mr. Margetts.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Is number 35 on the Exhibit P1073, which is Mladen

16 Kusmuk.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- 35, Mladen Kusmuk -- and we find him

18 on the other list at? That's D133, we find him --

19 MR. MARGETTS: And we find him -- Your Honour, I have to at this

20 stage say I haven't formed that reconciliation. I apologise for not

21 having done that prior to the next exhibit. I can tell you that number 35

22 is number 115.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, number 115. Mladen Kusmuk.

24 MR. MARGETTS: The next one is 36, Stojan Stojanovic.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Number 36, Stojan Stojanovic, yes. On the other

Page 20757

1 list, to appear on --

2 MR. MARGETTS: -- part of the list. At number 113, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: 113, top -- yes.

4 MR. MARGETTS: The next is number 49 on D1073 [sic], and that is

5 Milorad Pavlica. And he appears at number 179 on D133. The next name on

6 D1073 [sic] is Predrag Mizdrak, and that's at number 85.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you perhaps complete that during the next break

8 and at this moment focus on 179 and perhaps -- Mr. Savkic, we'll further

9 complete this matter, but you explained to us that all the Serbs were

10 eliminated from that list and you said those ones circled were the ones

11 selected, the other ones not selected. Now, if you look at the list for

12 Milorad Pavlica, he seems to be selected and he appears on the list of

13 special police forces. He, at least as you explained to us, was one of

14 the selected ones and Mr. Margetts puts it to you that he's a Serb, and

15 you said you couldn't expect a Serb to undergo this training, it would be

16 crazy. Could you explain or could you assist the Chamber in reconciling

17 this information?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, gentlemen. I said

19 when I -- at the end of my statement about that, that there were 145 [as

20 interpreted] Muslims. Judging by the names and the fact that they're

21 similar, I don't know if there are geographical things in common, but they

22 were mostly Croats. Those that were chosen, and I said that and I stand

23 by that, for a Serb to go and attend a course in Zagreb at that time was

24 absolute nonsense. In the same way, this gentleman who was in the special

25 unit in June doesn't actually mean that he did go to Zagreb and complete

Page 20758

1 that training. There's nothing there indicating anything like that.

2 Judging by the last names, I can tell that some people are from Romanija

3 and other places. I think that at that time there was no Serb who would

4 actually go to Zagreb. I think that the clarification is the only logical

5 one.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We're rather concentrating on facts than logic,

7 Mr. Savkic, and please keep that in mind because human beings do not

8 always behave in accordance with logic.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, focussing -- sorry, Your Honour.

11 Q. Mr. Savkic, focussing on Milorad Pavlica, you said you could

12 conclude from geographic location that people were Croats. Milorad

13 Pavlica came from Kupres. Kupres is a majority Serbian municipality, or

14 was at the time of this document, wasn't it?

15 A. I wouldn't say that the Serbs were a majority in Kupres.

16 Specifically Pavlica, that name, if you look at how many Pavlicas there

17 are in Rijeka - there's a football player - and they're all Croats. So I

18 did say it quite specifically, not Muslims.

19 Q. Well, let's then look, Mr. Savkic, at Slobodan Bogdanovic, one of

20 the people on the list. It is the case --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, please, numbers. On the one list and

22 on the other.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Number 204. And, Your Honour, I'm not sure that

24 he's a member of the special unit. I'm just referring to him on the list

25 of --

Page 20759

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Number 204 on the list presented with D133,

3 Mr. Slobodan Bogdanovic.

4 Q. It's the case, Mr. Savkic, that in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina

5 in 1991, there was no Croat named Slobodan Bogdanovic. Of the 14 Slobodan

6 Bogdanovics that lived in Bosnia, ten were Serbs and four were Yugoslavs.

7 But you came to this Trial Chamber and said: On the basis of the names, I

8 can conclude that 135 people who were non-Muslims were Serbs.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness meanwhile admitted, Mr. Margetts,

10 that there may have been Serbs on that list, but they were not -- you

11 remember the discussion of the 448 to start with or the 313. So I don't

12 think at this moment it's the testimony of the witness that no Serb or no

13 Serb name appears on this list.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Okay, Your Honour. If I may move on.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.


17 Q. Mr. Savkic, yesterday when I spoke to you about your service in

18 the military, you explained to me that although in your military booklet

19 it states that your service commenced on the 6th of April, in fact it

20 commenced later. You said: "I didn't say that it was from the 6th of

21 April that I was in any military unit. What I said was that our military

22 booklets had either the date 4th of April or the 6th of April written down

23 in them."

24 Now, Mr. Savkic, it's the same for the Muslim members of the

25 military as well. Their military booklets record the date that war was

Page 20760

1 declared, but that doesn't mean that they were serving in a military unit

2 at that time, does it?

3 A. I don't understand. Which Muslims do you mean?

4 Q. The Muslims mobilised in April of 1992 who then served in the ABiH

5 army may have a military booklet that records that their date of service

6 started, for instance, on the 5th of April, 1992, but it doesn't mean that

7 they were serving in a unit at that time; exactly the same as the

8 situation for the Serbs.

9 A. Yes, that's possible. But there are documents, and we'll see them

10 later, where you have that as recorded -- being recorded before April 1st.

11 Even in December 1991, there were Muslims who were in the military

12 formations, paramilitary formations. At that -- you have that here.

13 Q. Mr. Savkic, you came before this Court and you brought a Muslim

14 military booklet, and you represented to this Trial Chamber that the date

15 of service of 5th of April, 1992, meant that the 16th Muslim Brigade

16 existed at that time. That is a misrepresentation, and you well know that

17 the 16th Muslim Brigade did not exist until early June 1992. Correct?

18 A. In the booklet, it states clearly that this is not Territorial

19 Defence but a military unit. And these are the dates when the person was

20 mobilised into the Territorial Defence, and it's according to the law and

21 to the constitution, regulations that were valid at that time. And there

22 is a major difference there. This is what it states in the booklet, so it

23 was a combat unit, not a TO unit, which was the case with us.

24 Q. But it was not the 16th Muslim Brigade, was it?

25 A. In the booklet, it said "16th Muslim Brigade." There is an

Page 20761

1 original still that can be seen, and this was something that did -- was

2 not written only on the military booklet. It didn't state "Defence of

3 Bosnia and Herzegovina," but it stated "the Army of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina."

5 Q. I didn't ask you what was stated in the booklet. I said: The

6 booklet does not show that the 16th Muslim Brigade existed as at the time

7 the individual's war service commenced, exactly the same as a Drina Corps

8 booklet would not show that the date that the Drina Corps existed was the

9 date that the person started their war service. Consequently, Mr. Savkic,

10 you have misrepresented that document to the Trial Chamber.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not focus that much on misrepresentation.

12 Mr. Savkic, Mr. Margetts says if in your military booklets a date

13 is entered, not because one took up active service at that moment but for

14 other reasons - for example, that was the beginning of the war - the same

15 is true for Muslims. So from that military booklet we could not conclude,

16 as you apparently did, that the 16th Muslim Brigade existed at that time.

17 And, Mr. Margetts, do we have any further information about the

18 establishment of the 16th Muslim Brigade? Because that's what the

19 Chamber, of course, would like to see then.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I don't have an exhibit prepared in

21 regard to that.

22 JUDGE ORIE: No, that would certainly have assisted the Chamber,

23 because even if a military booklet could have been filled in on the basis

24 of an assumption rather than on facts, at the same time one could not

25 exclude that it's filled in on the basis of facts rather than assumptions.

Page 20762

1 So therefore, to clarify this matter, the Chamber would like then to see

2 any further evidence about the establishment of the 16th Muslim Brigade,

3 because you said at the beginning of June.

4 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, yes. In fact, the 8th of June,

5 1992 --


7 MR. MARGETTS: -- is the date that we say that brigade is formed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: You must have a reason for that.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, we do, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why not present that to the Chamber so that we

11 can better assess whether that reason is a reasonable reason?

12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we will endeavour to do so at the

13 break, to prepare the exhibit and present it to the Chamber.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And of course you could have imagined before

15 and if want to confront the witness with a similar system, and especially

16 in relation to the 16th Muslim Brigade, of course the Chamber would very

17 much like to determine this matter on the basis of facts and documents

18 rather than on this, could I say, fluid exchange of positions in relation

19 of interpretation of documents. Please proceed.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps -- when I say, "Please proceed," I also see

22 that it's 10.30.

23 MR. MARGETTS: One short matter, Your Honour, and then I'm

24 finished.


Page 20763


2 Q. Mr. Savkic, you told the Trial Chamber that there was no expanded

3 Presidency, and "none of us -" and at the time you were referring to the

4 deputies - "were ever told of an expanded Presidency and it didn't exist.

5 There was no expanded Presidency at that time. I had never heard of such

6 a thing as an extended Presidency."

7 Mr. Savkic, you attended the 22nd Session of the Bosnian Serb

8 Assembly in Zvornik between the 22nd and the 24th of November, 1992,

9 didn't you?

10 A. Yes, I remember attending a session in Zvornik.

11 Q. At that session, Mr. Milan Trbojevic stated: "First of all we

12 have set up a para-system of power. The public and so-called legal war

13 state Presidency is a body that does not exist in the constitution. War

14 commissioners which are working in the field do not exist in an organ in

15 any country, according to the constitution and the law. Thus we can

16 conclude that a para-government might be existing from top of the state

17 all the way down to the level of municipalities because we have no

18 information whether it was misused."

19 Mr. Trbojevic stated quite clearly to all of the persons present

20 that -- that you had set up a para-system of power with the so-called

21 "legal" war state Presidency. Correct?

22 A. I don't know what Mr. Trbojevic is saying there when he's talking

23 about an expanded Presidency. If he considers the Presidency to be Ms.

24 Biljana Plavsic, Mr. Koljevic, and that that's extended by the president,

25 Radovan Karadzic, well in that sense, that's perhaps it. Everything else

Page 20764

1 that he says, to tell you the truth, I don't understand anything. War

2 commissioner never - at least, not in the units that I was in - never

3 existed. I don't even know what a war commissioner is. I know it from

4 films on the Second World War.

5 Q. The subject of the discussion at that Assembly session was the war

6 state Presidency, that is the -- a Presidency in its expanded composition,

7 as defined by the decision of June 1992 to amend the constitution to allow

8 for this expanded Presidency. Is it your evidence to this Trial Chamber

9 that during the course of that session you did not understand that the

10 subject of the matter was the expanded Presidency?

11 A. If that's the meeting we're talking about, the basic topic was the

12 resignation of the head of government, Mr. Zekic, if that's the meeting

13 we're talking about. If not, I have not the foggiest of what it is all

14 about, what Trbojevic as a legal expert was on about. I do remember a

15 meeting in Zvornik, on the occasion of which the president of the

16 government, the head of government, Mr. Djeric, handed in his resignation.

17 I know that it was the main topic, and that was when the government

18 changed. I believe that's the meeting we are talking about. I remember

19 nothing else. As far as I am concerned, as a new deputy, the way I could

20 see it, it was the crux of the matter. It was the most important thing

21 discussed there. If that's the meeting you are talking about, and that's

22 the only one I remember.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, subject to --

24 JUDGE ORIE: I now receive French - a nice language - on channel

25 4, but I'd prefer to have English. Could you please repeat what you just

Page 20765

1 said, Mr. Margetts.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that concludes the questions that I

3 intended to ask this witness; however, I note that issues have arisen

4 during the course of the cross-examination in regard to a further exhibit

5 relating to the 16th Muslimanski Brigade and also in regard to discussions

6 that we'll be having at the break with the Defence in regard to the

7 statements relating to the incidents at Zaklopaca. So subject to those

8 two issues, that concludes my cross-examination.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have a break -- unfortunately,

10 Mr. Savkic, we were not able to finish during the first session, but we

11 most likely will do in the second session, which will start at 5 minutes

12 past 11.00.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

15 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.

17 MR. JOSSE: Well, I'm on my feet, Your Honour, so perhaps I could

18 deal with it. First of all, in relation to the Zaklopaca incident, if I

19 can call it that, as I understand what I've been told by the Prosecution,

20 they are prepared to accept -- the question they asked the witness was

21 whether he had seen statements which implicated him. His answer was, No.

22 And they are prepared to stop at that. I will be corrected if I am wrong.

23 If that is the position, then I -- Defence are content with the state of

24 the evidence so far as that issue is concerned.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's verify it.

Page 20766

1 Is Mr. Josse's understanding correct?

2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then that matter is settled.

4 MR. JOSSE: Whilst I am on my feet, so far as the demographic

5 statement is concerned, if I can call it that, Your Honour, I've had an

6 opportunity to reflect on this. Could I make it absolutely clear - and

7 I've only been able to speak briefly to Mr. Stewart - were this to happen

8 again, we'd reserve our position to take the point that I've begun to take

9 in relation to notice, whether it's the right thing to do, and so on and

10 so forth. However, the witness has accepted, in effect, what's contained

11 within the demographer's report. He said that the list has a significant

12 number of Serbian names upon it. So when it comes to discussion of

13 admission of documents, I will not object to the admission of that report.

14 I hope that's helpful.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, it may have created, but I

16 have not yet looked at it in much detail ...

17 [Prosecution counsel confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In order to fully understand the --

19 Mr. Margetts, you said something about nine Serbs. I see seven

20 combinations of names in this report, none of them being the name listed

21 under 179, Milorad Pavlica. Because if we would have to -- the witness

22 told us that the ones with the numbers encircled were the ones who were

23 selected, and the other ones were not selected, and he told us that all

24 Serbs were among the not selected. Number 179, you mentioned as a person

25 who later on, I think, served in the special police force of Republika

Page 20767

1 Srpska, but that name does not appear in the expert report as --

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, maybe if I could address the expert

3 report and what it seeks to set out in the table -- is it table 1 you're

4 referring to?

5 JUDGE ORIE: This expert -- I'm talking about the declaration.


7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, let me just have a look there. I didn't see it

8 in the full --

9 MR. MARGETTS: The expert report does not draw a distinction

10 between those names that were circled and those names that were not.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But let's just now see whether I find this --

12 this Milorad Pavlica, which you refer to as someone serving later on at

13 the Republika Srpska police forces.


15 JUDGE ORIE: Is not identified by the expert or --


17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, let me -- could you please assist me?

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could I just address the declaration

19 for a moment.


21 MR. MARGETTS: The declaration was prepared on the basis, first of

22 all, scrutiny of the list was undertaken by persons from the region who

23 identified names --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

25 MR. MARGETTS: -- they thought looked like Serb names. That list

Page 20768

1 of names was referred to the expert, who then performed a demographic

2 analysis of those names. The annexure to the declaration sets out the

3 results of that demographic analysis, where it was verified those

4 individuals were Serb. And then furthermore, because of the methodology

5 that had been referred to in the witness's evidence in chief, namely in

6 circumstances of ambiguity, the region that they were from was referred

7 to, a special table was prepared listing those persons who in all of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina were either -- all of the persons by that name were

9 either only Serbs or Serbs and Yugoslavs, and that's the -- that's what

10 table 1 is, to address the issue of methodology. So the issue of the

11 names that were circled or not circled is not addressed in the

12 declaration.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then of course in order to better understand

14 the testimony of the witness, because the witness said those names where

15 there's a circle around the number, those were selected, and the ones not

16 circled are the Serbs that were left out, so therefore, it would make

17 sense to look, to compare all the 58 names appearing in the expert report

18 and see whether there -- these names are -- and that's not a very

19 complicated job to do, as a matter of fact.

20 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour, "These names are ..." Your Honour

21 stopped.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Whether these names are encircled - yes or no - on

23 the other list. Because the explanation of the witness was that those

24 names not circled were the people not selected. And as he said, this was

25 the way to -- one would not select Serbs on that list.

Page 20769

1 MR. JOSSE: Could I make it clear?


3 MR. JOSSE: I've said this already.


5 MR. JOSSE: This, in part, was my fault because I didn't adduce

6 the evidence terribly well when I dealt with the witness in chief; let me

7 readily accept that. And that of course has made the Prosecution tab 46

8 somewhat redundant, and that of course is not their fault, as I have

9 already conceded. I was going to ask the witness a few more questions

10 about this in re-examination. Mr. Karganovic has attempted to do a very

11 quick and rough-and-ready analysis, but a more detailed one might require

12 somewhat more time.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, at least, Mr. Margetts, if you look at

14 the first ten, they're all non-circled and therefore non-selected

15 candidates, from what I understand. And also the -- let's wait and see

16 what Mr. Josse --

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I can just on this analysis --


19 MR. MARGETTS: -- in the moments that I've just had while my

20 learned friend was talking, I've identified that number 30 in the

21 declaration, Mladen Popovic, is number 264 on the list. He is both a Serb

22 and circled.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We found the 179 one as well. So it seems not

24 to be a complete explanation, but let's first -- everyone can use this

25 time to compare the 58 and look at it. Even the legal officer who is

Page 20770

1 assisting the Chamber might do some useful work in this if he has got the

2 relevant documents.

3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --


5 MR. MARGETTS: -- also I -- obviously I apologise again for not

6 having a reconciliation performed between Exhibit D133 and P1073. I can

7 read a reconciliation into the record that has been provided to me at the

8 break, if that's helpful. That is, the numbers that appear on D133

9 reconciled with the numbers that appear on the list of the members of the

10 special unit.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then I especially -- if you do that, how

12 many would you have on both lists?

13 MR. MARGETTS: I've got nine names, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You've got nine names. I'm mainly interested in the

15 -- if you please do that very slowly so that no mistakes appear.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Would you like to check the names on both exhibits

17 as I read, Your Honour?

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you would -- if you have the -- yes. If you would

19 have the -- first mention the number in the special units list.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes --

21 JUDGE ORIE: That special unit list was D --

22 MR. MARGETTS: P1073, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P1073. And then second, the corresponding

24 number in the list of candidates, D133.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. The first number is number 13 on

Page 20771

1 P1073, and that name appears at number 50 in D133.

2 JUDGE ORIE: That's Miroslav Subotic, not encircled. Please

3 proceed.

4 MR. MARGETTS: Next is number 35 in P1073. That appears as number

5 115 on D133.

6 JUDGE ORIE: 115 being Mladen Kusmuk, not encircled.

7 MR. MARGETTS: The next number is number 36 on P1073, and number

8 113 on D133.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And that's Stojan Stojanovic, not encircled.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Next is number 49 on P1073 and number 179 on D133.

11 JUDGE ORIE: That's Milorad Pavlica, who is encircled.

12 MR. MARGETTS: The next is number 85 on P1073 and number 395 on

13 D133.

14 JUDGE ORIE: 395 being Predrag Mizdrak, not encircled.

15 MR. MARGETTS: The next number is number 98 on P1073 and number

16 297 on D133.

17 JUDGE ORIE: 297 being Dragisa Kuskuk, not encircled.

18 MR. MARGETTS: There's also a notation here that Kuskuk should be

19 Kusmuk, so there may be a typo in one of the lists --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, or it's not the same person. We'll check that

21 carefully on the basis of the evidence.

22 MR. MARGETTS: Next, Your Honour, is 113 on P1073, which is 349 on

23 D133.

24 JUDGE ORIE: 349 being Zoran Golijanin, not encircled.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Then we have 127 on P1073, and that corresponds

Page 20772

1 with 437 on D133.

2 JUDGE ORIE: 437 being Mladen Rakicc, and surprisingly with double

3 "c" at the end, not encircled.

4 MR. MARGETTS: The next is 136 on P1073, which corresponds to 301

5 on D133. That completes the list, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 30 --

7 MR. MARGETTS: 1, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: 1, you said, and that's Radomir Kovac, or Kovak, not

9 encircled. Yes.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there's one further issue not related

11 to this particular matter.


13 MR. JOSSE: Just before -- on that. In the light of that

14 analysis, for the avoidance of any doubt, I don't intend to re-examine the

15 witness in the course -- I just need to make that clear.

16 JUDGE ORIE: At least now it's clear to what extent there's

17 correspondence also to circles around the number.

18 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The unrelated issue, Mr. Margetts.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. It was before the break I

21 indicated that I would present an exhibit in respect of the date of

22 formation of the 16th --

23 JUDGE ORIE: 16th Muslim Brigade.

24 MR. MARGETTS: -- Muslim Brigade. I've had discussions in

25 relation to that, and I'd like to inform Your Honour that we don't intend

Page 20773

1 to present an exhibit, and the reason for this is as follows: The basis

2 that we had for the date of the formation of the brigade was on the basis

3 of, first, an expert military opinion on the formation of ABiH units and

4 the transformation of TO to units, and the material related to that

5 generally rather than any specific document relating to the 16th Muslim

6 Brigade.

7 Second, it was payment lists, whilst indicating the 8th of June as

8 the first date for the members that unit, doesn't specifically say that

9 the 8th of June is the first date that that brigade existed. But when

10 read with an expert opinion and the further document that we have -- and

11 the further document is this, it's a book which actually expressly states

12 that the 16th Muslim Brigade was formed at that date in early June with

13 the transformation of the TO. So if we were to present an exhibit, it

14 would merely be a book, although -- so we don't wish to do that. But our

15 opinion is based on a range of factors and --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. All factors not being in evidence at this

17 moment. At the same time I see that you have examined the witness on the

18 issue of whether a date in the military booklet would be sufficient -- a

19 sufficient indication of the existence of the unit which is mentioned in

20 that same booklet.

21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And you do not take it for granted -- you thus have

23 drawn the attention of the Chamber to the fact that it's not

24 self-explanatory that if a date appears, that the unit already existed on

25 that date.

Page 20774

1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That [inaudible] the question.

2 There's just one more thing --

3 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would have been better, as a matter of

4 fact, Mr. Margetts, if you would have left it to that and say: We put

5 questions to the witness, we had good reasons to do so, but we're not

6 going to further pursue the matter. Because now it's a bit suggestive --

7 you say that at least your interpretation would find support in a book

8 which you're not going to present, et cetera, et cetera --

9 MR. JOSSE: The reason I didn't object, Your Honour, is with

10 respect to all Your Honours, I'm sure this Court is well able to

11 distinguish matters which are in evidence and those which are in argument.


13 MR. JOSSE: So --

14 JUDGE ORIE: It's not without reason that I started saying:

15 "That's all not in evidence."

16 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely. That reassured the Defence.

17 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, Mr. Josse, you will appreciate that

18 the Chamber, by giving this gentle guidance to Mr. Margetts even would

19 like to be released from even having to consider that question in this

20 context.

21 MR. JOSSE: And I suppose there may be days where I will be a

22 little less charitable.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Any further matter?

24 MR. MARGETTS: I thank my learned friend for his response.


Page 20775

1 Then, Mr. Josse, are you ready to re-examine the witness?

2 MR. JOSSE: I am. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into

4 the courtroom.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, Mr. Josse will re-examine you.

8 Mr. Josse, you may proceed.

9 Re-examination by Mr. Josse:

10 Q. Mr. Savkic, have a look, please, at tab 5 in the Prosecution

11 bundle.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please assist the witness.


14 Q. When this document was put to you by my learned friend

15 Mr. Margetts, you said, in terms, that it was a forgery. That's right,

16 isn't it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you at one point told the Chamber that it may have been

19 prepared by criminals that had been persecuting you all your life,

20 especially during the war. Who did you have in mind and what did you mean

21 by that answer?

22 A. I didn't say in the course of the war, but I said those that had

23 persecuted me throughout my life. What I meant specifically was this:

24 This is a forgery. There is not a signature of mine anywhere. And I also

25 explained that those were people who probably wished to cover up some kind

Page 20776

1 of transaction in connection with the -- with tax evasion. And I had

2 problems with them also between 1998 and 2001.

3 Q. Can you be more specific as to who these criminal elements are?

4 A. I didn't quite hear what you've just said.

5 Q. My question was: Can you be more specific as to who these

6 criminal elements are?

7 A. As to this period of time that I'm referring to as the president

8 of the Municipal Assembly, I chased away, so to say, the director of the

9 Boksit Company, but not just him, also certain other individuals from the

10 local government who, when I started getting rid of all this crime at

11 around -- I don't know, 1997, and who in an unlawful way, according to the

12 constitutional court first suspending me as president, and I can't even

13 begin to say what kind of problems I encountered over that three-year

14 period with those people, both from the government and the ones that I was

15 dealing with in relation to their crimes. I can give you their names, in

16 fact, but here we're talking about the director of the Boksit Company who,

17 in my view, even though accounts seem to be balanced at the end of the

18 year, this decision was supposedly meant to cover-up that part of the

19 taxes that should have been paid in November were not paid, in 1992.

20 Q. What is the ethnicity of the director?

21 A. Serb.

22 Q. And by producing this forgery, how do you say that would make your

23 life more difficult? In other words, what was in their minds in producing

24 this forgery? What was the purpose of it?

25 A. I suppose that in the government provisions it was indicated that

Page 20777

1 the only person who could do this at that specific point in time was the

2 members of the Crisis Staff. Since obviously there was no Crisis Staff at

3 that time, they typed this up in this way and they said that I was the

4 president of the Crisis Staff, even though there was no Crisis Staff. And

5 as you can see, the stamp is the stamp that we had seen in other

6 documents, and it is the stamp of the president of the Municipal Assembly.

7 And -- because there is number 1 there, so it is logical that it refers --

8 or rather, back then it was a stamp, distinctive stamp, for the president

9 of the Municipal Assembly. And I believe that it's still the case.

10 Q. The next issue I want to ask you about --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, could I just ask a few clarifications

12 because it's still not clear.

13 It's -- the decision says: "By this decision, the taxes on the

14 turnover of the goods and services has been directed to the budget of the

15 Milici municipality."

16 Could you tell us exactly what is meant by that. Is it that it

17 has to be paid to the Milici municipality or that the receipt -- the

18 authority that received the payment has directed it to the Milici

19 municipality to spend that money, or -- it's not very clear, because

20 usually by decisions you -- No, let me refrain from further comment.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this decision ...


23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Did you say anything to me?

24 JUDGE ORIE: No, I didn't say anything. "On the basis of this

25 decision ..." you said. And please continue.

Page 20778

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This tax on services is always paid

2 into the coffers of the government or the state. On the basis of this

3 decision it is stated clearly that instead of that tax being paid up to

4 the government, it would be paid into budget of the municipality of

5 Milici. That's quite clear. However, at the end of the year, when all the

6 taxes are looked at together, it is required for a part of that money to

7 be paid into the accounts of the state. It can be done in two ways:

8 Either by bank transfer or by providing money to the police force or the

9 armed forces or some other government agency, either to provide material

10 assistance or to give them money. I suppose that this was a period of

11 time where the payment had not been made and the government was not happy

12 with it, and apparently that must have been the only reason why they came

13 up with this decision. And it was their justification, the fact that this

14 lack of payment would be compensated for by Boksit's providing services to

15 the armed forces, the police force, and such-like. That's what they

16 needed my name for at that period of time, nothing else. As to whether

17 this was a lawful kind of act or not, I can't really tell, but I don't

18 think it is.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Now it has become clear to me.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.


22 Q. Have a look, please, at P1069.

23 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be under tab --

24 MR. JOSSE: I don't think it was in the tabs, Your Honour.


Page 20779

1 MR. JOSSE: It was the 16th of May, 1992, for the Court. And it's

2 the one - if I've got the right one - at 0700 hours.

3 Q. Now, you have been asked some questions about the B/C/S words that

4 we find in the section headed "patrols." And the B/C/S words are

5 "ciscenje terena." What do you understand those words to mean?

6 A. Considering the events as of the 15th and, more specifically, on

7 the 16th of May, 1992, which have been recorded, on the 15th of May there

8 was very bad case of kidnap. I think it was a bus-load of passengers.

9 The day after, considering all these events taking place on the road in

10 the direction of the mine, as I was saying, on the day after, an attempt

11 was made to organise a large-scale action and to deal with this situation;

12 that is to say, to try and free the kidnapped people. At the same time,

13 huge formations attacked two Serb villages east of Derventa --

14 Q. I'm going to stop you, Mr. Savkic, because you've completely

15 misunderstood my question. It's probably the way I asked it. I was not

16 asking you specifically about the events of May 1992. If, in order to

17 answer this question you have to refer to those events, then that is fine,

18 but I want you to understand the question. The question relates to the

19 words in your language "ciscenje terena." What do you understand those

20 two words to mean, please?

21 A. In this case in particular it means that probably the police was

22 entrusted with the task of -- and I'm talking about the villages that I've

23 just mentioned. So they were given the task to check them out, to go and

24 see whether anything remained from those formations which had attacked a

25 purely Serb area. I suppose that's what it meant. And that's it. And

Page 20780

1 one could also wonder, but I think 100 per cent that's what it is. And at

2 any rate, this was the blackest day in the municipality of Milici for both

3 reasons.

4 Q. Is it suggestive to you of ethnic cleansing, those two words I'm

5 talking about?

6 A. In this particular case, certainly not. It was the clearing of

7 the area. It's specific enough in the Serb language. So the clearing of

8 the area from those who had been sent in to do what they did.

9 Q. You were anxious, in the course of your cross-examination, to draw

10 to the Chamber's attention two documents, and I see from my vantage point

11 that you still have them there. The first is a report dated the 19th of

12 July of 1992, signed by Mr. Ferid Hodzic. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, sadly, at least at the moment, we do not have an English

15 translation of these documents. But it's right that Mr. Hodzic describes

16 himself as commander of the municipality of Vlasenica, the Main Staff of

17 the BiH army. The report deals with the background to the conflict in the

18 Vlasenica municipality.

19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, at this stage, as we foreshadowed when

20 these documents were presented, we cannot see how this is a matter that is

21 appropriately dealt with in re-examination. We say this is evidence that

22 was related to the principal part of this witness's evidence in chief, and

23 if he'd sought to corroborate or extend that evidence in any way by the

24 production of these documents, then it should have been done in evidence

25 in chief. And it's not a matter that arose in cross-examination.

Page 20781

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.

2 MR. JOSSE: My primary response to that, Your Honour, is: I could

3 have dealt with this quite differently. The witness was anxious to refer

4 to these documents in answer to questions he was being asked. At the very

5 least, as a matter of courtesy, I would submit he should be asked why he

6 wanted to refer to them, why he says they're relevant to what is being

7 asked, and --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Unless, on the basis of the document itself, it

9 becomes apparent that it's not relevant. I mean, the witness is not the

10 one who -- of course he can point at certain documents, and say, "These

11 are relevant in the context of what I've been asked," but that doesn't

12 mean that it is.

13 I take it that both parties have had an opportunity to at least

14 superficially look at the content of the document.

15 MR. JOSSE: I had a summary prepared for me.


17 And I take it, Mr. Margetts, knowing you as a good professional,

18 you certainly would have found ways to get acquainted with at least the

19 core of the content of this document.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour, [inaudible] on that.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from the procedural argument you invoked,

22 do you say it is -- it's irrelevant in relation to the answers the witness

23 gave?

24 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour. It's not -- it's not irrelevant.

25 We say it's inappropriate for it to be dealt with at this stage, and if it

Page 20782

1 is --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we stopped the witness in cross-examination

3 to further refer to these documents, where at least we wouldn't know what

4 it is about. So therefore -- Mr. Josse, I take it that that's your

5 position, that you say that that was part of the answer, but the witness

6 was not allowed to give --

7 MR. JOSSE: Well, that is my position, and also, for the avoidance

8 of any doubt, the witness knows far more about what went on than I do.

9 And therefore, whilst I appreciate I control his evidence, it's his

10 evidence, not my control of it, that is important, in my submission.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, can I make a practical suggestion?

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you make further submissions.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Would we be able to refer to the transcript where

15 the witness sought to introduce these documents and the question that was

16 asked and then restrict the reference to these documents to anything that

17 would further the answer to that question?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please guide me. It was on the -- it

19 was yesterday, wasn't it?

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'll have to find that myself.

21 Apologies.

22 [Prosecution counsel confer]

23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I've found the reference at page 35 of

24 yesterday's session, lines 17 to 22. The question was put on page 34, is

25 the following, that's at lines 19 to 20: "It is correct, isn't it, that

Page 20783

1 the take-over was performed by the JNA together with the unit that was

2 coordinated by the SDS Crisis Staff." As far as these documents address

3 which units were involved in the take-over of Vlasenica and they may be

4 able to supplement the witness's answer.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think as a matter of fact what the witness

6 wanted to explain was why your assumption was not correct. So everything

7 that is relevant in that context is a matter that could be covered by

8 Mr. Josse at this time. The Chamber will consider -- so, Mr. Josse, you

9 perhaps start with your questions on the matter. Please keep in mind the

10 Chamber has not a translation in front of it.

11 MR. JOSSE: Yes. That was why I was going to attempt to summarise

12 it, first of all. It was that exact reason what I was dealing with this

13 initially in the way that I did.


15 MR. JOSSE: But the objection having been taken, I will revert to

16 a different method.

17 Q. We now have in front of us, Mr. Savkic, what you were saying in

18 answer to a question from the learned Presiding Judge about this document,

19 and you said: I left -- and I paraphrase -- the document aside, precisely

20 for the cross-examination because I expected the Prosecutor to try and

21 discredit me as a person and as a witness. And I wanted to keep this in

22 store to show who exactly -- who actually perpetrated all the evil in

23 Vlasenica.

24 Go on with what you had in mind, please.

25 A. Yes. Your Honours, the point of this has just been made. This

Page 20784

1 document, coming from the commander of that famous battalion, addressed to

2 the Chief of Staff of the armed forces of BH, fully, in its own way,

3 confirms that everything I said in conjunction with the events in

4 Vlasenica is true. If you allow me, I can quote this here because

5 everything has been prepared. I -- I can tell you word for word about the

6 way in which they prepared the units which were to attack Vlasenica, when

7 this was done, in what way this was attempted at Vlasenica, and then it

8 failed, and all that. I can quote everything.

9 And in the second part of my statement I said that on the basis of

10 this report, when we talk about the linking up and expanding the free

11 territory, and I can show you on the map, I can show you in which way

12 ethnic cleansing of the Serb villages was carried out in the

13 municipalities of Vlasenica, Bratunac, and Srebrenica. You can see that

14 sabotage and partisan war was the main technique used. And it can be seen

15 on page 2 as well, point 2 on page 2. It says quite clearly that it will

16 be done on the basis of attacks from powerful operational and technical

17 positions which are extremely important for the already-planned combat

18 activity in this area. This is all clearly stated in this paper.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there.

20 Mr. Josse, would you please guide the witness through it. Because

21 I see that this document -- I see a lot of dates. It's about April, it's

22 about May. It's about, from what I see, July. The document has been

23 drafted -- at least, the date of the document seems to be the 19th of

24 July. If there's anything relevant in it, please identify those portions.

25 Ask the witness to slowly read them, and then try to create the context in

Page 20785

1 such a way that the Chamber can understand it.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I make a submission in regard to

3 what we would say would be admissible?


5 MR. MARGETTS: And it would be anything dealing with which units

6 performed the take-over of Vlasenica, not which units existed in other

7 parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or not which units were formed by other

8 people --

9 JUDGE ORIE: And not only -- I mean, the question you put to the

10 witness is: Who performed the take-over? That was the question, and you

11 mentioned the JNA, together with the unit that was coordinated by the SDS

12 Crisis Staff. So any different history of taking over power appears to be

13 relevant in this context.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. But we would say this: That the

15 take-over is of the Vlasenica city that we're referring to on a very

16 specific date, on the 20th of April. I don't see anything in this --

17 well, I won't comment on his evidence, but the -- that's what the issue

18 is: Which units took over the Vlasenica city --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that you interpret this in a

20 very narrow way, whereas the Chamber gives a bit broader -- a broader

21 interpretation of what one would expect the witness to deal with if

22 confronted with this question.

23 Mr. Josse, you may proceed, but please keep in mind the guidance I

24 gave you that evidence should be understandable for the Chamber.


Page 20786

1 Q. The Chamber may be anxious to know, Mr. Savkic, where in this

2 document it describes the military activities in the Vlasenica area in

3 April of 1992. Take us to a particular line, if you can.

4 A. Your Honours, I can. In the second phrase, it says straight away,

5 and I quote: "Until the 15th of April ..." and if we just remember, the

6 Assembly was either on the 14th or on the 16th of April, so: The

7 commander of the Territorial Defence of Vlasenica, on the basis of a

8 decision of mine, I trained zone staff of the Territorial Defence for

9 RJSTO for the area of Djile, Stedra and Vrsinje. And I appointed

10 commander of the ODTO and PDV - and every commander will tell you PDV

11 means anti-sabotage platoon - who were all trained and mobilised. So by

12 then they had already been trained and mobilised, and the first combat

13 activity with the enemy took place on the 2nd of May, 1992, until the 7th

14 of May, 1992. Thereupon they were disbanded and, in parts, they joined

15 the TO of Srebrenica and Zepa.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you say is this document explains that

17 on the 15th of April that orders were given to train units. Yes. Which

18 -- any further --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. It states here: "Which

20 were formed and mobilised." Formed and mobilised -- by the 15th of April

21 they were formed and mobilised. Mobilisation means that the people in

22 uniforms with weapons were equipped and taken out into the field, and they

23 were prepared for combat. And I can also quote other parts where then

24 this will be seen as such. The fourth word, when they're saying there the

25 10th of April when we were reaching an agreement, it states: "In the

Page 20787

1 meantime, from the 10th of April until the 21st of April, 1992, when the

2 Chetniks came to Vlasenica," which is not true but it's very important.

3 Chetniks are being discussed here. In the correspondence when the JNA was

4 participating, it stated JNA and Chetniks. Here it says literally

5 Chetniks, so that implies -- if we're talking about the 21st, but here it

6 says clearly from the 10th, but this is why, because in the next

7 sentence --

8 JUDGE ORIE: You are mixing up the text of this document and your

9 own comment of it. The Chamber would like to have a clear impression of

10 what the document says, and then if there are any further questions in

11 relation to that, Mr. Josse or the Chamber will ask them. So will you

12 please read the portion you were just referring to. Just read it slowly

13 without any further comments, to start with.


15 Q. Slowly, as the learned Judge said, Mr. Savkic.

16 A. "In the meantime, from the 10th of April, 1992, until the 21st of

17 April, 1992, when the Chetniks entered the town of Vlasenica, the -- all

18 the political, economic, and state officials fled, leaving the people at

19 the mercy of the occupier."

20 And now the main thing is said:

21 "Under those conditions, which were not normal conditions, I tried

22 to mobilise the people and the citizens for defence, first in the town and

23 then in the surrounding settlements, which was impossible and it was just

24 pure illusion." In other words, they all refused.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the document says that it is impossible. For

Page 20788

1 what reasons, at least I have not heard yet.

2 Mr. Josse, any other relevant portion to be read from this

3 document?

4 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Do you --

5 Q. I just want to ask you, Mr. Savkic, what do you say about the

6 impossibility that you've just read out?

7 A. This is best stated by witnesses or eye-witnesses. People were

8 asked before the Assembly on the 15th of May -- sorry, the 15th of April,

9 to form these units, as was done in these three places above, and to take

10 over the Municipal Assembly of Vlasenica. This is what the Muslims were

11 explaining and saying, and that is why that was refused. And they were

12 then expelled to Cerska, and then it says later what happened in Cerska.

13 Q. One last passage that I want to deal with. The document deals

14 with the population in due course feeling disheartened and demoralised and

15 then leaving in a panic.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you point to the relevant part and ask the

17 witness to read that, Mr. Josse.

18 MR. JOSSE: It's around where we see the date 27th April 1992, and

19 it's the bit, in fact, that's underlined in the copy we have.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please start reading -- I think the

21 line starts already quite a bit earlier, where it reads [B/C/S spoken].

22 Yes, could you please read slowly to start with those words.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In that section of Cerska, the

24 first public mobilisation was carried out on the 25th of April, 1992, for

25 the region of Cerska, Skugrici, Nova Kasaba, and Nedjeljiste. With the

Page 20789

1 fall of Kula, Zvornik municipality, on the 27th of April, 1992, the

2 panicked population was forcing the territorials from this area, and we

3 moved underground until the 19th of May, 1992."

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you, you said -- by reading, you

5 said: "Kula, Zvornik municipality." Does the text say: "Zvornik

6 municipality"?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it does not, but Kula is not in

8 the Vlasenica municipality.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, but I asked you to read and not to

10 explain.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Was there anything else you added?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. This was only what was

14 relating to Kula.


16 Mr. Josse, any further --

17 MR. JOSSE: Nothing else I want to ask about document --

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- portions of this document. I think as a matter of

19 fact if you want to ...

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: I'll give an opportunity to Mr. Margetts to see

22 whether he has any portions he thinks of importance to be presented to the

23 Chamber. But, Mr. Josse, since portions of this document are read and

24 since the Chamber, of course, wants to have an opportunity to look at it

25 in the context of the whole and we left it up to you to select the

Page 20790

1 portions you would like to draw the attention to, the Chamber would like

2 to receive a translation of this document, and a number should already be

3 assigned to it so it is already in evidence.

4 Mr. Registrar.

5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D141, Your Honours.


7 Mr. Margetts, is there any portion -- Mr. Josse, I don't know

8 whether the other document -- Mr. Josse.

9 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether you want to pay attention to the

11 other document as well.

12 MR. JOSSE: The other document, in one sense, is easier, because

13 we on this side of the court have a pretty clear idea as to why the

14 witness wants to refer to it. If I could be permitted to ask a leading

15 question --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well --

17 MR. JOSSE: -- it might resolve that matter very quickly.

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you put that question, then we pause for a second

19 to see whether it's leading in such a way that Mr. Margetts would object.

20 Mr. Margetts is invited to object when there's a strong need for that,

21 yes, and not if it's -- just because it's leading.

22 Mr. Josse, please.


24 Q. The other document, Mr. Savkic, is a report on front line

25 conditions by a Sulejman Mujcinovic [phoen], dated the 8th of December,

Page 20791

1 1992. He was a detachment commander to the BiH army. That's right, isn't

2 it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And there is something very controversial, in fact, I suspect,

5 about what's contained within this document. It describes conditions,

6 equipment, numerical strength of his unit and the Serbian unit. That's

7 right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The weapons that we see described in page 1 are Serbian weapons,

10 according to Muslim reconnaissance units.

11 A. No. These are weapons, according to their information, in the

12 possession of two battalions, my battalion and, to a certain extent, the

13 Bratunac Brigade Battalion.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Savkic, isn't that exactly what

15 Mr. Josse said, that the report -- weaponry mentioned is not the weaponry

16 belonging to the unit, it also belongs to -- but that is weaponry they

17 think the Serbians have available at that time. Yes.


19 Q. The document then goes on to describe the Serbian positions at

20 that time; military positions, trenches, and so on and so forth. All of

21 that's correct, isn't it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And don't answer this initially, but it's right that you want the

24 Chamber to see this because, in your opinion, it demonstrates the

25 defensive nature of the Serbian positions. Don't answer that question.

Page 20792

1 That is the leading question.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, no objection.


5 You may answer that question. So the question was whether you

6 wanted the Chamber to see this because, in your view, this demonstrates

7 that the Serbian positions were of a defensive nature.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. In all the

9 descriptions - that's their description - with all the units, any officer

10 in any army of any state will stay -- would say that this was a classical

11 defence position. And you will see that they're talking about mostly the

12 inhabitants of the villages being at those positions. That's what it

13 basically is.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.

15 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I have nothing else to ask in relation to the

16 document.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And would you prefer to have this -- because I

18 understood your questions to be that it gives a description of a moment by

19 BH forces describing the -- well, the situation at that time in a certain

20 zone of responsibility, I take it. Do you consider this of such relevance

21 that it should be in evidence?

22 MR. JOSSE: No.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then unless the Prosecution will ask for it, we put

24 it aside for a second. We will not assign a number to it at this moment.

25 Any further questions, Mr. Josse?

Page 20793

1 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 MR. MARGETTS: No questions, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Savkic, during your testimony, at a certain

8 moment you told us that it was very important to further explain the

9 situation in relation to Mr. Milenko Petkovic. You said you knew little

10 about his problems and you thought that it was very important to further

11 explain that to us. You have an opportunity to explain.

12 A. When the explanation about that document was given, my name was

13 mentioned as well as the name of Radomir Dzinkic, and it was said that we

14 were the tried and tested senior officers and fighters. Since the

15 document is from a period when I wasn't or I was, I think that I probably

16 at that time still was not the commander of the battalion, I would like to

17 suggest that that document be brought in, because there it says that I was

18 a tried and tested officer in the defence of the mine, and then in that

19 context -- I was there. I already said that I was the commander of the

20 mine defence, and with six or 23 men -- ranging from six to 23 men, we

21 defended the mine in that period.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber sees no need at this moment to have any

24 additional documents introduced, but if the parties would take a different

25 view, perhaps caused by the answer of the witness, then of course there's

Page 20794

1 an opportunity to make a request.

2 Then another matter on which you would like to give further

3 explanation was about the document talking about the War Presidency in

4 1995. I got the impression that you wanted to say a few more words about

5 that as well. We stopped you then. Please tell us what you had in mind

6 at that moment.

7 A. Your Honours, yes. That document had nothing to do with the

8 events from 1992 and 1993, and I said then -- that was the document that

9 was shown to me. It had the date 18th of April, and I drafted some

10 information. I said the following then: Yes, that is my document, but

11 then, with the attack of the Croatian army on Republika Srpska, it was

12 generally known that the municipalities introduced War Presidencies, and

13 the War Presidency at the time in the municipality of Milici was

14 introduced. However, I was still in the same office. I was still, as far

15 as the citizens were concerned, the president of the Municipal Assembly.

16 And I don't know how long -- how many days that period lasted; that can be

17 checked. In any case, there are records of Executive Board and Municipal

18 Assembly meetings, which both continued to function without any

19 impediments.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So do I understand you properly that you say

21 that the War Presidency was introduced but did not take over the functions

22 that were still exercised by the ordinary organs of the municipality?

23 A. This didn't last long; it was very brief, as I said before. But

24 as far as the citizens were concerned, it's as if nothing had really

25 happened. There were no combat operations around the town, other than

Page 20795

1 incursions by small terrorist groups. I cannot remember specifically. I

2 wasn't really following that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would have one other question for you, that's

4 the following: In early April the Vlasenica municipality was split up in

5 different parts, Milici municipality to be one part, then you said Serb

6 Vlasenica and Muslim Vlasenica. Now, I'm just trying to understand this

7 step taken by, as you told us, all parties interested. Vlasenica

8 municipality was a municipality, I take it, established at the state level

9 since, from my experience, the territorial separation of municipalities or

10 provinces, or whatever you call them in the different states, is usually

11 done at the central level of a state. What I do not fully understand now

12 is that you split up a territory which was created as an administrative

13 entity by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14 So how at the local level you could change the boundaries of an

15 administrative entity? Would that not need the approval of authorities

16 higher up?

17 A. Your Honour, I was talking about the people who submitted the

18 proposal, a protocol, for the official Assembly. I've said who those

19 people were. At that point in time, in view of the situation, which was

20 the way I described it, and I described it in detail to a certain extent,

21 and I can repeat that if you would like me to do that now. In our

22 decision or solution, we were of a mind to either observe what was going

23 on or to take steps to make our citizens feel secure. So what prevailed

24 was exactly what I was talking about. Let us go and make this division,

25 and let me also say that everything that was important for this

Page 20796

1 administrative -- well, actually, it was just a pre-formulation of

2 authority into these three authorities. And then practically, things were

3 supposed to, and they did, remain in common, including the MUP, the

4 pharmacy, the elementary school, the secondary school, everything; also

5 roads had to remain passable through all the municipalities, the way taxes

6 were paid. I'm saying it again, that was absolutely our position. And

7 had it not been for these later events, Vlasenica later was taken over

8 without a single shot being fired, without any friction, without any

9 fighting. And I explained, and you can see that from this report, what

10 was done, what was carried out. When the order came for the police to

11 withdraw and to work in the Tuzla centre, that was up until that time.

12 I'm talking about the Muslim police.

13 But I would like to go back to your question again. We felt that

14 at the time it was the best solution, and it probably was for sure.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you felt it to be the

16 right solution, but you were an administrative entity, Vlasenica

17 municipality, within a state. Usually on the municipality level you do

18 not re-organise the administrative organisation of a state. So therefore,

19 again my question is: How could you do that just on the municipal, local,

20 level without any involvement of the higher-up organs who are responsible

21 for the territorial separation of the -- and territorial boundaries of the

22 administrative entities within a state? I mean, if we here would decide

23 that Belgium would be split up tomorrow in such-and-such a way, I take it

24 that the Belgian government would not accept that. So therefore I wonder

25 how this could be -- of course, the example is wrong. I should have said

Page 20797

1 the Netherlands because we are in the Netherlands at this moment, we are

2 not in Belgium, but I didn't want to refer to the host state.

3 But do you understand what I mean, that if on the local level you

4 re-organise organs, institutions, which are organised by the state, how

5 could you do that on your own without any involvement of the state and

6 just by trying to seek to reach agreement among the local groups or local

7 interested parties?

8 A. Sir, in that working group, I said there were lawyers - I know at

9 least two - and they were both from -- actually, three. Two were from the

10 Muslim people, one was from the Serb people. And I'm saying again: We

11 were primarily guided by the idea that we wanted to avoid the fate of

12 Brod, Modrica, Derventa, and what also in that period perhaps some other

13 municipality went through, municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14 Obviously, at that time Bosnia and Herzegovina was not functioning in the

15 municipality of Vlasenica.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that. But was the Republika

17 Srpska or Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in any way

18 in this splitting up of the municipality?

19 A. No one at that meeting from the -- this group of gentlemen or from

20 the group of gentlemen from the Serb side -- I said the discussions went

21 on for quite a while, and there was a council formed before that for

22 inter-ethnic re-alignment of borders. So this was went on for a while.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It still is not an answer to my question. How

24 at the local level could you possibly re-arrange entities, administrative

25 entities, without any involvement of higher-up levels?

Page 20798

1 A. Obviously, it was done on our part and on the part of the Assembly

2 of -- the Municipal Assembly of Vlasenica.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That still doesn't answer my question, does it?

4 A. Between possible bloodshed and a kind of solution -- well,

5 obviously, if that was the choice, we were in favour of the option

6 preventing bloodshed.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm trying to find the reference, but perhaps the

8 parties could assist me, where the decisions of the Republican Assembly on

9 decisions submitted to it, other decisions of splitting up were not yet

10 submitted. Could you -- Mr. Margetts, I think you --

11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- raised the issue, but I can't find it immediately.

13 If you would even give me the words of that document, then I take it it

14 was read.

15 MR. MARGETTS: I'll give you the exhibit number.


17 MR. MARGETTS: And the exhibit --

18 JUDGE ORIE: It was one of the complicated exhibits.

19 MR. MARGETTS: The exhibit -- oh, Your Honour, it was P64A, but if

20 you search for "24 March," then that discussion should --

21 JUDGE ORIE: 24 March. And was it yesterday or ...?

22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm asking you this because you were confronted

24 yesterday with the proceedings of the Bosnian Serb Assembly of the 24th of

25 March, 1992, in which they decided on the verification of the decisions of

Page 20799

1 Municipal Assemblies under proclamation of territories of the newly

2 established Serb municipalities, including Milici.

3 You -- in your testimony, it seems that you present to us a

4 picture in which on -- I think it was on the 11th of April or around the

5 10th of April, that you reached an agreement with the other parties to

6 split up the municipality, and you say that was just what we did in

7 Vlasenica, whereas Mr. Margetts confronted you with the fact that already

8 two weeks before that, that the Assembly had verified decisions on the

9 proclamation of territories of newly established Serb municipalities,

10 including Milici. So therefore, that very strongly suggests that what you

11 did in Vlasenica was rather the result of earlier activities that even had

12 reached the Republican Assembly and was verified there already. That's

13 why I'm putting these questions to you, in order to give you an

14 opportunity to explain that.

15 A. Already yesterday, Your Honour, I said -- actually, it would be

16 interesting to think of something else that I failed to remember

17 yesterday. Was there a Serb municipality of Vlasenica amongst those

18 municipalities? But I did say yesterday that formally the meeting which

19 was the meeting which set up the municipality of Milici, on the basis of

20 all the other documents, was on the 31st of March. And the document

21 presented by the Prosecution refers to the date you've just mentioned, I

22 think the 24th or 27th of March. Anyway, a bit earlier. So obviously

23 somebody up there must have reported that as happening earlier. I don't

24 know for what reason. Perhaps they thought in a different way. However,

25 I can state for certain that I did not provide this information and I

Page 20800

1 don't believe any of these people on the team, anyone in charge of the

2 protocol, would have done that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that Serb Vlasenica does not appear on that

4 list -- well, you're making a gesture like, Well, that's clear. But may I

5 draw your attention to the fact that the Assembly also urged those

6 municipalities that had not yet sent in their decisions, that they should

7 do that as soon as possible. So the absence can be established - I take

8 it that both parties would agree on that - which of course does not change

9 the fact that Milici is mentioned as a municipality that were proclaimed -

10 at least, the Assembly took the position that they were proclaimed - and

11 that they verified the proclamation of these new territories.

12 Any further explanation on this matter, Mr. Savkic?

13 A. No, Your Honour. Could I just make an honest statement with

14 regard to Milici and Vlasenica?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

16 A. This is something I've said before. Since 1979 this local tension

17 between Milici and Vlasenica had been going on; it is common knowledge.

18 And let me just point out the fact that it's both the Serbs and Muslims

19 from Milici and Serbs and Muslims from Vlasenica who took part in that. I

20 did say that even in 1990 we tried for the military to become a separate

21 municipality. There are documents to support that. I refer to those

22 documents, but not even then the joint Assembly of the municipality of

23 Vlasenica granted that. So it was a quite extreme local parochial

24 attitude, and it was reported in the press as well, but it had nothing to

25 do with the ethnic groups. Because we also saw the signatures of Muslims

Page 20801

1 from Milici who were promoting that initiative in Muslim villages. They

2 were not just the majority, but they were the main promoters of the

3 initiative. I mean some of ours, I mean some of the Serbs, went along as

4 well.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this answer, Mr. Savkic.

6 Have the questions of the Chamber raised the need to put any

7 further questions to the witness?

8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just one matter.


10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Margetts:

11 Q. Mr. Savkic, in March 1992, Rajko Dukic was the president of the

12 Executive Board of the SDS and a member of the Main Board of the SDS;

13 correct?

14 A. No. What Municipal Board do you have in mind?

15 Q. Sorry, Mr. Savkic, my question was not complete. I was referring

16 to Mr. Rajko Dukic's position in the republican level organs of the SDS

17 party, that is at the Main Board of the SDS party and of the Executive

18 Board of the SDS party. I wasn't referring to an appointment at the

19 municipality level. It is the case, isn't it, Mr. Savkic, that in March

20 1992, Rajko Dukic was a member of the Main Board and the president of the

21 Executive Board of the SDS party.

22 A. At the time I wasn't a member of any of these bodies. As to

23 whether that happened in March, I don't know at what stage the work of the

24 SDS was suspended. It could be checked, but I did not used to go to

25 Sarajevo a great deal.

Page 20802

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, the question simply was whether Mr. Dukic

2 at that time was a member of the Main Board and the president of the

3 Executive Board of the SDS party. Do you know? Please tell us; if you

4 don't know, please tell us as well.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As to that period in March, I do not

6 know. And --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 Yes.


10 Q. Mr. Savkic, one thing you will probably be able to help me with

11 is: You worked in the Boksit Company, and you've explained that it was an

12 enormous enterprise with 3.000 employees and it was located in Milici.

13 Now, I trust my learned friend and the Court will excuse me for using this

14 expression, but Rajko Dukic was the CEO of that company, the director of

15 that company, and he was the alpha and omega of Milici municipality.

16 Correct?

17 A. Depending on your point of view.

18 Q. Well, I'll ask you then, what was your point of view?

19 A. It is a fact that, considering the economic power of the Boksit

20 Company, which is undisputable and we cannot argue with that, so according

21 to some kind of logic, in every municipality -- because what happens is

22 that whoever is in charge of the biggest and most powerful company is seen

23 like that so is also, de facto, the most influential person. But as to

24 this person in particular, where it is probably true that he was a member

25 of the Executive Committee and a member of the Main Board and all that, it

Page 20803

1 can be checked, but there are people who never considered him to be the

2 end-all and the be-all.

3 Q. Now, at the start of April -- scratch that. Not at the start of

4 April. When you were discussing the division of the Vlasenica

5 municipality and the constitution of the Milici municipality, did you or

6 any other Serb involved in the division of the municipality have contact

7 with Mr. Rajko Dukic, who you have described as de facto the most

8 influential person?

9 A. You described him as the most influential person. I don't

10 describe him as such. I don't know whether Rajko Dukic exerted any

11 influence over any of those 12 men.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that was not the question, but at the

13 same time, Mr. Margetts, isn't it true that the matter was not resulting

14 from the questions of the Judges, where the Judges only revisited the

15 matter you had raised during the cross-examination.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. Then that concludes my

17 questions.


19 Mr. Savkic, this concludes your testimony. I know that it has

20 taken quite a bit of your time, especially where you did not feel very

21 well. The Chamber thanks you very much for coming to The Hague, and the

22 Chamber would like to thank you and wish you a safe trip home again, but

23 you're raising your hand, so I assume that there's one thing you would

24 like to tell us. Yes, please.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would also like to thank you for

Page 20804

1 fair questioning. But I need a clarification from you, or maybe I could

2 sort it out with the Defence team. I need to know whether I am still

3 under an obligation not to discuss the trial with anyone or not. As of

4 now, I mean.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that no party intends to re-call this

6 witness at any stage, so therefore that means that you are a free man, as

7 you were before, and that there's no reason not to discuss it. Whether

8 it's always wise to discuss everything in detail with everyone is another

9 matter, but you're free to do as you wish. Yes. You are not -- but I add

10 that if there would be anyone you would be aware of that would still come

11 and to testify, of course you are not expected to in any way influence

12 other people who still will come to testify in this court. But apart from

13 that, discuss it with your neighbours, your wife, as you wish.

14 Would you please follow the usher, and I wish you a safe trip home

15 again.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 [The witness withdrew]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to the parties that we not immediately deal

19 now with the exhibits, but do that at a later moment today. Have a short

20 break. We'll deal with the exhibits to see whether there's any -- any

21 procedural issue which urgently needs our attention at this moment because

22 we'll presumably not sit during the days to come up till the 16th of

23 February, if I remember well the date on which you intended to call your

24 next witness.

25 MR. JOSSE: That's right, Your Honour. I am bound to say I would

Page 20805

1 rather deal with the exhibits on that day. There are quite a number in

2 this particular witness's instance that have been introduced that I am

3 probably going to object to. If I could have a few days to think about

4 it, that would help.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, a few days of thinking, you would not

6 deny that to your learned colleague, would you?

7 MR. MARGETTS: Absolutely not, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: So we will not deal with the exhibits at this moment,

9 we'll further prepare the lists. Is there any other urgent matter? Not

10 that we have time at this moment to deal with it because we must --

11 supposedly are at the very end of the tape.

12 MR. JOSSE: There is none.

13 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to inform the parties that, of course

15 after consultation with the parties, the Chamber reserves the right to

16 call any additional hearing on procedural matters. We have to go through

17 a list first and see which of them are urgent and -- of course, the

18 Chamber has expressed itself last Friday and yesterday on planning and

19 scheduling of the presentation of the Defence case and expects that

20 further developments will take place, if not today then most likely

21 tomorrow. And if this would cause the Chamber to discuss the matter with

22 the parties, it will find a moment to do so. And we might not wait then

23 -- but of course it very much depends on what will be submitted to us.

24 We might not want to wait until either the 16th or the 27th of February.

25 So the parties should -- well, not remain stand-by, but should remain --

Page 20806

1 should -- the parties should take care that we can address the parties to

2 further discuss when, if at all, we would need any additional hearing or

3 session before the 16th or the 27th of February.

4 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure all of us of the Bar appreciate that.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn, provisional new hearing to

6 take place at the -- no, not a provisional new hearing, but provisionally

7 until the day of the new hearing, the hearing which is at this moment

8 scheduled for the 16th of February.

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.56 p.m.,

10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of

11 February, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.