Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 587

1 Thursday, 19 January 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you were going to be finishing

7 with your cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Dzakula.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are reminded that you are pound by the pledge

10 or the declaration that you made at the beginning of your evidence.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.


13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.

15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]

16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you testified about Operation Corridor; is that

18 right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You mentioned that this operation took place in mid-1992. Would

21 that be a fair assessment of what you said?

22 A. Yes, roughly speaking, mid-1992.

23 Q. Can you please tell us how was the corridor cut in half? Are you

24 familiar with any details about this?

25 A. I think the road leading from Banja Luka to Serbia, that's at

Page 588

1 least what the media said was correct, had been cut off and could no

2 longer be used to travel.

3 Q. Would it be right that in or around that time, UN forces arrived

4 in UN-protected areas and the road had in fact been open until the moment

5 it was cut off?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you tell us who blocked that road?

8 A. I can only share with you what I learned from the media. It was

9 reported that this had been done by units belonging to the Croatian

10 Defence Council, who were probably together with the Croats and the

11 Bosniaks. That's what the media reported.

12 Q. Is it true that sanctions had already been imposed by this time

13 against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, composed of Serbia and

14 Montenegro?

15 A. Yes. I believe that was the case.

16 Q. What did these sanctions entail? Did they entail an end of all

17 traffic and communication, air traffic, road traffic. In other words, the

18 country itself being ostracised as it were?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What about this road through Bosnia that we mentioned? Was this

21 not in fact the only road leading to the Republic of Serbian Krajina at

22 the time and this road was used for all supplies, medicines, fuel, food,

23 everything that the local population needed?

24 A. Yes. That was the case.

25 Q. Since you were a member of the government of the Republic of

Page 589

1 Serbian Krajina, perhaps you're familiar with this. Did the government of

2 the Republic of Serbian Krajina or indeed its president demand that the

3 international community open that road so that the UN units could get all

4 their supplies, all the supplies they needed?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you know that the Security Council established at the time that

7 the units that had blocked that road were regular units of the Croatian

8 army who had for some reason ended up in Bosnian territory?

9 A. I don't remember that particular detail.

10 Q. If not in your capacity as a government member, then perhaps you

11 might be familiar with this from the media, from the press, the public

12 communications media. There was a dire shortage of nearly everything that

13 prevailed, in the Banja Luka hospital 12 newborns died in their incubators

14 because there was a shortage of oxygen and it wasn't possible to get it

15 over from Belgrade and in the Knin hospital kidney patients died because

16 no equipment was available to perform a dialysis.

17 A. I read about this in the papers and in the media, yes.

18 Q. Mr. Dzakula, do you know that when the so-called corridor was

19 split in half, cut in half, the Serbian population suffered a great deal

20 on the hands of the armed forces who had blocked the road?

21 A. I've heard and seen media reports of this, yes.

22 Q. Do you perhaps remember this? The unit that Mr. Martic in his

23 capacity as Minister of the Interior was with -- was this perhaps

24 discussed at a session of the government? Did Mr. Martic perhaps ask

25 approval to start an operation like this because there was no other way?

Page 590

1 A. I heard about that but I was elsewhere in Western Slavonia and was

2 not physically present at this particular meeting.

3 Q. Let's be specific about this, please. You heard this issue was

4 indeed raised at this government meeting, as I phrased it myself?

5 A. Yes, that is the case.

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dzakula.

7 Do you perhaps know that there was an operation to re-establish

8 traffic along that road and that during that operation many soldiers from

9 the Republic of Serbian Krajina were killed and wounded?

10 A. Even a single life seems like a huge waste, even when a single

11 life is lost. Even that I would consider to be a huge waste. I don't

12 know how many actually were killed but I do believe that a number of them

13 were.

14 Q. Is it because of this particular result that he obtained that

15 Mr. Martic later on enjoyed a great deal of respect and authority among

16 the local population as someone who had waged a brave war with his

17 soldiers and was eventually successful?

18 A. Yes, that's what I said. He enjoyed a great deal of authority and

19 respect and he was promoted to the rank of General by Goran Hadzic, the

20 president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and everything you asked me

21 now about the corridor, what I know is based on media reports but there is

22 something else I have to say. Once the corridor was blocked, the whole of

23 the Posavina area was devastated, many houses were torched and many

24 civilians were killed. Croat civilians too. There can't have been a good

25 enough reason to torch all these villages, all these houses and devastate

Page 591

1 and destroy all these villages as part of the operation.

2 Q. Did you yourself take part in this fighting along the corridor?

3 A. No. I wasn't personally involved.

4 Q. What do you know about the intensity of fighting that went on

5 along the corridor, about the number of units involved, which Croatian

6 brigades, which BH army Brigades and which units on the Serbian side?

7 A. I know about media reports but I've never seen or heard anything

8 that would constitute reliable information on what you're asking me about.

9 Q. You say you weren't physically present and were not aware of the

10 intensity of the fighting. You knew nothing about the exact ratio of the

11 warring parties. You know nothing about the circumstances under which the

12 fighting occurred. How can you then say, sir, that there can't have been

13 any reason for all this destruction? Destruction does not necessarily

14 only come about as a deliberate act of damaging property.

15 A. It's not always deliberate. Sometimes it's a side effect of

16 fighting. One thing that I would like to add is, I was in prison, I was

17 there with some people who were involved in the fighting around the

18 corridor and I heard accounts from them on how civilians had been killed.

19 They didn't talk about thousands of civilians being killed but yes they

20 did say that civilians had been killed. They were feeling greatly

21 distressed about all those young men aged 20 or 21 being killed and they

22 saw all those people who were steeped in crime around them. They said it

23 was a huge shame. I know that every time there is a war, every time there

24 is a battle, houses get torched and destroyed and so do villages. But

25 what I'm saying sir, is that in this particular operation there was damage

Page 592

1 inflicted and destruction wrought in places where there was no direct

2 fighting or combat. And this was the case in Posavina.

3 Q. But isn't it the case that in every war there is vengeance and

4 there is pointless crime, Mr. Dzakula? What do you have to say about

5 that?

6 A. Yes. That certainly is the case but there is always the

7 obligation to pursue -- to try these people.

8 Q. You held a high office in the prison [as interpreted], you had all

9 the information. Did you ever report these people to anyone so that they

10 could be tried?

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please speak one at a time.

12 MR. WHITING: Excuse me, Your Honour. First of all the

13 interpreters have just intervened, as the Court is well aware. But I

14 think partly as a result of the speed and the overlap, I think the last

15 question, there appears to be an error, at least in the translation that

16 we've gotten, and maybe it could be rephrased.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The last question? Is that the question that says

18 "you held a high office in a prison"?

19 MR. WHITING: Right. I assume that that's an error.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: It should be a high office in something else other

21 than prison.

22 MR. WHITING: I would think so, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you think, Mr. Milovancevic? Was he a

24 prison warder?

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Obviously, Your Honour.

Page 593

1 Obviously there must be a mistake which is not deliberate.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: High office in what? Can you tell us what high

3 office did you --

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We can re-ask the question,

5 Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please ask the question again and once again,

7 Mr. Milovancevic, slow down.

8 Mr. Dzakula, wait for Mr. Milovancevic to ask his question and

9 answer after he has stopped, and Mr. Milovancevic, wait for Mr. Dzakula to

10 give his answer before you ask the next question. Thank you very much.

11 You may proceed.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Dzakula, I asked you if, as a highly -- high-ranking official,

14 you did anything about these people who talked about their own crimes.

15 It's a horrible thing. It's a huge responsibility on their shoulders?

16 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I object that -- the question misstates

17 the evidence. Because we are talking clearly about the time period of the

18 fall of 1993 and the witness has testified that he did not hold a

19 high-ranking office at that time in the RSK government. He did have a

20 position but I think counsel has misstated the evidence and I would also

21 suggest that he's getting a little argumentative with the witness.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is being argumentative, Mr. Whiting, to say

23 that it's a horrible thing, it's a huge responsibility on their shoulders?

24 MR. WHITING: Well, I won't press that part of the objection,

25 Your Honour, because now that I look at it, it just seemed to me heading

Page 594

1 in that direction. But I won't press that part. My objection that I will

2 press is that the question misstates the evidence.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the question misstates the

4 evidence. What is your response?

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in order to avoid

6 having a discussion about all of this, the gist of my question was, Mr.

7 Dzakula, as a responsible and educated person, having heard about these

8 war crimes that had been committed from their direct perpetrators, knowing

9 about the place and time of these crimes, did he inform anyone about this?

10 Irrespective of his position, this would be a duty for any human being in

11 that sort of situation.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's a completely different question, and I see

13 Mr. Whiting is not objecting to that one. If Mr. Dzakula heard the

14 question, will he please answer?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I held no office whatsoever at the

16 time. I was in prison, I was being tried for treason and espionage. I

17 lived like a hunted animal after that, as I said in my testimony. I had

18 no opportunity whatsoever to share anything with anyone because anything I

19 did was risky, constituted a life risk for me, any action that I might

20 have taken.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Dzakula, Operation Corridor took place in June 1992 and you

23 were in prison in 1993, weren't you?

24 A. Mr. Milovancevic --

25 Q. Please allow me to complete my question. Does that mean that it

Page 595

1 wasn't until one year later that --

2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, there was a question and the witness

3 tried to answer the question and then he was cut off by counsel, who

4 apparently wanted to ask a different question. Maybe if counsel could

5 allow the witness to answer the question.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. I do think, Mr. Milovancevic, you can't cut

7 the witness off. You asked a very complete question: "Mr. Dzakula,

8 Operation Corridor took place in June 1992 and you were in prison in 1993,

9 weren't you?" And you didn't allow the witness to -- can you answer the

10 question, please? Will you please answer the question whether you were in

11 prison at the time Operation Corridor took place in 1992?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to answer? Well, as I

13 said a moment ago, I heard about this when I was already in prison, not in

14 1992. I knew nothing in 1992 about the specific crimes. I learned about

15 this when I was in prison which was in late 1993. I had no opportunity to

16 share anything with anyone. The only thing I could have risked in prison

17 was losing my life. I was in the same section with people who killed one,

18 two, three, four, five or more people. It would have made no sense for me

19 to turn any of them in at the time. It would have constituted a great

20 risk to myself and what those people saw in me was a person accused of

21 treason, of high treason.

22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Didn't you tell us a while ago, Mr. Dzakula, that those murder he

24 is, multiple murderers in some cases who there were in prison?

25 A. Yes. But those people were there because they had killed Serbs.

Page 596

1 Q. Would I be right, Mr. Dzakula, if I said that all of the appeals

2 sent by the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina to the

3 international community, UNPROFOR, UNHCR, assistants of the Secretary

4 General of the UN, the government of Yugoslavia, to have this road

5 reopened, the road that was the life line of the Republic of Serbian

6 Krajina, that all these appeals and attempts failed? Would I be right in

7 saying that?

8 A. Yes, entirely right.

9 Q. Thank you very much. I have nothing else to ask about this

10 particular subject.

11 Let's move forward a little, Mr. Dzakula. Let's go to 1995,

12 January 1995. You mentioned in your testimony something called plan Z-4;

13 is that right, Mr. Dzakula?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did you say that this plan envisaged a high level of autonomy for

16 Croatian Serbs?

17 A. A high level of autonomy for the former SAO Krajina which means

18 the best part of what then was the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

19 Q. Can you tell us what this plan envisaged in relation to Western

20 Slavonia? You were one of the high-ranking officers of the region before

21 the war.

22 A. Immediate integration into the Republic of Croatia with no

23 autonomy whatsoever.

24 Q. Can you tell us what this plan Z-4 envisaged in relation to

25 Eastern Slavonia?

Page 597

1 A. A five-year transitional period followed by integration into the

2 Republic of Croatia.

3 Q. Does that mean that the former Serbian autonomous region of

4 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Srem, in addition to your own Western

5 Slavonia were meant to be integrated back into the Republic of Croatia

6 with no level of autonomy whatsoever?

7 A. Yes, that's precisely what the whole thing meant.

8 Q. What about the former SAO Krajina, the remains of the third part

9 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the former SAO Krajina, the autonomy

10 that was on offer, which part of the is SAO Krajina was that in relation

11 to?

12 A. I can't remember all the municipalities. I'll try to list some.

13 I'll start from the north. Dvor, [unintelligible], Glina, Dvornic

14 [phoen], Vrgin Most, Plaski, Korenica, Lapac, Gracac, Knin, Benkovac,

15 Obrovac, I think that's about it.

16 Q. Perhaps you remember the exact figure. How many predominantly

17 Serb municipalities made up what used to be the Republic of Serbian

18 Krajina? What was their number?

19 A. I don't remember their exact number. This was after all a long

20 time ago.

21 Q. Are you familiar with the report of the government of the Serbian

22 autonomous region of Eastern Slavonia from 1992, where it is stated that

23 in the course of 1991, in the operations conducted by Croatian military

24 formations in the territory of Daruvar, Podravska Slatina, Grubisno Polje,

25 Pakrac, Okucani municipalities 4.118 Serb houses were destroyed as well as

Page 598

1 27 Serbian churches?

2 A. I remember that, except it was not the government of Western

3 Slavonia. Rather, the regional council.

4 Q. In the same document, Mr. Dzakula, do you remember that in that

5 report dating from April 1992, it was also stated that in the territory of

6 the entire former Yugoslav Republic of Croatia, over 80 Serbian Orthodox

7 Churches had been destroyed in 1991?

8 A. I remember that as well.

9 Q. You, as a long-time advocate for establishing the truth, for

10 helping the victims, you as a high official of the Serbian democratic

11 council, are you familiar with the report of the UN Secretary-General,

12 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, from May 1993, stating that in Croatia, outside of

13 the territory of SAO Krajina, 251.000 Serbs had been expelled only from

14 urban areas or from urban areas alone?

15 A. Yes, I heard about this report.

16 Q. Did we conclude jointly yesterday that in the flash operation, in

17 May of 1995, and in the storm operation in August of 1995, by means of

18 brutal military operations conducted by Croatian forces, almost all

19 Serbian inhabitants had been deported?

20 A. Yes. I said that yesterday, from the territory of Western

21 Slavonia and the former SAO Krajina.

22 Q. Given these circumstances, do you still believe that the plan Z-4,

23 which was on offer, was something that could be termed as acceptable for

24 Serb population?

25 A. I believe so.

Page 599

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dzakula.

2 A. I will explain.

3 Q. No, that's all right. I understood you. Thank you.

4 Are you familiar with the provision of Vance Plan from 1991 on the

5 basis of which the UN peace forces were sent to the territory of the

6 former Yugoslavia and deployed to the areas where there was a majority of

7 the Serb population? Are you familiar with the provision specifying that

8 the status of Serb territories would be resolved via negotiations without

9 predetermining the outcome?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And finally, my last question, Mr. Dzakula: Are you familiar with

12 the speech of the then-president of the Republic of Croatia,

13 Mr. Franjo Tudjman, given at the main square in Zagreb, Jelacica square,

14 on the first anniversary of inception of the new Croatian state in May of

15 1992, when he said that there would have been no war had Croatia not

16 desired one, that Croatia estimated that it could only achieve its

17 independence by means of war?

18 A. I remember that.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dzakula. I have

20 no further questions.

21 Your Honours I have concluded my cross-examination.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic. Any re-examination,

23 Mr. Whiting?

24 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, you may proceed.

Page 600

1 Re-examined by Mr. Whiting:


3 Q. I'm going to divide my questions into two groups. The first group

4 of questions will be about events -- about things that you've talked about

5 and events that occurred before August of 1991. The second group of

6 questions will be about events that you talked about that occurred after

7 August 1991.

8 So let's start with the events that occurred before August 1991.

9 You were asked on cross-examination a series of questions about non-Serbs

10 who held positions in the military, in the government in 1990, and you

11 answered a question about a Konrad Kolsek, and you agreed that he had been

12 the 5th military district commander in 1990. Do you know what happened to

13 him in 1991?

14 A. I think he was replaced.

15 Q. How about Aleksandar Spirkovski, a Macedonian who you agreed with

16 Defence counsel that he was the Belgrade district military commander in

17 1990. Do you know how long he kept his position?

18 A. He was also replaced. I don't know how long he stayed in office.

19 Q. You also spoke about Anton Tus, who you said or agreed was the

20 commander of the air force in 1990. Do you know when he left his

21 position?

22 A. I think in 1991.

23 Q. By August of 1991, Mr. Dzakula, do you know the ethnicity of the

24 military district and operational group commanders in the JNA at that

25 time? By August of 1991.

Page 601

1 A. Well, they were Serbs, as far as I remember. They were Serbs.

2 Q. You were also asked some questions about some political leaders.

3 For example, you were asked about Stjepan Mesic. Now, do you know when he

4 actually became the president of the Presidency of the SFRY? Do you

5 remember what year that was?

6 A. I think that was in 1991.

7 Q. You testified on cross-examination that his nomination was

8 challenged, but there wasn't any follow-up question to that. Can you tell

9 us who challenged his nomination?

10 A. The issue of his nomination or appointment were challenged by

11 Borislav Jovic who was the Serbian member of the Presidency and Slobodan

12 Milosevic who was then president of Serbia.

13 Q. Before Mr. Mesic actually became president of the Presidency of

14 the SFRY, do you know if the Serbian bloc, that is Serbia and Montenegro,

15 did anything with respect to the SFRY Presidency?

16 A. I remember that there was a change, there were personnel changes

17 among the members of the Presidency but I don't remember the details. I

18 remember, however, that some changes were made in order to ensure that

19 there would be four representatives. Some changes were implemented

20 relating to Kosovo.

21 Q. Did -- do you remember if the Serbian bloc remained within the

22 SFRY Presidency?

23 A. For a while they would go out, storm out, and then come back.

24 Q. Did you ever hear the term "rump Presidency"?

25 A. Yes, I did. That's what it was called.

Page 602

1 Q. What did that refer to, to your knowledge?

2 A. As far as I can remember, this term was used for the four

3 representatives in question, those from Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and

4 Vojvodina.

5 Q. And what did they do -- what did they do that resulted in the rump

6 Presidency or that related to the rump Presidency or what's the

7 relationship? Can you explain further what ...

8 A. I think that they made some personnel changes. They wanted to

9 replace the member of the Presidency from Kosovo and Vojvodina, as far as

10 I can remember.

11 Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Mesic had any real power within the

12 SFRY Presidency when he finally did assume the Presidency?

13 A. From what I heard from the media, he had none.

14 Q. You testified about a statement that you agreed you had heard was

15 made by Mr. Mesic in October of 1991 to the effect that he had

16 accomplished his task and Yugoslavia ceased to exist. Do you know if in

17 the spring of 1991, at the time of this rump Presidency, Milosevic said

18 anything about Yugoslavia?

19 A. I don't remember. I don't.

20 Q. You were also asked about Ante Markovic who you agreed was the

21 Prime Minister of the SFRY for a time, including in 1990. Do you recall

22 hearing about a programme which he described as a reform programme that he

23 proposed at the end of 1989?

24 A. All of us followed his programme very attentively. We were hoping

25 that it was a good programme for Yugoslavia and all of its citizens. I

Page 603

1 remember that for the first time, dinar became a hard currency,

2 convertible currency.

3 Q. Do you know what Slobodan Milosevic's position was with respect to

4 that reform programme?

5 A. He didn't support it.

6 Q. By 1991, do you know what kind of power, if any, Ante Markovic had

7 within the government of the SFRY?

8 A. He didn't.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic? You may --

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Every Prime Minister has

12 authority stemming from the constitution. So there are authorities which

13 stem from the constitution and then there are also factual ones or de

14 facto authorities. Therefore I would like my learned friend to be more

15 specific and to indicate precisely which ones he had in mind. Otherwise,

16 the question is vague.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any response, Mr. Whiting?

18 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, think it's been established that he did

19 in fact hold the position so the question obviously is, did he have any

20 real power within that position. I think the question was specific. I

21 think the witness has answered it.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did the witness answer? What did he say?

23 MR. WHITING: He said he didn't. He answered before the objection

24 was articulated.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.

Page 604

1 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Do you know when Mr. Markovic left the government?

3 A. I'll try to be as specific as possible. I believe it was in early

4 1992. I'm not sure.

5 Q. Now, you were also asked on cross-examination about a number of

6 questions about steps that were taken by the Croatian government before

7 August 1991 relating to the coat of arms, the constitution, the flag, and

8 steps that were taken towards independence. Do you remember those

9 questions and your answers to those questions?

10 A. I think so. If necessary, perhaps that can be repeated.

11 Q. I just meant generally, just to orient you to the topic. You also

12 testified that after some of these steps had already been taken, you took

13 the initiative in June and July of 1991 of creating the Serbian Democratic

14 Forum with the goal of seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict. Could

15 you explain to the Court why you thought that was possible in June and

16 July of 1991?

17 A. I believed that that was possible, not only because Serbs did not

18 live only in the territory of Slavonia, Banija, Kordun, and I believed

19 that if we started negotiations and dialogue and if we pointed out all of

20 these - unfavourable to the Serbs - actions that were conducted, that we

21 would gain the support of the intellectuals and some other people because

22 at the time it was the policies of Milan Babic and Franjo Tudjman that

23 dominated and those positions were extreme ones. We wanted to recruit

24 other forces and to do other things in order to prevent the war, which was

25 approaching. We believed firmly in this and we thought that it was our

Page 605

1 obligation as intellectuals, as citizens, those who belonged to the SDS

2 and Jovan Raskovic, we thought it was our duty to make that attempt

3 because we knew that both Serbs and Croats were afraid and we knew that

4 both Serb and Croat citizens of Croatia were held hostage to those two

5 types of policies which were almost identical, although opposed to each

6 other. We had to do it because, gentlemen, in 1941 I have to give you an

7 example of what happened then. Ante Pavlic slit throats of Serbs, torched

8 villages, and Serbs, together with Croatians, joined the Partisan movement

9 and fought for freedom. After all these tragedies, after killing and

10 burning they found enough strength to fight jointly for common freedom.

11 And therefore, we believed that before the conflict actually erupted, in

12 order to prevent it, that we should go and try to find brave, smart people

13 and there were such among Croats, who could help us avoid the domination

14 of these two extreme political forces.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, once again, can I ask you to slow

16 down. You made a long -- gave a very long answer there, and I can

17 understand that it became emotional and your voice was raised, but also

18 your speed increased. If you can just please reduce your speed. I don't

19 mind your emotions going up but just slow down your pace.

20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will.


23 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you were also asked a number of questions about the

24 reaction that Serbs had to the steps that were being taken by the Croatian

25 government in 1990 concerning the flag and the constitution and steps

Page 606

1 towards independence, and you testified that the Serbs you said were

2 stunned and not pleased. I want to ask you about how the Serbs felt about

3 the extremist leaders, as you have described them, on the Serb side and

4 let's start in 1990 with the area of Western Slavonia. Did the Serbs --

5 in your estimation, did the Serbs in Western Slavonia support the

6 extremist leaders on the Serb side in 1990?

7 A. We didn't support them. Those of us who were involved in politics

8 in Western Slavonia at the time, and also the Serbian population of

9 Western Slavonia, and also Banija and Kordun, all of us were certainly

10 afraid, we were intimidated by the Serb extremists displaying their

11 Chetnik symbols. It was alien to us and it was as alien to us as the

12 Ustasha symbols. We didn't want anybody to identify us with that.

13 However, we were aware of the fact that the Croatian then political elite

14 couldn't -- didn't want to miss the opportunity to generalise things and

15 to portray all Serbs in that manner.

16 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you testified on cross-examination that around June

17 of 1991, when Slovenia declared its independence, that the JNA under the

18 direction of the SFRY leaders withdrew from Slovenia. My question is:

19 Was there a significant Serb population living in Slovenia at that time?

20 A. There were. There were a lot. There was a significant number.

21 Slovenia was economically quite a developed country and a lot of Serbs and

22 others went to work there, those from Bosnia, Croatia, and other places.

23 Q. What was the majority population in Slovenia, in terms of

24 ethnicity?

25 A. Slovenians.

Page 607

1 Q. Now, okay. Now we are up to -- now I'd like to ask you

2 questions -- those are the questions about events that occurred before

3 August of 1991. Now I'm going to turn to questions about events that

4 occurred after August of 1991.

5 You were asked some questions about JNA soldiers who were killed

6 at the Korana bridge in Karlovac. Can you tell us how you heard about

7 this?

8 A. I heard it from the media.

9 Q. I'd like to show you a map.

10 MR. WHITING: And with the assistance of the usher we could put it

11 on the ELMO. The ERN of this map is 05013937 and in addition, I also

12 have -- would ask the usher provide copies to the Bench. Defence counsel

13 has already been provided with copies of this map. It's map 3 in the map

14 book that we provided to Defence counsel.

15 It's upside down on the ELMO.

16 Q. Just to orient the Court and the parties and I'm not going to ask

17 you to mark this. Just for the benefit so we can see where you're talking

18 about, can you just point out for us where Karlovac is? First of all let

19 me ask you, Mr. Dzakula, do you recognise this map?

20 A. I do. Republic of Croatia and Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 Q. And is this how the Republic of Croatia looked in terms of the

22 municipality divisions in 1991 and 1992?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Could you just show us where Karlovac is on the map, just

25 so we are oriented.

Page 608

1 A. [Indicates] Right here.

2 Q. And you testified on cross-examination that the perpetrators in

3 this case had been charged and are currently on trial. Who are the

4 alleged perpetrators in the case?

5 A. I think the reserve forces or the police of the Republic of

6 Croatia.

7 Q. Where are they on trial, if you know?

8 A. In Croatia.

9 Q. You were also asked about a family by the name of Zec or Zec, I'm

10 not sure about the pronunciation, that was killed by -- that you said was

11 killed by Croatian extremists in Zagreb in October of 1991. Can you tell

12 us how you heard about that?

13 A. It was written about in the Republic of Croatia, quite

14 extensively. The media condemned that and it was quite well publicised.

15 Q. Which media condemned that?

16 A. Croatian media as well, Feral Tribune was the most vociferous one

17 and there were others who wrote about it as well.

18 Q. You said on cross-examination that the perpetrators were

19 investigated and tried. Do you know anything about the alleged

20 perpetrators?

21 A. You mean the Zec family?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. What I heard from the media was that they were members of the

24 security detail of Franjo Tudjman. As a result of that, when they were

25 questioned -- perhaps I won't explain it in proper legal terms but the

Page 609

1 story was that some legal errors were made in investigation or during the

2 questioning. Allegedly their attorneys were not present when they were

3 questioned. At any rate, this led to their acquittal, these procedural

4 errors, and due to that, a deal was struck with the Zec family. They

5 received some kind of a compensation. This is what I learned from the

6 media.

7 Q. And just to be clear, were the alleged perpetrators Croats or

8 Serbs?

9 A. They were Croats.

10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think I have probably about ten

11 minutes more, maybe 15 at the most.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have 15. You have 15.

13 MR. WHITING: Should I -- I have tone or 15 minutes to go. Should

14 I continue? I see we are -- oh, no I'm sorry, I actually should be able

15 to finish then. I misread the time.

16 Could the witness please be shown Prosecution Exhibit 3, please?

17 It's a map and I think it's not on the E-Court system. This is the map

18 which we subsequently provided the translation for.

19 Q. Mr. Dzakula, could you just take a look at that map, please? Do

20 you know who produced this map, who made this map?

21 A. It says the army. It's written down here. Probably someone from

22 the Republic of Serbian Krajina authorities.

23 Q. Thank you. That was my own question about that exhibit.

24 You also -- you testified, Mr. Dzakula, you were asked questions

25 about a number of Croat military operations that took place in 1992 and

Page 610

1 1993 at Miljevac plateau, the Maslenica bridge and the Medak pocket and

2 I'm just going to ask you a few questions about those operations and your

3 testimony but before I do I just want to see if we can establish a little

4 bit of terminology to make it easier. You've also testified about that

5 the United Nations took control of certain areas within Croatia in the

6 beginning of 1992. Can you tell us what those areas were called?

7 A. Once the UN forces had arrived, they divided the Republic of

8 Serbian Krajina into four sectors, sector west, Western Slavonia; sector

9 east, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem; sector north, Banija and

10 Kordun; and sector south, Lika and Dalmatia.

11 Q. Did you ever hear of the term pink zones?

12 A. Yes. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Can you tell us please what the pink zones were?

14 A. Based on what I remember, these were zones or areas where the

15 Serbs were not the predominant ethnic group. Rather, Croats had succeeded

16 by military operations to -- in constituting a majority in these areas.

17 And that is why the UN had to deploy their own units in the shape of ink

18 spots.

19 Q. Do you know if the pink zones were within the UN-protected areas

20 or were they outside of the UN-protected areas?

21 A. We are talking about ink spots here, so they were considered

22 protected zones as well.

23 Q. I understand the ink spots were considered protected zones. But

24 what about the pink zones? Do you know if they were considered protected

25 zones?

Page 611

1 A. As far as I remember, yes.

2 Q. Now, you testified about the operation at Miljevac plateau in June

3 of 1992. And if we could -- well, first let me ask you this: Can you

4 tell us if you know where in Croatia this is? In terms of municipality or

5 sector.

6 A. This is sector west. I think it's around Sibenik or Zadar, that

7 general area, but I can't be more specific. Rather, this is sector south.

8 I'm sorry. Zadar, Sibenik. I don't know the area. It's along the border

9 somewhere.

10 Q. Can you tell us how you heard about the events there in June of

11 1992?

12 A. I heard media reports also, when I came to a government meeting,

13 the families of some of the missing started coming. There was a

14 government meeting where appeals were made to find these people, their

15 sons, whatever. They spoke about this operation, they said this was quite

16 a surprise. The people who were in position there were killed, and for a

17 long time, nobody knew their whereabouts.

18 Q. You also testified about the Maslenica bridge operation in January

19 of 1993. Can you tell us where that is?

20 A. It's a bridge. It was under Serb control. It's down somewhere

21 near Obrovac, if I remember correctly, near the confrontation line between

22 the Croats and the Serbs.

23 Q. How did you hear about what happened there?

24 A. First there were some media reports, and then when operation

25 Maslenica occurred I was in Knin myself. We spent the night there because

Page 612

1 there was a government meeting the next day and we heard that Maslenica

2 had been attacked. For this reason, the government meeting that was

3 scheduled was never held. They told us that the positions had shifted and

4 that Maslenica had been taken by the Croatian army. That was all I heard

5 at the time. We parted ways. It wasn't possible to have a government

6 meeting on account of all these newly arisen circumstances.

7 Q. You were also asked questions about the Medak pocket operation in

8 September of 1993. Can you tell us how it is you heard about that?

9 A. I think I was in prison by this time. I heard about media reports

10 seen or heard by people who were there with me in prison, I mean. I heard

11 about the Medak pocket operation. I heard that some of the population

12 there were killed and that houses were torched. There was a lot being

13 written about that in Croatia. There was a trial and I think somebody was

14 sentenced. I think it was General Norac, who was convicted, or, rather,

15 the trial is about to take place. General Norac and General Ademi are

16 about to be tried in Croatia about the Medak pocket. That's what I

17 remember.

18 Q. And those generals, Norac and Ademi, are they Croatian generals or

19 Serb generals?

20 A. They are Croatian generals.

21 Q. You were asked some questions today about the Posavina corridor

22 operation in 1992 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and you testified that you heard

23 from later -- when you were imprisoned in the fall of 1993, that you heard

24 from people who had participated in that operation or who had been

25 witnesses. Could you elaborate a little bit more what it is you heard

Page 613

1 from those people?

2 A. There was no talk of any great deal of combat or of fighting.

3 What I did hear was from a young man who was there for a day, and was then

4 taken somewhere else. He started talking about how they were involved in

5 the fighting around the corridor and that they came across many civilians,

6 old hags, as he said, and were killing them. It was a brief statement

7 that he made with no additional comments. Later on, however, when I

8 travelled there myself, the Posavina corridor, I realised that it had been

9 razed to the ground, devastated, and laid waste. This is a long and wide

10 area.

11 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you also testified that at this time, there were

12 sanctions against Serbia-Montenegro. Do you know why there were

13 sanctions, UN sanctions?

14 A. I think the sanctions were imposed because of the use of the air

15 force and the shelling of Sarajevo, the war in Bosnia.

16 Q. Do you know if medicines were covered by the sanctions or exempted

17 by the sanctions?

18 A. As far as I know, not. I think not. But I can't be certain.

19 Something was always exempted that was a necessity. I know that even

20 during sanctions, fuel would be allowed to come in for the harvest,

21 something apparently so harmless.

22 Q. In one of your responses to Defence counsel's questions you

23 started to -- you offered to explain why you thought the Z-4 plan was

24 still possible or still acceptable under the circumstances -- given its

25 terms. And -- but you were not invited to give that explanation. Could

Page 614

1 you tell us now what -- why you thought it was acceptable or workable or

2 what it was you wanted to explain?

3 A. Well, above all, what I had in mind was that, when this plan Z-4

4 was first tabled by the people who had produced it and when the plan was

5 turned down, even for consideration, that was a mistake. I believe the

6 plan was worth considering and publishing in the Serbian Krajina, and

7 people should have been given a chance to give their opinion on the plan.

8 More time should have been allotted to analyse the plan, to speak about

9 what the real possibilities were and which of all the options on offer

10 were really feasible and what the ambitions were. If you had a plan like

11 that, the one that was tabled, and this plan was never even considered, I

12 think this was extremely irresponsible. I know that we Serbs were

13 diffident about the Tudjman government but that situation was not

14 sustainable. It would have been impossible for Western Slavonia to cut

15 Croatia in half and to have its own country in the area. This should have

16 been cut down to size, to fit a more realistic framework. Ambition is one

17 thing, reality is an altogether different thing. Attempts should have

18 been made to reach some sort of common ground. What we are witnessing

19 nowadays and we should have known this even back then, at the time,

20 Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, all these former Yugoslav

21 republics, with the exception of Slovenia which is now part of Europe,

22 they are on their knees begging to be allowed in as soon as possible, all

23 these governments. All the borders that we wanted to pull up would have

24 become meaningless. It would have been important for all those people to

25 stay where they were for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, to have

Page 615

1 all the refugees back, for life to go back to normal.

2 I think this plan known as plan Z-4, if this had been accepted and

3 we see that it was later accepted because it was later accepted, I'm sorry

4 that it's late now, and I'm sure that it doesn't justify the operations

5 that took place later on. I'm not trying to justify them, but it's a huge

6 mistake. It's a huge mistake by the Krajina leadership to have turned

7 down that plan and not to even have considered it. I didn't approve that

8 in Western Slavonia. My people didn't approve of that move. They wanted

9 at least to be given an opportunity to see what the plan was offering so

10 that they could speak their own minds.

11 Q. Finally, Mr. Dzakula, I just have just two or three questions on

12 one last topic and I hope you'll forgive me that it's a little bit of a

13 personal topic. You testified on cross-examination about your family,

14 what happened to your family in World War II, and you testified that your

15 parents were in a camp in World War II. Could you tell us which camp they

16 were in?

17 A. After the massacre in the village of Dreza, where my father hails

18 from, and Kusonje, my mother's village, members of their families had been

19 killed and thrown into wells and the remaining members ended up in a camp

20 in Stara Gradiska. These were camps in the Jasenovac district. My father

21 ended up in Sisak. Three of his own brother were killed there and some

22 other members of his family, without going into that now.

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness

24 just please slow down a little because I'm not -- I'm no longer keeping

25 track of all these names and locations and --

Page 616

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My parents, when they were still

2 children, together with their own grandparents were taken away to camps,

3 to a camp in Stara Gradiska and a camp in Sisak, alongside with many other

4 children from those villages who were being taken away.


6 Q. How did your parents survive the camp?

7 A. My father was saved by a Croat who hailed from Crkveni Bok near

8 Sisak. He took him home to his own house and he fed him until the end of

9 the war. My mother was saved by Josip Delic from Filipovac, Pakrac

10 municipality. She later left for a different Croatian family, Krusevar,

11 and stayed there until the end of the war. My parents had been taken to

12 camps by the Ustasha. Their entire families had been wiped out by the

13 Ustasha. 17 of my father's family were killed. It was only he and his

14 sister who remained alive, who survived, and yet they were saved by Croats

15 who rescued them from the camps. My parents taught me --

16 Q. That was going to be my question. What did your parents teach

17 you?

18 A. My parents taught me that what the Ustasha did to them was one

19 thing. The other thing was the Croats who helped them.

20 Q. Mr. Dzakula. Thank you. I have no further questions.

21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour, and I apologise for going

22 over the time.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, Mr. Whiting. We will take a break.

24 We will come back at five past four. Court adjourned.

25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry, could the witness be

Page 617

1 excused?

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Actually, before we excuse the witness and before

3 we retire for a short break, what do you intend doing with this map.

4 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I neglected to act on that

5 map. If it could be moved into evidence, please, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The map may be then admitted into evidence

7 and be given an exhibit number, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That would be Exhibit number

9 19.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Court adjourned. Come back

11 at five past four.

12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry again, but did you want the

13 witness back or did you want him excused?

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We do want him back.

15 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry. Thank you, Your Honour.

16 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, you'll have a few questions from the

19 Chamber. Judge Hoepfel will ask questions.

20 Questioned by the Court:

21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, Mr. Dzakula, please. In your chief

22 examination, you mentioned on Monday, 16th, at several times in connection

23 with the title of the accused, Mr. Martic, the ministry -- a ministry, you

24 called the Ministry of Police and the Minister of Police. So as in page

25 363 on the transcript of 16th of January, 363 to 364, when you spoke about

Page 618

1 your arrest, the arrest on the 21st of September 2003, you said "in the

2 morning hours, I was arrested by the assistant Minister of Serb Krajina,

3 Krsta Zarkovic, who brought a group of members of a special unit in Knin.

4 They arrested me and took me to Knin."

5 And on the question of Mr. Whiting, that you described Krsta

6 Zarkovic as an assistant minister. Assistant Minister of what? You said

7 assistant Minister of Police, assistant to the then-minister, Milan

8 Martic. Could you then please clarify what you meant under Minister of

9 Police? Is this a Minister of the Interior or Minister of Defence or a

10 special sort of minister? You then mentioned it at several other

11 occasions, speaking of the Minister of Police. On pages 366 to 68, and

12 then 370 to 71 and 399 to 400, Minister of Police or Ministry of Police.

13 If you would clarify what you meant by that term, I would appreciate that.

14 A. Your Honour, we say Minister of Police but what that actually

15 means is Ministry of the Interior. It's like an abbreviation. That's

16 what people say. It's a term that people use so they call them Ministry

17 of Police. It's that simple.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. So second -- this meaning

19 also, your statement of 17th of January, at page 424, line 25 to 425, line

20 15, where you talked about how Mr. Martic behaved as a minister in the RSK

21 government from February 1992 to February 1993. Which kind of minister

22 did you mean in this connection? Is it the same category?

23 A. Your Honour, it's the same ministry. It's the Ministry of the

24 Interior.

25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. Let me ask you a third

Page 619

1 question, going back to the interrogation of 16th of January about this

2 arrest on the 21st of September. Having mentioned -- having -- to have

3 been brought to Knin to be arrested, to have been arrested and have been

4 taken to Knin by a group of members of a special unit in Knin.

5 Mr. Dzakula, do you know the name of that unit and to which organisation

6 they belonged?

7 A. Your Honour, this unit was part of the Ministry of the Interior.

8 The term "special police unit" was often used at the time. I'm not sure

9 about its exact meaning but the term was widely used and this is also how

10 these people referred to themselves. What was peculiar about them is

11 their weapons. They didn't merely carry pistols. They had long-barrelled

12 weapons too and armour piercing weapons. I'm not sure what these are

13 called exactly.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Dzakula, there was a reference in your

17 evidence yesterday to the TO and membership of the TO. I'd like to know

18 what the TO is or what it refers to. Could you please explain to the

19 Chamber for me?

20 A. Your Honour, TO is an abbreviation that stands for Territorial

21 Defence. Territorial Defence comprised two different kinds of units used

22 for defending the country, the JNA on the one hand and the TO throughout

23 the republics, municipalities, and local communes. This was a form of

24 reserve force of the army.

25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm most grateful to you, Mr. Dzakula.

Page 620

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, my questions might be a little funny

2 because you might think that these are things that ought to be known but

3 please bear with me. I'm trying to put everything in place in my mind.

4 On the very first day and unfortunately I'm not able to get back

5 to the line, you made reference to two parties, the one, the SDS, which

6 you called the Serbian Democratic Party, and the other, the SDP, which you

7 referred to as the party of democratic change. Did you belong to any one

8 of these?

9 A. Your Honour, I belonged to the League of Communists of Croatia up

10 until a few months before the war broke out. Later on, this party,

11 Croatia's league of communists had its name changed into SDP which means

12 party of democratic change. At the first multi-party elections, I voted

13 for the SDB, for the party of democratic change which was the former

14 League of Communists of Croatia. I was not a member at the time I voted.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good, yeah, I remember you saying so. And the SDS?

16 Who belonged to it? Or let me ask you a very specific question. Did

17 Mr. Martic belong -- which party did Mr. Martic belong to, to your

18 knowledge, if any?

19 A. SDS is the Serbian Democratic Party. I don't know whether

20 Mr. Martic was a member of that party and if so when he became. I don't

21 know either whether he was a member of the League of Communists of

22 Croatia. Most of the people employed in the police force at the time were

23 but I cannot claim with certainty that Mr. Martic was as well.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The reason I'm asking you, today, let me say today,

25 and I think it's at page 3 of today, line 22, I'm not able to get to it.

Page 621

1 I would read what you said -- read to you what you said but the question

2 that was put to you in cross-examination at that line suggested that you

3 and Mr. Martic were in the same government. You said, the question

4 was, "Do you perhaps remember this? The unit that Mr. Martic in his

5 capacity as Minister of the Interior was with, was this perhaps discussed

6 at a session of the government? Did Mr. Martic perhaps ask approval to

7 start an operation like this because there was no other way?", suggesting

8 that you might have discussed it in the same government as Mr. Martic, you

9 were sitting in the same government. Did you ever sit with Mr. Martic in

10 the same government?

11 A. Your Honour, Mr. Martic and I were both members of the government

12 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina starting from the 26th of February

13 1992, until late February 1993, at which time I was replaced. So we were

14 members of the cabinet. He was the Minister of the Interior and I was

15 vice-Prime Minister of the government, in charge of forestry and

16 agriculture. I did not attend that particular session of the government,

17 discussing the corridor, because at that time I was in Western Slavonia.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Dzakula.

19 Now, you also stated, Mr. Dzakula, in your evidence, that on the

20 2nd of October 1993, you were released from prison by order of the

21 investigating judge but that on the same day, you were arrested again in

22 Kostajnica and returned to the police station there. Do you know who it

23 was who arrested you and to which organisation he or they belonged?

24 A. Your Honour, at the border crossing between Republika Srpska and

25 Republic of Serbian Krajina, I was arrested by the Serbian police with

Page 622

1 headquarters in Kostajnica. They were members of the Ministry of the

2 Interior and they took me to the police station in Kostajnica.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: They were members of the Ministry of Interior, is

4 that what you say?

5 A. That's right.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this the same Ministry of Interior under

7 Mr. Martic? Or was Mr. Martic the Minister of Interior at the time?

8 A. Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you said also that when you were released on

10 the 3rd of December 1993, you were again arrested and detained for several

11 hours. Do you know who it was who arrested you on that occasion and to

12 which organisation that person belonged?

13 A. On the 3rd of December 1993, I was released from prison,

14 Your Honour. On the 4th of December, another arrest warrant was issued to

15 arrest me and my colleagues. The arrest warrant was issued by the

16 Ministry of the Interior. We received it from the police secretary for

17 Western Slavonia region, Mr. Vaso Ostolucanin. At that time I was not

18 arrested. I was in hiding for 50 days in order to avoid my arrest. Later

19 on, on the 4th of February 1994, I was kidnapped in Belgrade. When I

20 said "kidnapped," I do so because the persons wearing civilian clothes who

21 approached me to take me into custody did not produce any IDs, did not say

22 that they were any officials. They simply told me to go into -- with them

23 into parked vehicles. I put up resistance and they used physical force

24 and beat me and dragged me away.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you? That is the next question I'm

Page 623

1 going to ask. Can we finish the 3rd of December first before we go to the

2 4th of February the following year? You said now that the arrest warrant

3 was issued by the Ministry of the Interior. Who was the Minister of the

4 Interior at the time of the issue of that arrest warrant, the arrest

5 warrant of the 3rd of December 1993?

6 A. Your Honour, Mr. Martic was Minister of the Interior at the time.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Now let's get to the 4th of February

8 now.

9 A. On the 4th of February, Your Honour, in 1994, when I was kidnapped

10 in Belgrade at 11.30, these persons who did so did not identify

11 themselves. To this day, I don't know their identity. They wore civilian

12 clothes. They turned me over to another three civilians on the same day,

13 in the afternoon, and they said that they were from Western Slavonia.

14 Now, as to whether they were members of some special police force or

15 something else, I don't know. However, they took me to Knin, to the

16 offices of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbian

17 Krajina.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, and you also testified about Knin and that the

19 next day, two men in camouflage uniforms came and took you to -- I think

20 to a building in Knin. Do you know who these men were and what

21 organisation they belonged to, the one in camouflage uniform?

22 A. Your Honours, I don't know their names. They said that they were

23 members of the security, and by this, they meant the security services or

24 secret service, which belongs to the Ministry of the Interior.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Dzakula. I don't

Page 624

1 have any further questions for you.

2 Are there any questions arising from the questions by the Chamber

3 from the Prosecution?

4 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour, thank you.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: From the Defence?

6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.

7 Thank you.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

9 Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Dzakula. You are excused.

10 You may stand down from the witness box.

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

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting?

14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the next witness will be handled by

15 Mr. Black but I'm wondering if before we call the next witness we could

16 discuss the schedule for this witness. And I don't want to speak for the

17 Defence but from conversations I've had with the Defence I understand that

18 there is a concern about being prepared for this witness. I think there

19 is a solution, though, because of the way the timing has worked out this

20 week. What I would anticipate is that this witness would -- would give

21 the bulk of his evidence today and tomorrow. He may even finish tomorrow,

22 though I think there is -- it's more likely that he'll carry into next

23 week just a little bit but in any event he will not finish before the end

24 of the day tomorrow. And therefore, the Defence would not have to do the

25 cross-examination of this witness until next week, Thursday at the

Page 625

1 earliest. I would hope that that break between today and tomorrow and

2 Thursday would give the Defence enough time for the cross-examination but

3 if we just -- and then that will effect the rest of our scheduling as to

4 whether we bring witnesses and so forth. I just want to be sure we are

5 all on the same page in terms of the schedule.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want the Court to ascertain with the Defence

7 whether that arrangement would suit them.

8 MR. WHITING: Yes, please, Your Honour, thank you.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic works that suit you, if this

10 witness gave his evidence-in-chief today and tomorrow and you would only

11 begin your cross-examination sometime next week around Thursday, would be

12 ready to cross-examine the witness by then?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order for the

14 Trial Chamber to understand the position of the Defence, I will highlight

15 only two separate issues. One has to do with the expert report. Pursuant

16 to the ruling of the Chamber of the 13th of January this year, this is

17 introduced into evidence, including almost all of the transcripts from the

18 Milosevic case except for some pages concerning which this witness will be

19 heard live, and the Defence can cross-examine on this. In accordance with

20 the pre-trial ruling of the Trial Chamber, the OTP has to provide the

21 witness list prior to the 25th of December 2005. However, that wasn't

22 done until the 2nd of January 2006. That's one problem.

23 Another problem is that only a few days ago, the OTP informed us

24 that this witness will be a fact witness. However, we did not receive the

25 written statement of this witness as a fact witness, and this is in

Page 626

1 violation of Rule 66(A)(ii). This means that the beginning of testimony

2 of this witness would be contrary to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

3 and prejudicial to the Accused. That's one issue.

4 The second issue, Your Honour, is the state of readiness of

5 Defence. I think that you know the majority of issues concerning this and

6 we are very grateful to your intervention in that regard. What I also

7 want to reiterate is this: When it comes to creating all the necessary

8 material conditions for the work of the Defence, this is something that

9 needs to be done at the very beginning of the trial. This trial began on

10 the 12th of December 2005. The registry informed us on the 14th of

11 December that we had to submit a formal invoice for them to pay an advance

12 to us. I want to say, concerning this, that this invoice that we were

13 supposed to send does not need any further review. We sent a letter to

14 the Registry on the 5th of January and we asked them kindly, Your Honours,

15 to bear in mind the fact that the trial is about to restart on the 16th of

16 January. We were scheduled to arrive in The Hague on the 12th of January

17 and we asked them to ensure that the funds were ready on the 12th of

18 January. It is quite possible that the procedure in the registry is such

19 that it is quite lengthy. However, the Registry never warned us about the

20 fact that they were unable to provide funds for us in a timely fashion.

21 Had we been informed on time we would have perhaps looked for some other

22 possible solution.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I please -- I thought you were going to be very

24 brief on that point and that's the point on which you're dwelling for a

25 very long time. We have discussed that point. We discussed it yesterday,

Page 627

1 sir. And, please, let's not burden the record with things that we have

2 discussed. We resolved this issue yesterday that you're going to be paid

3 this week sometime. If you haven't been paid by today, I would expect

4 that you would be paid tomorrow. And if that doesn't happen, then you

5 have cause to complain once again. But I think we have dealt with that

6 last point yesterday exhaustively. I would like to go back to the point

7 -- first two points that you raised.

8 Can we just remind the Chamber what ruling or what decision that

9 you were referring to of the 13th of January that allowed evidence into

10 the record which is just coming in like that, the way you explained? That

11 was your first point. You said, in terms of a ruling of this Chamber, on

12 the 13th of January.

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was the Trial

14 Chamber's decision on introducing the expert report dated 13th of January

15 2006, into evidence, as well as the transcript of this witness's testimony

16 in another case. The reason I mentioned this is that I didn't really want

17 to re-discuss the funds. All I wanted was to point out to you that the

18 Defence finds itself in a very difficult situation where we are supposed

19 to cross-examine a very sensitive expert witness, in view of the material

20 that has to be covered, and the exhibits, a large number of exhibits that

21 have to be introduced. The testimony of this witness is about to begin in

22 the situation when the Defence is not ready for his testimony, in view of

23 all of the circumstances that I have mentioned so far.

24 If you would allow me to conclude, I wanted to add that our

25 request is that this witness begin his testimony at a later date. He is,

Page 628

1 after all, an employee of the OTP, and he can come at any later date.

2 Perhaps we will use a day and a half of work now, but this will save us

3 time in the future. It will enable us to prepare better.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. Now I

5 understand what you're saying. Your short answer is, you are not able to

6 start your cross-examination of this witness next week, Thursday. That's

7 the short answer.

8 That's the answer, Mr. Whiting. It does look like the Defence is

9 not in a position because of the three reasons that they've given to

10 cross-examine the witness next Thursday. Do you have any alternative

11 suggestion in terms of scheduling?

12 MR. WHITING: Well, Your Honour, no. We can't just bring

13 witnesses on the drop of a hat, as the Court is well aware. I would

14 respond -- I don't -- I would submit that the Defence has had sufficient

15 time to prepare for this witness. The expert report of this witness was

16 provided to the Defence almost a year ago. The Defence responded,

17 obviously looked at -- read the report and filed a response to the report

18 at that time. All of the exhibits that are going to go in through this

19 witness, and the Court will be happy to hear that it's going to be a

20 smaller number than all of the exhibits referred to in the report, are

21 cited for the most part I think almost entirely in the report. Other

22 exhibits that may go in through this witness have been -- we have told the

23 Defence about that. We did -- it is true we did inform the Defence on

24 January 2nd that this witness would be the second witness testifying. We

25 had already told them in December who the first witness would be. And so

Page 629

1 by my count, they have had three and a half weeks since they knew about

2 this witness, but by the time they have to cross-examine this witness next

3 week, they will have had three and a half weeks' notice that this

4 witness -- that they would have to cross-examine the witness. In any

5 court in this building, that's more, by a factor of two, probably, than

6 enough time to -- than is ordinarily given and that should be fluff time

7 to prepare, especially given a witness whose report was disclosed almost a

8 year ago and dealt with then and responded to and discussed in filings.

9 The point about him being a fact witness is a very minor point.

10 He's going to talk very briefly about things that he saw in Zagreb when he

11 was stationed there in 1995. There is no -- he has not done a witness

12 statement on that issue. We disclosed in letter form what he would be

13 talking about. It's very brief. And so there is no violation of Rule

14 66(A)(ii) because, since there is no statement to turn over, the rule is

15 not violated. If we had a statement we would turn it over but instead

16 what we've done is told him what it will about and that is standard

17 practices that witnesses -- if there is new information that a witness is

18 going to talk about, we disclose either by a memo or a letter to the

19 Defence to alert them. And this was done sometime ago and they've had

20 certainly plenty of time to respond to that and it is nothing new about

21 the Zagreb -- about what happened in Zagreb. It's nothing materially

22 different. It's completely consistent with our evidence and the theory of

23 the case. So I would submit that the Defence should -- there is no good

24 reason for them not to be ready to cross-examine the witness flex week.

25 I think it would be very undesirable for a lot of reasons to have

Page 630

1 the witness start, to give his direct testimony, and then for there to be

2 a large break between that and his cross-examination. And I can go

3 through those reasons, if the Court wishes. But it puts a real constraint

4 on his work here at the Tribunal and I think also it is undesirable to

5 have an enormous -- for everyone's preparation purposes, and attention,

6 it's very undesirable to have a big break particularly with this kind of a

7 witness, between his direct examination and the cross-examination.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I -- the Chamber does not wish to go into the arena

9 on to whether or not the Defence should be able to cross-examine because

10 they were given documents last year already. They say they are not able

11 to, and I think there can be any number of reasons. And I'm not trying to

12 speak on their behalf and I'm saying that indeed they may very well have

13 read those documents, they may very well have filed their response, but

14 they have already told us yesterday that a lot of the documents are in

15 storage. I don't know whether documents relative to this witness are in

16 storage or not. I really don't know. And that may need -- that they may

17 need to refresh their memory from those documents.

18 The thrust of the Chamber here is to solve the problem, as I hear

19 the Defence, if the witness gives his testimony in chief at a later stage

20 and I would imagine that a later stage would be no later than next week

21 Thursday, because I heard Mr. Milovancevic saying? We lose this afternoon

22 and tomorrow, that might save us a lot of time later. So I would -- from

23 that, I infer that later stage means Thursday. I am saying, if this

24 witness testifies on Thursday, and you, Mr. Whiting, have indicated that

25 he would probably finish his evidence by tomorrow if he started today,

Page 631

1 then there is no reason for him not to finish by the 27th, and the

2 following week, 30th, 31st, without a long break, he would be

3 cross-examined.

4 MR. WHITING: That would be acceptable to the Prosecution.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was the suggestion of the Defence.

6 MR. WHITING: I apologise. I had not understood that to be their

7 suggestion but that's certainly acceptable.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that acceptable?

9 MR. WHITING: Of course, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. In that event it looks like

11 we have an adjourn now.

12 MR. WHITING: I'm afraid so, Your Honour, because we don't have

13 another witness available.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. Okay. That will satisfy the

15 Defence. That was the suggestion of the Defence. Am I right, Mr.

16 Milovancevic?

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I agree with

18 your proposal. If I'm given the floor, let me just be brief and say this:

19 I think that Mr. Whiting owes us another explanation. If they informed us

20 in writing that the witness will testify about facts, viva voce, and that

21 this witness gave a statement, then according to the Rules, the statement

22 has to be disclosed to us. We were informed three or four days ago, that

23 in addition to being an expert witness, this witness will also be a fact

24 witness, testifying about some facts that witnesses from UNPROFOR and

25 UNHCR were supposed to testify about. I just want to avoid any problems

Page 632

1 in that sense and this is what I'm pointing out to the Trial Chamber. I

2 hope you understood me. I hope I was clear enough. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I hope the Chamber understood you and I hope

4 you understood Mr. Whiting when he said they have not taken a statement

5 from this witness, that is why they have had nothing to turn over to the

6 Defence. If they had taken a statement on the facts, they would have

7 tendered that statement to you and he says this is standard practice. If

8 it comes to you as a little addendum to an expert testimony that he also

9 testifies on the facts so there was nothing according to Mr. Whiting to be

10 turned over to the Defence. Okay?

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

13 Before we adjourn, then, one or two points on housekeeping.

14 Yesterday -- I beg your pardon. On the 16th, on Monday, there was

15 an arrangement that the parties work on the agreed facts reflecting the

16 two corrections discussed on that day, on the 16th of January. The

17 parties promised to do so. The Chamber would like to find out from the

18 parties how far they've gone on that point.

19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we have had discussions. I think it

20 will be resolved very quickly and my understanding is that the Chamber

21 expects us to file a new version of the agreed facts and we can certainly

22 do that and have that done by next week. I don't see any difficulty

23 whatsoever in having that done.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I do not think it's necessarily a new version, it's

25 just maybe to deal with throws two items and say whether you agree or

Page 633

1 disagree on them.

2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, I misunderstood your legal counsel, then

3 I thought he wanted us to file a new version. But we can do it that way

4 if that's easier.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think it's easier and quicker and shorter.

6 MR. WHITING: That's fine, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to make sure it doesn't go to the back

8 burner and gets forgotten. That's why it will be raised now.

9 MR. WHITING: I think there is just one little detail to discuss

10 furthers with counsel. I don't see any difficulty in resolving it.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.

12 You confirm that, Mr. Milovancevic?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [No interpretation]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The next point the Chamber would like

15 to discuss is in terms of the new courtroom calendar distributed, we are

16 supposed to sit on Friday, the 3rd of February, from 9.00 a.m. to 13.45 in

17 this courtroom. Is that convenient for all parties? Mr. Whiting?

18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

19 MR. WHITING: Yes. Yes. That's fine, Your Honour. And then

20 we're still sitting the next week, on the 6th and the 7th.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: That has not been removed.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the president, please.

23 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I think your

24 microphone is off.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. Well, then, the Chamber will then sit

Page 634

1 in addition to the days that have already been allocated, we will also sit

2 on the 3rd of February, from nine in the morning to quarter to two.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I had forgotten ask my colleagues. In

5 that event, that brings us to the end of the proceedings for today and the

6 matter stands adjourned until next week, Thursday. In which court?

7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I don't have the courtroom number.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is at 9.00 in the morning. Can somebody remind

9 me to which court it is? Courtroom III, the same courtroom, and that will

10 be at nine in the morning.

11 Thank you very much. The court will adjourn.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.50 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of

14 January, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.