1 Wednesday, 13 May 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into the courtroom.
12 I do understand that the present witness is the last witness available
13 for today. If I look at our schedule, tomorrow's witness should be
14 easily concluded tomorrow as well. I see even a very precise estimate of
15 the Prosecution; one hour and 25 minutes, not one and a half hours.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: After that witness tomorrow, is the next witness
18 ready or is ...
19 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. The next witness is coming on
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Good morning, Mr. Radulj.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning. [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radulj, before we continue, I'd like to remind
25 you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at
1 the beginning of your testimony.
2 Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
3 WITNESS: SLOBODAN RADULJ [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpretation]
5 Examination by Mr. Stojanovic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Radulj.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. If you remember, we left it off with the questions concerning
9 your new job; i.e., when you became deputy military prosecutor. Could
10 you please tell the Trial Chamber, in October 1993 when you joined the
11 Military Prosecutor's Office, how many prosecutors were there?
12 A. As far as I can remember, there was the chief prosecutor, there
13 were three deputies, and I came as a fourth deputy. Only a month later
14 one of the colleagues left. I believe that he went to Australia.
15 Q. What was the name of the military prosecutor when you were his
17 A. Major Srboljub Jovicinac.
18 Q. What was the territorial competence of the Military Prosecutor's
19 Office where you started working? What area did your Military
20 Prosecutor's Office cover?
21 A. The Military Prosecutor's Office in Banja Luka covered the zones
22 of responsibility of the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps. In geographical
23 terms, that would be the line from Brcko to Ozren and Doboj and then
24 further on to Mount Vlasic, Kupres, Grahovo, all the way up to Novi Grad
25 in the direction of Bihac. The northern boundary of that territory, of
1 course, would be the Sava River.
2 Q. Thank you. And what was your subject jurisdiction? What did
3 you, as a military prosecutor, do for the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps?
4 A. The subject jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's office and
5 of the military court was to process all the crimes that were committed
6 by members of the VRS, either active or reserve troops while they served
7 in the military. Serving in the military also implied their travel from
8 the unit to their homes, because the units were providing transportation
9 for their troops when they travelled from the line to their homes.
10 Q. A very practical question: A military conscript who was on leave
11 and who was at home and who committed a crime, who would have the
12 jurisdiction to process and bring charges against such a person?
13 A. At the time when a member of the armed forces was on leave, in
14 that case he was considered to be a civilian; i.e., it was a civilian
15 court or a civilian prosecutor's office that would have been in charge of
16 the crimes committed by such a person.
17 Q. And now on to something different. If a civilian who was not
18 engaged in any of the units of the VRS committed a crime that had
19 something to do with the military - i.e., spying or stealing military
20 property or any other type of misdemeanour, a crime, for example,
21 sabotage, something that had to do with the army - who would be in charge
22 of processing such a person?
23 A. Let me expand a little in order to answer your question. At that
24 time, we applied the criminal code of the SFRY and the criminal code of
25 the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the criminal code
1 of the SFRY, there were crimes, I believe under Chapter 15 or 20, I'm not
2 sure, so crimes against armed forces and security and safety. If
3 anybody, a civilian or a member of the military, committed a crime
4 against the security of the state or the military, they would be charged
5 by the military prosecutor's office and they would be tried by a military
7 Q. Thank you. One more question about your jurisdiction. If a
8 crime was committed and if it didn't fell under the chapter of crimes
9 against the military and safety, and if such a crime was committed by an
10 active or reserve police officer, who would be in charge of processing
11 such a crime?
12 A. I really can't remember whether we had any such cases, but I
13 believe that the law was very clear in that respect. It says that
14 everybody who committed such a crime, irrespective of their status, and
15 if a crime was against safety, security, and armed forces, such crimes
16 would be processed by a military court which had the jurisdiction.
17 Q. If such a person - i.e., a policeman - committed a conventional
18 crime such as theft, robbery, murder, who would be in charge of
19 processing such a policeman?
20 A. In such a case, it would be regular - i.e., civilian courts -
21 that would process such a policeman because those crimes are not
22 considered to have been committed against the military or the safety and
23 security of the state.
24 Q. Thank you. Within the context of questions of subject matter
25 jurisdiction, the military prosecutor's office that you worked for, were
1 you in charge of processing all the crimes, irrespective of their gravity
2 and the punishment provided for them?
3 A. I didn't understand your question.
4 Q. Let me take things step by step. The military judiciary and the
5 military prosecutor's office, when it came to first instance procedures,
6 did you prosecute all the crimes irrespective of their gravity and the
7 punishments and sentences provided for them, or was there a second
8 instance as well, or a different instance?
9 A. Yes, now I think I've understood your question. Since there were
10 first instance courts, and there was also a supreme military court, the
11 first instance courts and the prosecutor's office were in charge of all
12 the cases of crimes, irrespective of the sentence provided for them.
13 Only the supreme court could act as a second instance court in such
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, in the answer there is a switch from
17 competence of the prosecutor and the competence of the court. To say the
18 prosecutor would prosecute whatever before the first instance but the
19 supreme court ... So we should clearly distinguish between the competence
20 and jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office and of the court's and that's
21 a bit chaotic in your answer. So if you would please explain, that would
22 be appreciated.
23 Perhaps the most question then is: Was your office, your
24 prosecutorial office, also competent to prosecute the cases in second
1 THE WITNESS: Okay. [Interpretation] Shall I answer? The
2 prosecutor was in charge of all the cases, irrespective of the
3 sentencing. When it came to the second instance proceedings, the
4 prosecutor filed appeals against the decisions of the first instance
5 court, and that was the only role when it came to the second instance
6 decision-making; i.e., filing appeals.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if the convicted person or accused,
8 whatever you call him, would file an appeal, would you then also further
9 prosecute that person before the appellate court, the supreme court?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what happened. If the
11 accused was not satisfied with the sentence, he had the right to appeal
12 to the supreme military court. When the supreme military court received
13 such an appeal, it informed the prosecutor's office about that appeal
14 having been filed. And then the prosecutor had the right to issue a
15 written response to such an appeal. Such a response was then considered
16 by the supreme court and made its final decision accordingly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So where you earlier said that the only role
18 was where the prosecutor appealed, the role was a bit more extensive
19 because you were involved in appeal proceedings as well, if the accused
20 or the convicted person had appealed the judgement.
21 Please proceed.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Only those of us who were not members of the military judiciary
25 would like to know where was the military prosecutor's office located at
1 the time in 1993 and 1994?
2 A. The full title of the institution was the Prosecutor's Office of
3 the Army of Republika Srpska and its seat was in Han Pijesak. Towards
4 the end of the war, it was moved to Zvornik.
5 Q. And where was the seat of the supreme military court which dealt
6 with cases as a second instance institution?
7 A. The seat of the supreme military court was first in Han Pijesak
8 as well and later it was moved to Zvornik. These two institutions have
9 always occupied the same location.
10 Q. Thank you. What were your conditions of work like? When I say
11 "your conditions of work," I mean the premises, the staffing, the
12 equipment capabilities.
13 A. In general terms, our conditions were very dire. And that's an
14 understatement. There were not enough professionals or administrative
15 staff. We had old mechanical typewriters so that it took a typist almost
16 half an hour to type a single page.
17 The premises were inadequate. There was not enough room. There
18 were very frequent electricity outages, and the chief prosecutor used an
19 old Golf I vehicle for which, more often than not, he didn't even have
20 enough petrol. The seat was in Banja Luka.
21 Q. At that time, was there a facility that was used to detain those
22 persons who had to be remanded in custody?
23 A. Yes. In the barracks Mali Logor, that was the name of the
24 barracks, there was a military investigation prison, VIZ, where suspects
25 were kept, suspects that were dealt with by the military judiciary and
1 the military prosecutor's office.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could I ask for clarification, Mr. Stojanovic.
3 Sir, at page 7, line 18, you are recorded as saying: "The seat
4 was in Banja Luka."
5 The seat of what?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The seat of the basic military
7 prosecutor's office for the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps where I worked.
8 Because the question pertained to conditions of work in the 1st and
9 2nd -- or rather, the prosecutor's office where I worked. I think that I
10 was specific on that.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Earlier you told us that the prosecutor's office
12 were seated first in Han Pijesak and then later in Zvornik. That's why
13 I'm asking the question now about Banja Luka. Where does Banja Luka come
14 in? Because you haven't told us before that the prosecutor's seat was in
15 Banja Luka.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I will explain in
18 There were first instance prosecutor's offices that covered the
19 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps in Banja Luka. There was a prosecutor's office
20 in Bijeljina that covered the area of eastern Bosnia. Then there was a
21 prosecutor's office at Sokolac for the area of the Sarajevo and Romanija
22 regions, and the prosecutor's office in Bileca for the area of the
23 Bileca Corps. These were first instance organs.
24 The Defence counsel asked me where the seat was of the supreme
25 military court and prosecutor's office. So this was the second instance
1 organ. The military prosecutor's office of Republika Srpska had its seat
2 in Han Pijesak. Later on, they were moved to Zvornik. So these are
3 second instance organs for these two institutions. That is why I
4 mentioned Han Pijesak and Zvornik.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for this
8 Q. Next question that I actually started already: According to the
9 solutions provided for then in the Law on Criminal Procedure, within the
10 system, who was in charge of carrying out investigations against
11 suspects, persons suspected of having committed crimes?
12 A. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure that was in force
13 then, the investigation was carried out by the court; or rather, the
14 investigating judge of the military court, to be precise.
15 Q. On the basis of the law, who submits a request for carrying out
16 an investigation and who prosecutes suspects and indictees?
17 A. According to the law that was in force then, the military
18 prosecutor's office had the following authority: After a criminal report
19 was filed and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person
20 had committed a crime, within the shortest period of time it was their
21 duty to submit a request to the investigating judge of the military court
22 to carry out an investigation. After the investigation, his duty is to
23 return the case to the prosecutor in charge for taking further action.
24 Q. Another question in this regard. According to the law then,
25 within this system, who was in charge of making proposals and who was in
1 charge of remanding persons into custody or releasing them from custody?
2 A. On the basis of the law, the military prosecutor was supposed to
3 make proposals related to detention; however, it is also the duty of the
4 court to remand persons into custody if the crime involved is such that
5 the law stipulates that the envisaged sentence for the commission of such
6 a crime is ten years.
7 Q. When you say ten years, do you mean as a minimal sentence or as a
8 possible sentence? I'm speaking of obligatory detention now.
9 A. Now, after all this time, I cannot be sure. I think that it was
10 at least ten years in prison. I cannot be certain, but I think it was
11 ten years and more.
12 Q. Thank you. I fully understand. We've been through so many
13 amendments to all these laws.
14 Now, in the system of the prosecutor's office, who is the one who
15 says -- according to the law, who says in the system, "This is a war
16 crime" or "No, this is homicide" or "This is aggravated robbery" or "No,
17 this is robbery"? So who qualifies the crime committed?
18 A. The system of work in the military prosecutor's office was as
19 follows: The chief prosecutor would receive all the cases, and I
20 remember very well on the front page of the document involved he would
21 qualify the crime, is it homicide, is it evasion of military obligation,
22 or whatever else. Then we, as deputies, desk officers, act on the basis
23 of instructions issued by the chief prosecutor. However, at the time the
24 judge was not bound by what the prosecutor had said. It is the facts of
25 the case that guide the judge.
1 Q. Yes, that was my next question. When you say that the judge is
2 not bound by this, rather, the judge is only guided by the facts of the
3 case, my question is as follows: According to the law then, did the
4 court have the possibility to look at the same facts but to qualify the
5 crime in different terms from a legal point of view?
6 A. Absolutely. The court did have that right. And, in practice,
7 there were cases when the court would say that the crime committed was
8 not as serious as what the prosecutor had originally charged. Also, the
9 reverse was true.
10 Q. Thank you. In your work, you, as deputy prosecutor, were you
11 ever subjected to any kind of pressure with regard to the prosecution of
12 perpetrators of crimes?
13 A. No. No pressure whatsoever. Of course, I followed the orders of
14 my superior, the chief prosecutor, and I acted on the basis of his
15 instructions and guide-lines.
16 Q. You as an organ of the military judiciary - that is to say, as
17 the military prosecutor's office - were you duty-bound to submit reports
18 to someone and, if so, to who?
19 A. Yes. Our work was subject to checks, of course, and I know that
20 the chief prosecutor often went to attend meetings at corps commands and
21 the commands of other units where he would report on the work of the
22 military prosecutor's office.
23 Q. When qualifying certain crimes, did you as deputy prosecutor have
24 situations when you were pressured to do something which was the complete
25 opposite of what your own opinion was with regard to a particular crime?
1 A. No. No pressure was exerted. But I don't think that the
2 prosecutor's office was submitted to pressure either, because the
3 prosecutor was a military professional anyway, and he had such a
4 personality that it was very difficult to affect him in any way. We, his
5 co-workers, thought, and think to this day, that he was a professional,
6 even more strict than necessary. I would even say that he's a man who
7 was a bit career-driven too, and influenced others, as a matter of fact,
8 wanting to have matters resolved in a lawful way. So it was very hard to
9 exercise any kind of influence over him.
10 Q. As deputy prosecutor, and later on as a military prosecutor
11 yourself, did you have any problems with evidence, collecting evidence,
12 access to possible crime scenes, carrying out on-site investigations,
13 getting witnesses who would be relevant in supporting the indictment,
14 also issuing subpoenas? So I'm referring to procedural matters. Did you
15 have any difficulties in your work?
16 A. As I've already said, I came to the military prosecutor's office
17 towards the end of 1993. The situation was a bit better then than it had
18 been during 1992. The problem then was reaching the scene, collecting
19 evidence, the impossibility of reaching witnesses, precisely because we
20 did not have a vehicle to reach the scene. As I said, the area is from
21 Brcko to Bihac. At any rate, everything depended on what the military
22 police and security organs would obtain and submit to the prosecutor's
23 office. Later, everything that was not done at first would subsequently
24 be done by the investigating judge who was in charge of the case.
25 Q. According to the law that was in force then, speaking in terms of
1 procedure, how much time could a suspect or indictee spend in detention
2 in the investigation prison?
3 A. Well, let me tell you: In the military prosecutor's office, we
4 had a lot of problems there. Usually, the police would bring in a
5 certain person, and such a person would be remanded in custody for two
6 days. The prosecutor's office was duty-bound within those two days to
7 prepare the relevant evidence and file a request for carrying out an
8 investigation and make a proposal on the extension of custody, first of
9 all, for one month.
10 During this very short period of time, in view of the fact that
11 we did not have sufficient resources, including human resources, we
12 sometimes had to work day and night so that we could get things done on
13 time. May I mention that we usually worked from 7.00 to 7.00. There
14 were no real working hours. Also, it depended on whether we had
16 So if we would manage to submit a request for carrying out an
17 investigation, the person who was in detention could remain in detention
18 until the end of the investigation, but the maximum period was six
19 months. However, if the investigating judge would not complete the
20 investigation, that person, regardless of the crime involved, would have
21 to be released from custody on the basis of the law. Even if the
22 prosecutor's office were to ask for an extension of detention, the court
23 would release them.
24 Q. Thank you. Tell us now, specifically, you as deputy military
25 prosecutor in that period, if you still remember, did you have any
1 situations when you would charge Serbs or indict persons of Serb
2 ethnicity and the injured party would be a person or persons of non-Serb
3 ethnicity, irrespective of the crime involved?
4 A. Yes, there were such cases. Serbs committed crimes against
5 non-Serbs and were charged for them.
6 It's hard for me to remember all such cases, but I do remember
7 one which was very hard. In any case, a non-Serb was murdered for the
8 gain of some petty cash, and that Serb who committed the murder was
9 sentenced to 12 years in prison.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were other cases of that
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, that one case you remember, was
14 that murder committed in the context of combat or in context of any
15 military activity, or was it just outside of that context?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on memory, a Serb soldier was
17 driving from Prijedor to Ljubija. He pulled over and picked up a
18 civilian, a hitchhiker. He admitted all that during proceedings. He
19 asked him if he had any money, and the passenger said that he had 500
20 German marks. As far as I can remember --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Would you mind to focus your answer on my question.
22 My question was whether it was in a military context. Was he driving to
23 his family or was he with his unit or -- when it happened?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember the year. It may
25 have been 1994. He was on his way back from the unit, as far as I can
1 remember. It's very hard to remember all the details. Everything
2 happened 20 years ago.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if I understand you well, it's not your
4 recollection that it was in the direct military context that this crime
5 was committed.
6 I'm asking you this for the following reason.
7 Because, Mr. Stojanovic, we have now listened to some now 40
8 minutes all kind of abstract matters. The charges in this case are,
9 among others, that no investigations were initiated in relation to the
10 crimes which are at the core of this case, and at the core of this case
11 is not one specific murder of a civilian who is robbed from his
12 properties; but it is war crimes, crimes against humanity.
13 Do you remember a prosecution of any of the servicemen who was
14 suspected of having committed a war crime, a crime against humanity, in
15 the context of this indictment? And if you are not familiar with the
16 indictment, it is about large-scale operations, shelling civilians,
17 et cetera, that kind. Was there any prosecution to your knowledge
18 initiated for such crimes?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I arrived and joined
20 the military prosecutor's office in late 1993.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not interested in when you arrived. I'm
22 interested in whether you ever prosecuted such a case. And, of course, I
23 do understand that you didn't prosecute cases before you arrived in the
24 prosecutor's office. That goes without saying.
25 Do you remember any such case being prosecuted by you or your
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I remember some cases. One
3 of them would be Sugic, another Amidzic, and some others. In any case,
4 there were many cases that were prosecuted by my colleagues. I can't
5 really say what cases they prosecuted. But one thing I can say: Towards
6 the end of the war - i.e., as the war drew on and the military
7 prosecutor's office and the military court increased their capabilities -
8 we started taking more and more such cases into consideration. You know
9 that there is no statute of limitation on such crimes, so they could be
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's all in the abstract. Give us one such an
12 example you prosecuted. I do understand that you were not fully familiar
13 with the cases prosecuted by your colleagues. But one of those cases you
14 prosecuted that is a clear war crime, crime against humanity, you
15 prosecuted, tell us about it.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing I can remember as I
17 sit here today is that I was involved in the Sugic case. And there was
18 another case, Amidzic, that was processed after the war.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Tell us about the Sugic case. Who was prosecuted,
20 what was the result of the prosecution, what had happened?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That case was heard by the military
22 court in Banja Luka. When the Sugic brothers were brought in, I was the
23 prosecutor on duty. I was invited to be present during their
24 interrogation. After the interrogation, I asked for the two of them to
25 be remanded in custody. That may have been in 1996 or 1997. I'm sure
1 that it was after the war.
2 What happened to the case later --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to know cases during the war, if you have
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I do -- one of the bigger
6 cases was the Stanovic case that I have already mentioned; however, I
7 can't remember any other names. There was the Valter case but that's
8 something different, not what you want me to tell you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not interested in the cases which are not
10 covered by my question. But I do understand that the Stanovic case was
11 then one which is covered by my question. Tell us, who was the accused,
12 what had happened?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you properly,
14 you're asking me about that first case, about the incident that happened
15 on the Ljubija-Prijedor road?
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm -- I'm interested in cases clearly
17 dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, prosecuted during the
18 wartime because the indictment charges that no effective action was taken
19 either to prevent or to punish such crimes. So apart from who was
20 driving what car and in what location prosecutor's office A was or
21 prosecutor's office B was, or whether you had enough typewriters or not,
22 I'd like to know what prosecutions were undertaken by your office during
23 the war concerning crimes as they are charged in the indictment against
24 the accused.
25 That's what I'm, first of all, interested to hear from you,
1 because that might challenge the Prosecutor's case. Any examples of
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any such cases or
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic. And, Mr. Stojanovic, I hope you
7 understand --
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Honour,
9 because those were questions -- of course, Your Honour. I had all those
10 questions before me. I won't take up much more time, because you -- in
11 practical terms, you have snatched my questions from me.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you took 40 minutes to tell us all -- to
13 ask the witness about the system, about the cars driven, about whatever,
14 but you didn't touch upon the core of the issue which is before this
15 Court, and that's the reason why I put a few questions. And I now
16 understand that this witness cannot tell us anything about any
17 prosecution he was involved in during the wartime concerning crimes as
18 they are charged against the accused you are defending at this moment.
19 Therefore, that other knowledge may turn out not to be that
20 relevant if we do not have information that really would assist the
21 Chamber; that is, what action was taken in order to investigate and
22 prosecute the crimes which are found in the indictment. And that's the
23 reason why I thought after 40 minutes where you had only a few minutes
24 left that perhaps I would try to get to the core of what this case is
1 Please proceed. Please proceed.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all due
3 respect, this witness has clearly stated what was the legal framework and
4 what were the possibility of conducting trials during that period.
5 That's one reason.
6 And the second is what we want to hear from this witness, and I
7 will have a few more questions for him.
8 Q. Sir, you mentioned the cases Radulj [sic] and Amidzic. Can you
9 remember what crimes were at stake and in what area. They were members
10 of a group, a whole group that was charged, can you remember that case
11 and what it was all about?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
13 MR. TRALDI: I am very sorry. Just for the transcript. My
14 friend is recorded to have referred to the cases "Rado and Amidzic," and
15 I wonder if the first name might have been misrecorded. I heard the
16 witness refer to the Amidzic case but not to a Rado case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we will put the question to the witness
18 again after the break, Mr. Stojanovic, because we take the break first.
19 We would like to see you back in 20 minutes, Witness.
20 And then, Mr. Stojanovic --
21 You may follow the usher.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: And how much time would you still need after the
24 break, Mr. Stojanovic.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not more than ten minutes, Your
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. We'll resume at 10 minutes to
4 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Radulj, tell us, you mentioned the Amidzic case, could you
10 please recall the charges against the accused, including Amidzic?
11 A. The Amidzic case was assigned to me sometime in 1996 or 1997.
12 Several deputies had left the military prosecutor's office, and the
13 remaining cases were assigned to the rest of us who stayed with the
14 prosecutor's office. When I looked at the cases, I noticed that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please answer the question. The
16 question was: What the charges were against the accused. Not when you
17 took over the case, not why the others left, but what were the charges.
18 A. Okay. As far as I can remember, it was a grave crime against
19 civilians committed in an elementary school near Kljuc. What I remember
20 is that there were ten or even more accused in that case.
21 Q. Thank you. What can you tell us about the Sugic case? What
22 crimes did they commit and what were they charged with?
23 A. As far as I can remember, the Sugics murdered civilians in a
24 village near Celinac. It happened either in 1992 or 1993. I'm not sure.
25 Q. Thank you. In 1996 or 1997, when you were a deputy military
1 prosecutor, were there any pressures put on you not to prosecute cases of
2 Serbs committing crimes against non-Serbs in 1992?
3 A. No, there were no pressures either then or before that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, before we move to the pressures.
5 What explained that crimes committed in 1992 or 1993 were only
6 prosecuted far later, five years?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can just share my opinion with
8 you, if that may be of any use to you. I believe that the problem lies
9 in the fact that the accused were not accessible, in the fact that there
10 was not enough evidence, in the fact that many of the perpetrators got
11 killed during the war or had left the territory of Republika Srpska;
12 i.e., Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm more interested in facts than in opinions, but
14 at least you gave some what may have been facts underlying what happened.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Could a person be tried if you were not in a position to secure
18 evidence, witnesses, facts due to the war?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, again, if you have no evidence, you
20 can't prosecute someone. If wartime can -- I mean, that's all
21 self-explanatory. Of course, what this Chamber needs is clear evidence.
22 At least that's what we expect to receive during the Defence case, clear
23 evidence that where the Prosecutor claims that not for good reasons
24 matters were not investigated or prosecuted, that you'd tell us that not
25 in general terms that if there's no evidence but why in those cases there
1 really was no evidence, et cetera, rather than general statements.
2 So could you please try to get to the concrete questions so that
3 we can get concrete information.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Let's be concrete. In the Amidzic case, could you prosecute if
6 there were reasons that you mentioned in your answer to Judge Orie's
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, not if you can --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It is not if there were reasons. Were there such
11 reasons? What was the evidence available, why was that considered to be
12 insufficient, who were the accused, were they inaccessible, et cetera?
13 Not if they were inaccessible or if there was no evidence, that's of
14 course -- these are all hypothetical questions. Let's get to the
15 concrete facts of this or any other case where it would be in the
16 interest of the Defence to demonstrate that everything was done that
17 could be done.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Radulj, in the Amidzic case, as a prosecutor, did you think
21 that conditions were in place for you to prosecute at the moment when you
22 took over the case?
23 A. At that moment I did what I could. I asked for the investigation
24 to go on. Before the investigation was over, I could not do anything.
25 Q. Thank you. When was the military prosecutor's office disbanded,
1 including the military judiciary?
2 A. There was an act which was passed in 2000 to that effect.
3 Q. The cases which were not finalised and were within the
4 jurisdiction of the military judiciary, what happened to them?
5 A. All the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the military
6 jurisdiction were forwarded to the civilian jurisdiction pursuant to
7 special rules and regulations.
8 Q. Let me finish with the following question: Do you know if the
9 civilian judiciary continued to prosecute war crimes that happened in
11 A. I know that after that all the cases of crimes that happened from
12 1992 onwards are still being prosecuted in the Republika Srpska and the
13 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radulj. Thank you for your help. We have no
15 further questions for you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Stojanovic.
20 The Amidzic case, Witness, when did you take that over? I think
21 you said. Was it in 1996, 1997?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Stojanovic asked you whether you could
24 prosecute it then and you said I asked for the investigation to go on.
25 But in this case, it's of primary importance to know whether it could be
1 prosecuted in 1992, 1993, because this case is not about failure of doing
2 what authorities had to do after the war but is mainly about failure to
3 do what was necessary immediately sequential to the crimes being
5 Do you have any facts, to your knowledge, why or whether the
6 Amidzic case could not be prosecuted or further investigated in 1992,
7 1993? Do you have any facts, to your knowledge, what was investigated in
8 1992 and 1993? And I'm interested in concrete facts, not in general
9 opinions about that these kind of things are difficult in wartime because
10 that goes without saying, but I'm asking you whether you have any
11 concrete facts in that context.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say what I heard; that is to
13 say, what I learned. And I learned that when I came to the prosecutor's
14 office in 1993. People were talking about a grave crime near Kljuc. I
15 found out that some persons who were brought into custody by the military
16 police but that, allegedly, the entire brigade had threatened to leave
17 the position, or some soldiers had come before the military court and
18 exerted pressure in that way to have these individuals released. These
19 are just stories that I had heard. It's not that I saw any of this or
20 that I was an eye-witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So if earlier you said that you thought that the
22 problems lie in the fact that the accused were not available and the fact
23 that there was not evidence, that the one example you give us now is that
24 the accused or the suspects were arrested but that there was a kind of a
25 revolt and that that prevented, at least that's what you heard, the
1 investigation and the prosecution to be continued. Is that well
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I said what I had heard, but
4 allegedly only two persons were in custody, and there were more than ten
5 suspects who were --
6 JUDGE ORIE: But at least those two were available. Because in
7 your opinion you expressed earlier, no reference whatsoever was made to
8 accused or suspects that were available, and you didn't hint in any way
9 at what you heard about pressure put upon you not to prosecute, and even
10 a kind of a revolution within the army where, as you're telling us now,
11 that this is what you heard. So I'm wondering why your opinion you
12 expressed a while earlier doesn't say anything about what you tell us
14 Do you have any explanation for that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do have an explanation. I was
16 answering questions that pertained to the period when I was in the
17 prosecutor's office, and I spoke about that period. I thought that what
18 had happened before that is something that I could not testify about,
19 because I wasn't present when that happened.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you were not present when happened what you
21 just described and a moment ago you said you were expressing opinion
22 rather than fact. I leave it to that.
23 Mr. Traldi, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
24 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President. And good morning.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning.
1 Mr. Radulj, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Traldi. You find
2 Mr. Traldi to your right. Mr. Traldi is counsel for the Prosecution.
3 Please proceed.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:
5 Q. Good morning, sir.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Now, sir, you were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor in
8 2002; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can I take it that your position is you told the truth in
11 that interview?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now, I want to start just by following up briefly on the
14 questions that you've been asked about the Banja Luka military court.
15 First, have I understood correctly your testimony just now, that
16 the evidence you gave about the Banja Luka military court and military
17 prosecutor's office earlier refers only to the period after you joined
18 the office in October 1993?
19 A. I did not quite understand what you were saying, but I think that
20 you're asking me to confirm that my statement pertains to the period from
21 October 1993 when I was in the public prosecutor's office, if that is
22 what you meant?
23 Q. You've understood me correctly, sir.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, talking about testimony and talking
25 about statements, let's clearly try to distinguish between the evidence
1 given now and whatever appears in the statement the Chamber is unaware
3 MR. TRALDI:
4 Q. Let me ask very precisely, as I referred to "evidence." Have I
5 understood correctly your testimony that the evidence you've given this
6 morning, in your testimony, about the Banja Luka military court and
7 military prosecutor's office, refers only to the period after you'd
8 joined the office in October 1993?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, you referred to two cases just now, the Amidzic case and the
11 Sugic case. Both of those cases involved VRS soldiers accused of
12 murdering Muslim civilians; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You became involved with both of them in 1996, you said? Is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, you would have reviewed the case files when you got assigned
18 to the cases; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you would have heard discussion of the cases in the office as
21 you testified about the Amidzic case; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So you're aware as you sit here today that in 1992, shortly after
24 those crimes happened, all of the perpetrators were arrested; right?
25 A. I don't know what you mean. It's not clear to me.
1 Q. Well, as you sit here today, you know that shortly after the
2 crime that Amidzic and the others were charged with, they were arrested;
4 A. No. I said that I found out that only two perpetrators had been
5 arrested - had been arrested.
6 Q. Well, let's go step by step. You don't recall from the case file
7 that all 12 of the accused perpetrators gave statements confessing to the
9 A. Well, that I do not remember because it was more than 20 years
10 ago, and basically I didn't even review the entire case file then because
11 the investigation hadn't been completed.
12 Q. And so you also don't recall that they then wrote to
13 General Talic complaining about their detention, that there was nothing
14 in the case file for the next nine months after that, and that then two
15 of them were rearrested in 1993? You don't remember that either?
16 A. No, I only remember that somebody, maybe an investigating judge,
17 this was already in 1996, said that most of them got killed. Not all of
18 them, though.
19 Q. Now, you'd known about the crime already in 1992; right? About
20 the massacre at Velagici school that they were arrested for and then
21 released for.
22 A. No. I heard people talking about that in 1993, when I arrived in
23 the prosecutor's office. I already said that.
24 Q. In fact, you heard about it in Prijedor in 1992 even though it
25 happened in Kljuc; right?
1 A. Yes. As far as Prijedor is concerned, I heard about that. But
2 I'm repeating again that about Kljuc I learned in 1993.
3 Q. Well, let's have 65 ter 32564, page 41. And this will be part of
4 your interview with the Office of the Prosecutor.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I meanwhile ask one additional question.
6 If you're assigned to a case, if the investigation is not
7 complete, you just don't read the whole file? Is that how I have to
8 understand your answer?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's not that I don't read
10 it. Since it is a request for investigation, then you have very little
11 material to read. Very little can be seen from that material. It's only
12 the very beginning of the investigation, and you have a great deal of
13 files to deal with. So we had to move very quickly. And now it's been a
14 very long time since then.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then just go back to your answer where you
16 said you had not -- one second, please. You said:
17 "... and basically, I didn't even review the entire case file
18 then because the investigation hadn't been completed."
19 I understood that you didn't review it. That means that you
20 didn't read it. But if there is anything -- if you meant something else,
21 then please tell us.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I read the criminal report and
23 the description of the crime. The number of victims, place, time, all of
24 that. As for all the other details, at that moment I thought they were
25 of lesser importance. Maybe I even read it, but right now I cannot
1 remember. This is what I remains in my memory.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you consider confessions, as to what Mr. Traldi
3 alluded to, by suspects who are detained to be less important if you take
4 over a case file?
5 I'm just asking you as a professional, whether you say it's of
6 lesser importance that those detained are confessing to the crimes, that
7 that's less important than what you did read?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, confessions in a
9 case like this are the most important. There is no denying that. But
10 I'm saying that I may have read it, but after 23 or -4 years, I cannot
11 recall the details. On the other hand, we had a large number of cases.
12 I reacted immediately. I wanted the investigation to continue.
13 First of all, I was surprised that the case had come to me. I
14 asked for an urgent reaction then --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've answered my question.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. TRALDI:
18 Q. Now, this is a portion of your interview with the Office of the
19 Prosecutor. The transcript is only in English, so I'm going to read to
20 you slowly.
21 MR. TRALDI: And if we could scroll to the bottom of the page.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could verify: Do you -- I noticed that
23 you greeted me in the English language and only after that you said
24 "dobro jutro" so may I take it that you can read English?
25 THE WITNESS: [In English] I'm sorry. [Interpretation] I'm
1 sorry, my English is not all that good. It is better to go through
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not suggesting that we should not go. But
4 if you read it on the screen, at least you have an opportunity to at
5 least decipher some of it.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. TRALDI:
8 Q. Now, sir, I was asking you whether you'd heard about the Velagici
9 massacre in 1992 when you were in Prijedor. And starting here, the third
10 question up from the bottom, you're asked:
11 "Do you recall when you first picked up the phone what that --
12 that's not the question -- when did you first pick up the Velagici file
13 and how did it come into your hands if Captain Jovicinac didn't assign it
14 to you?"
15 You say:
16 "I think it was the first time it actually came into my hands in
17 96 when I did react and when I did this proposal, by I did know about it
18 prior to that, before that, because I heard stories."
19 And you're asked:
20 "When did you first hear about the Velagici massacre?"
21 And you answered:
22 "I think at the time I was still in Prijedor because it was an
23 event people talked about."
24 You're asked:
25 "So, the Velagici massacre occurred the 1st of June 1992, was it
1 soon after that, sometime in June 1992 when you heard about it?"
2 Now, you describe that you first heard about a column of JNA
3 vehicles that was attacked in May 1992 in Kljuc. And then turning to the
4 next page at the top, you say:
5 "... only later on, mid-June or mid-July did I hear about this
6 massacre in the school, or the, Velagici is the name of the village. I
7 only saw the case file in 96."
8 So do you stand by what you said in your interview, that you were
9 aware of the Velagici massacre in mid-June or mid-July 1992 when you were
10 still in Prijedor?
11 A. Well, to tell you quite frankly, in view of the time distance
12 involved, I believed that I knew about this even in Prijedor, as I stated
13 then in 2002. As I've already said, it's been a long time and there is
14 the effect of that. But I believe that what I stated then is correct,
15 that I did have that knowledge.
16 Q. And it's correct that your recollection was fresher in 2002 than
17 it is today, of course; right?
18 A. Yes. [In English] Yes, yes.
19 Q. Now, this Velagici case was the only case in the Banja Luka
20 military court where charges were initially brought under Article 142,
21 war crimes, rather than under Article 36 for murder; right?
22 And, sorry, I should be more specific. It's the only case where
23 charges were brought against VRS soldiers under Article 142 for a crime
24 against non-Serbs; right?
25 A. [Interpretation] I know that it is a very, very serious crime. A
1 grave crime. But at this moment, I cannot say how it was dealt with in
2 legal terms. It is possible that it was Article 142.
3 Q. Well, you were asked about Article 142 in your interview, and you
4 stated that the military prosecutor had told you he received an
5 instruction not to use Article 142, the qualification of war crimes,
6 anymore. Do you stand by that today?
7 A. Again, you're putting me in a difficult situation. I cannot
8 recall these details, but I can provide an opinion that was prevalent
9 then among us lawyers, if you allow me.
10 Q. At the moment, I'm asking specifically whether you stand by your
11 statement in your interview - and we can look at the full text, if it
12 will help - that the military prosecutor told you he had received an
13 instruction not to use the Article 142 classification for crimes by VRS
14 soldiers against non-Serbs.
15 A. Well, bearing in mind that statement 13 years ago, I believe that
16 what I stated then is correct. Otherwise, I do not recall these details.
17 Q. So I take it you don't recall today whether he told you who gave
18 him this instruction?
19 A. If that's what he said to me, I think that he did not say who it
20 was that had given the instruction. However, if you allow me, why was it
21 not qualified as a war crime? The only reason was because a state of war
22 had not been declared at the time in Republika Srpska; rather, an
23 imminent threat of war had been declared. So that is the reason why
24 these crimes were not qualified as war crimes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just get a clarification.
1 If they were not qualified as war crimes, why were they being
2 brought before a military court and not taken to a civil court?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer lies in the law itself;
4 that is to say, military persons are held responsible for all the crimes
5 they had committed regardless of whether these crimes are against the
6 military or general crimes. In all of these cases, these were serious
7 cases of murder and they could have been punished by the death sentence
8 according to the law that was then in force.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And do I understand then that even where a state
10 of war has not been declared, if a soldier commits a murder of a civilian
11 out there, that it comes to a military court? Thank you.
12 MR. TRALDI:
13 Q. Now --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I shall provide an answer. He is
15 brought before a military court because he is a member of the armed
16 forces, a member of the army. It is on that basis that he is brought
17 before a military court.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You had answered me. Thank you.
19 MR. TRALDI:
20 Q. Now, clearly the Sugic brothers and the Velagici perpetrators
21 weren't sentenced to terms of imprisonment for their crimes during the
22 war. You agreed during your interview that had they been, they and
23 others like them, it would have been a huge step to preventing other
24 crimes that had happened that were committed by VRS soldiers during the
25 war. Do you stand by that today?
1 A. Yes. I'm sure that that would have been prevention and also it
2 would have been educational, as it were, for others not to do anything
3 like that.
4 Q. And not sentencing them sent the opposite message; right?
5 A. Exactly. Yes.
6 Q. And the prosecutor's office took the decision that -- well, let
7 me start that question again.
8 There was pretty efficient prosecution during the war of Serb
9 soldiers who killed Serbs; right?
10 A. Well, I think that they were prosecuted the same way as others.
11 I did not see any difference.
12 Q. Well, let's have page 44 of this same document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But the question was not whether you see any
14 difference. The question was, first of all, whether there was an
15 efficient prosecution during the war of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs.
16 Was there or was there not?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to say that
18 there was a difference there. The only difference may lie in the fact
19 that it was easier to obtain evidence when a Serb was killed.
20 If non-Serbs were killed, the victims and their relatives would
21 have left and it was not as easy to obtain evidence that were needed for
22 any kind of prosecution.
23 When it came to Serb victims, it was easier.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. TRALDI: Now, if we could scroll down.
1 Q. This is another portion of your interview with the Office of the
2 Prosecutor, and let's scroll back up a little bit so we start with
3 "Because in Sanski Most ..."
4 Now, you were asked similar questions in 2002 when your
5 recollection was fresher. It was first put to you:
6 "Because in Sanski Most no one got prosecuted for killing
7 non-Serbs. At least, that's what it appears like, nobody ended up in
9 You responded:
10 "Unfortunately that's correct, you're right."
11 I'm going to stop there for a moment. Do you stand today by what
12 you stated in your interview, that in Sanski Most nobody was
13 prosecuted -- no VRS soldiers were prosecuted for killing non-Serbs?
14 A. Well, your question takes me by surprise. I don't remember that
15 anybody ever asked me about Sanski Most, nor do I have anything to do
16 with Sanski Most.
17 Q. Well --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand really.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a recording, audio, video, of this
22 MR. TRALDI: There is audio.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, if you say: "I didn't say it," then we'll
24 just listen to the audio to find out whether what you're telling us now,
25 that you have no recollection that any questions were asked about
1 Sanski Most or that you said anything about it. If you -- if you
2 seriously doubt that, then we should clearly find out whether an unfair
3 record of your interview was prepared because this Chamber would not
4 accept that.
5 Do you insist on that you didn't say this and this wasn't asked?
6 Because then we'll verify.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't have any doubts. I
8 do have doubts about my own memory, if I may be honest. Sanski Most is
9 mentioned. I may have said that according to the records that were
10 available to me at the time as a deputy prosecutor that nobody in
11 Sanski Most was prosecuted.
12 I can repeat that. Today, according to the records I had then, I
13 can say still say that nobody in Sanski Most was prosecuted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You're moving from what we are doing. You're moving
15 away from it. You're now saying: "I may have said something different
16 from what is recorded," that you didn't tell it as what you remembered
17 but that you learned that from the records.
18 Now, apart from whether you did or not, and that's not the issue,
19 if you say: "At the time, I didn't give my recollection but I told the
20 interviewer that I had learned this from your records," then we'll check
21 whether you said that or whether you said something different, whether
22 you did or did not refer to the source of your knowledge.
23 If you say: "I refer to the source of my knowledge and I didn't
24 present it as my own recollection," then we'll verify it. If you think
25 that it's worthwhile doing that, we'll do it.
1 Do you want us to do it?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think that there is
3 need for that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That answers my question.
7 MR. TRALDI:
8 Q. Sir, you said a moment ago you didn't have anything to do with
9 Sanski Most. Now, of course, what you had to do with Sanski Most was
10 that the 6th Brigade, based in Sanski Most, was part of the 1st Krajina
11 Corps, and its soldiers and crimes they committed were within your
12 office's jurisdiction; right?
13 A. That is correct, yes.
14 Q. Looking at the rest of your answer to this question, you say:
15 "Yes, this is, you noted that, noticed very well because, ah, at
16 the beginning of the war there were less, there were fewer cases
17 processed, but the number grew as the war sort of developed because the
18 bodies of authorities were being established, army became more and more
19 disciplined. And they asked, they demanded responsibility for acts later
20 on, the army demanded, but, as far as 1992 is concerned, everybody just
21 wanted to forget everything about that."
22 Now, first, when you said 1992, you were referring to a context
23 of massive crimes committed by the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps again the
24 Muslim and Croat civilian populations in their areas of responsibility
25 during that time; right?
1 A. Right, yes.
2 Q. You're then asked:
3 "But, again, in large, in large part that was based on which
4 nation the victim was from? Because we, if you agree with me, because we
5 looked at nearly all of the murder files from 1992 to 1993. And there
6 you will see pretty efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed
7 Serbs, usually family members. Would you agree?"
8 And you answer:
9 "That's correct because those, ah, cases had the precedents and
10 those other cases were left for some other times when the political
11 situation would be better, more friendly towards such cases."
12 So two questions: First, when you say those other cases that
13 were to be left for some other time, you're referring to a conscious
14 decision not to prosecute VRS soldiers for crimes against Muslims and
15 Croats during the war, even in the context of those massive crimes you
16 just confirmed the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps were committing; right?
17 A. I believe -- I'm sure that you did not understand me properly. I
18 never said, and nobody else did either, that perpetrators of war crimes
19 should not be prosecuted. That certainly has never been said.
20 Second of all, at the initial period, we did not have the
21 necessary institutions that would have been able to prosecute criminals.
22 All those things happened within the vacuum between the disappearance of
23 the old state and the emergence of a new state. It also happened partly
24 due to the political situation and the morale that prevailed in the army.
25 There was a period of waiting for the institutions to be set up
1 and that's when all the war crimes would be prosecuted, because there is
2 no statute of limitations on them. In other words, nobody ever said that
3 perpetrators of war crimes should not be prosecuted.
4 Q. Let me rephrase my question. First -- and I'm going to break it
5 up into a few parts.
6 First, do you stand by what you said in your interview, that it's
7 correct that the records reflect pretty efficient prosecution of Serb
8 soldiers who killed Serbs in the Banja Luka military court during the
10 A. Well, I wouldn't agree with that even today. That may be due to
11 the translation. That was never my opinion. I still cannot say that I
12 think that way.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, if there is any translation issue, we'll
14 check on the basis of the audio. We'll have the translation verified.
15 If you didn't say it, we want to know because then we are presented with
16 an inaccurate record of transcript of an interview. And in similar
17 cases, it has turned out, now and then, that there were inaccuracies
18 either in the recording or in the translation.
19 What this Chamber, however, does not accept, that someone
20 withdraws from his own words, blaming transcribers or interpreters for it
21 rather than to acknowledge that that's what they said before.
22 Therefore, again, the question here: Do you want us to verify
23 the interpretation of your words spoken at the time? Say "yes" and we'll
24 do it.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that you do not challenge the
2 accuracy of the recording of this statement, neither the interpretation?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not challenging the accuracy,
4 but I would like to provide an explanation. Please allow me to explain.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the only thing we were focusing on at this
6 moment is what you said at the time. That matter has been resolved. I
7 leave it in the hands of Mr. Traldi what other questions to put to you.
8 And if your explanations are directly related to the question, then, of
9 course, you have an opportunity to give such explanations.
10 MR. TRALDI:
11 Q. I'm going to repeat my initial question: Do you stand by what
12 we've now agreed you said in your interview, that it's correct that there
13 was pretty efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs in
14 your court during the war? Yes or no?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, do you stand by what you said, that those cases, cases where
17 are the victims were Serbs, had precedence?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you also stand by, yes or no, what you said in your interview
20 that other cases, which I take to mean cases where the victims were not
21 Serbs, were left for some other time? Yes or no?
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the answer.
23 MR. TRALDI:
24 Q. Sir --
25 A. Again, I have to provide an explanation.
1 Q. You --
2 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, the interpreters didn't hear your
3 answer. So could you please first repeat your answer whether those cases
4 against non-Serbs were left for some other time. Do you stand by that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Next question please, Mr. Traldi.
7 MR. TRALDI:
8 Q. Now, the fact that cases involving crimes by VRS soldiers against
9 non-Serbs were left, at best, for some other time, to the point that you
10 picked up a file in 1996 where the perpetrators of a mass murder had been
11 arrested, confessed, and then been sent back to their units in 1992,
12 reflects that what you said in 2002 in your interview was true - cases
13 involving crimes against Serbs had the precedence; right?
14 A. Cases against Serbs that had precedence concerned evading a
15 military service. That's what I had in mind when I said that. Those
16 were the only cases that fell into that category.
17 Q. Well, in fact, there were successful prosecutions of soldiers for
18 killing Serbs. The Pero Marin case; right?
19 A. I don't recall that case at all.
20 Q. In fact, I'd put to you that what the records reflect is cases
21 where the victims were Serbs or cases where, as you mentioned, the
22 interests of the army were implicated, those cases not only had
23 precedence in terms of successful prosecutions and sentences to terms of
24 imprisonment, those cases came first, last, and only in the work of the
25 Banja Luka military court. That's the truth, right?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I see we're at the time for a break.
3 I'm sorry to interrupt.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I nevertheless would like to go to your
5 statement in more detail and try to find out what you're telling us.
6 As you can see on your screen, the question about the cases and
7 which you said which cases had precedence, that question was exclusively
8 about murder cases, isn't it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't remember those
10 details. It was a long time ago. But I know for sure that --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you read -- could you then read -- I'll slowly
12 read it to you, the whole of what you said. The interviewer asked you:
13 "... in large part, that was based on which nation the victim was
14 from? Because we, if you agree with me, because we looked at nearly all
15 the murder files from 1992 to 1993. And there you'll see pretty
16 efficient prosecution of Serb soldiers who killed Serbs, usually family
17 members. Would you agree?"
18 I first -- I was seeking whether you agree that this question is
19 clearly and exclusively about murder cases. Is it, or is it not?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer by just saying "yes"
21 or "no." I've already asked you to allow me to explore. It was much
22 easier to obtain evidence if both parties were Serbs because --
23 JUDGE ORIE: That I may all be true. That's a different matter.
24 You are interpreting your own answer, and for that reason I first take
25 you to the question in order to see exactly what the question was about.
1 There may have been good reasons for it, that's a different matter, but
2 is this question purely about murders?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, the answer
4 would be yes, in view of my previous statement.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now I'll take you to your answer. Your answer is:
6 "That's correct ..."
7 And then on your own initiative, you continued:
8 "... because ... those cases had the precedence and those other
9 cases were left for some other times."
10 Now, I think you explained to us a few minute ago that when you
11 were referring to cases that had precedence that you were referring to
12 those cases where not meeting your military obligations was concerned,
13 whereas I have difficulties in understanding this answer in any other way
14 than the cases that had the precedence is the cases of prosecutions of
15 Serb soldiers killing Serbs and not by desertion or not responding to a
16 call-up. That's my analysis of the words you used.
17 If you have a good explanation as why I should understand your
18 answer, I'm not talking about anything else but about your answer. If
19 you have any explanation why where you said those cases had the
20 precedence, how we should understand that as referring to desertion or
21 not responding to call-ups, withdrawing from your military obligations,
22 please tell us how we could possibly understand that in the way you now
23 present it to us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You have completely confused me. I
25 would like to see my signature on that text that I authored in 2002.
1 This resembles an answer of a military judge, not a military prosecutor.
2 I really don't understand. I'm totally confused.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Are you challenging the accuracy of the transcript
4 and the interpretation, is that what you're doing? You know there is a
5 standing offer, we'll verify it.
6 But earlier, you started explaining that cases that had
7 precedence were other cases, apparently explaining your explanation --
8 your statement, and I had difficulties in logically following that
9 explanation. Therefore, I gave you this opportunity to logically explain
10 how we could have possibly understood the reference to those cases that
11 had precedence as anything else than murder cases, and you still have an
12 opportunity to do that.
13 If you take that opportunity, fine. You can do it. If you limit
14 yourself to questioning the accuracy of this transcript and the
15 interpretation, fine as well. Then we'll verify it.
16 Which of the two: Do you want to further explain this text, not
17 what happened, but this text; or do you want the accuracy to be verified?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I have the right to ask for a
19 break, please? Or shall I just wait for our regular break time?
20 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, do not -- Mr. Mladic, you do not have
21 to interfere.
22 It is regular break time, but if you could briefly answer my
23 question whether you want to explain or whether you want the
24 verification, then we'll do that after the break. We'll give you an
25 opportunity after the break -- if you want to explain and if you want to
1 challenge the accuracy, tell us now because we'll do it as soon as we
3 Which of the two do you want to do after the break?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I use the break time to give
5 the whole thing a thought, please? And then I will be prepared to give
6 you answer after the break.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher. And we'll take a break
8 and we'll resume at 25 minutes past midday.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.25 p.m.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radulj, we left you with a question before the
14 break; that is, whether you wanted to have the accuracy of the recording
15 to be verified, or whether you would like to give an explanation on the
16 context in which you used the words "those cases had the precedence" as
17 referring to anything else than to murder cases.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a good and long thought about
19 everything. I provided that statement 13 years ago, which is why I don't
20 remember many things, so I won't challenge the statement. I don't want
21 it to be verified. Nothing would happen as a result of that. Nothing
22 would be changed.
23 And as for the question about prosecuting crimes where, as you
24 put it, Serbs took precedence over others, I stand by my statement that
25 at that moment I had in mind crimes concerning the military and military
1 service. Exclusively that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not really an explanation because that
3 was clear already, but I leave it in Mr. Traldi's hands how to proceed.
4 Mr. Traldi.
5 MR. TRALDI: I'd actually intended to turn to a different topic,
6 Your Honours.
7 Q. And, sir, I'm going to take you now back to Prijedor.
8 MR. TRALDI: If we could have 65 ter 07108.
9 Q. Now, what we see on the screen, so far only in the B/C/S, is the
10 decision appointing you as the acting public attorney in May of 1992;
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Where was your office?
14 A. My office was on the second floor of the building housing the
15 Prijedor basic court.
16 Q. How far was that from the Prijedor SJB, the police station?
17 A. The police station was very close. In the same street. In the
18 neighbouring building on the right-hand side, if you were standing in
19 front of the court building.
20 Q. And the municipality building was across the street; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Also on the other side of the street, same block, same street,
23 was the headquarters of the Ljubija mine company where you'd previously
24 been employed; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, we see in the same decision appointing you that
2 Esad Mehmedagic is dismissed. Mr. Mehmedagic was a Muslim; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you know him?
5 A. Only by sight.
6 Q. And his vision was impaired; right?
7 A. Yes, I heard that.
8 Q. Now, you never saw him after the war; right?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Now, the Trial Chamber has received evidence that Mehmedagic was
11 held at Omarska in the summer of 1992, was taken out, never returned, and
12 was later exhumed from the Stari Kevljani mass grave. Were you aware of
14 A. I learnt about that. I learned that he had been exhumed, but I
15 don't know when. I don't remember.
16 Q. Did you also learn he'd been held in Omarska?
17 A. I did not know that he was in Omarska, but I did know that he had
18 been taken from his house and taken somewhere.
19 Q. Did you know who took him?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you know what institution the people who took him were from;
22 the police, the army?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Mehmedagic was one of many Muslims and Croats who were
25 dismissed from their jobs in Prijedor municipality in May of 1992; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You and the president judge of the court, Judge Mico Kreco,
3 agreed when you spoke about these dismissals that they were unlawful and
4 unreasonable; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Like you, Judge Kreco was a Serb by ethnicity; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, there had been a different president judge of the court
9 previously, a Nedzad Seric; right?
10 A. But I didn't know him. But, yes, that is correct.
11 Q. He was a Muslim, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Omer Kerenovic had previously been a judge on the Prijedor court,
14 right, before the war?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Also a Muslim; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Both Judge Seric and Judge Kerenovic were also exhumed from the
19 Stari Kevljani mass grave after the war; right?
20 A. I'm not aware of that. I don't know.
21 Q. So are you also not aware that they were also detained in Omarska
23 A. I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Mehmedagic, Judge Seric, Judge Kerenovic, they were
25 prominent people in the community in Prijedor before the war; right?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Other prominent Muslims were killed in the camps too, right, like
3 the mayor, Muhamed Cehajic?
4 A. Yes, I heard about that.
5 Q. You heard he was held in Omarska and he was killed?
6 A. I heard about that later.
7 Q. Yesterday, at transcript page 35488, you discussed your view that
8 in 1992 the organs of power in Bosnia had disappeared and it was
9 necessary to create new organs. Now, the removal of these community
10 leaders, these prominent Muslims, was one way that the organs of power in
11 Prijedor disappeared or were transformed; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the new organs of power included the VRS; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In Prijedor, the new organs of power included the Prijedor
16 Crisis Staff; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You testified a moment ago that you and Judge Kreco agreed the
19 dismissals of Muslims and Croats were illegal. Those dismissals went
20 ahead anyway because it was these new Bosnian Serb organs of power that
21 were really making the decisions, that were really in charge of life in
22 Prijedor; right?
23 A. Well, I cannot say that they were really the ones who were in
24 charge of life. Maybe individuals made decisions like that.
25 Q. Well, the Crisis Staff made a decision that Muslims and Croats
1 should be fired. The view of the public attorney, the view of the
2 presiding judge, was that this was illegal. The Muslims and Croats were
3 fired anyway. That's because the Crisis Staff had the power; right?
4 A. Well, I know that on the 29th or 30th of April there was a change
5 of government, but only top people were replaced. So that was done in
6 April. Not the other non-Serbs as well.
7 Q. People in companies were replaced in May and June of 1992; right?
9 A. Yes, there were such cases.
10 Q. So not just the top people in government. People throughout the
11 society, particularly in positions of authority - Muslims and Croats,
12 were dismissed from their jobs; right?
13 A. Yes, I think that the dismissals came after the units of the
14 Republika Srpska Army were being formed. Those who did not accept that
16 Q. Well, just looking at this particular example, we see
17 Mr. Mehmedagic was dismissed as of the 4th of May. That's a couple of
18 days after the take-over and even before the VRS was formed; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, we discussed a moment ago, and you confirmed, what happened
21 to a number of prominent Muslims in the community. That would have had a
22 devastating effect on the Muslim community in Prijedor, the death and
23 disappearance of many prominent figures; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You testified yesterday that interethnic relations in Prijedor
1 had been good before the war. Prijedor was known, in fact, before the
2 war, as a place where interethnic relations were good, a place where the
3 old communist slogan of brotherhood and unity really meant something;
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 01078.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7384, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
10 MR. TRALDI:
11 Q. And when you say new organs of power had to be created,
12 Yugoslavia, as it had been known, disappeared. What was destroyed was
13 exactly that place where interethnic relations were good, that place
14 where brotherhood and unity really meant something. That place
15 effectively didn't exist anymore; right?
16 A. Yes. In that sense, it did not exist.
17 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 31035.
18 Q. Now, you confirmed a moment ago that Muslims and Croats were
19 dismissed from companies, as well as jobs in government. One of the
20 companies where the Muslim and Croat employees were dismissed in the late
21 spring and early summer of 1992 was the Ljubija mine company where you'd
22 previously worked; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, this is a report to SJB Prijedor by the Ljubija mine
1 MR. TRALDI: Can we have page 3 in both languages, please.
2 Q. Now, looking at the second paragraph, we read:
3 "Immediately after the take-over of power on 30 April 1992, a
4 clear differentiation of personnel was made in our enterprise ..."
5 Now "differentiation" refers to what we've been talking about,
6 differentiation along ethnic lines, the dismissals of Muslims and Croats;
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And we see immediately following that, that:
10 "... after the attack on Prijedor on 30 May 1992," that you
11 described yesterday, "a wartime staffing specification was introduced and
12 personnel were assigned accordingly, in keeping with the decisions of the
13 Government of Republika Srpska."
14 Now, the decisions of the government of the Republika Srpska
15 would have been relayed to this company through the regional Crisis Staff
16 and the Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff; right?
17 A. First of all, I do not remember that. I was in Brezicani the
18 last time in September 1991. I did not return there after that, so I
19 cannot say anything specific about this.
20 Q. Well --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, you are developing a speed of speech
22 which is far too high.
23 MR. TRALDI: I'll try and restrain it, Mr. President.
24 Q. In fact, you're aware, putting the question somewhat differently,
25 that the Muslims and Croats dismissed in Prijedor were dismissed because
1 of a decision by the Prijedor Crisis Staff; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And we see at the bottom of the page and turning to the top of
4 page 4 in B/C/S, a reference to the consistent implementation in this
5 company of the decisions to dismiss workers of the Crisis Staff War
6 Presidency of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly and the government of the
7 Autonomous Region of Krajina. And so the Ljubija mine company was
8 implementing the Crisis Staff -- the Prijedor Crisis Staff and the
9 autonomous region's Crisis Staff's decisions; right?
10 A. Well, probably it was that way if this document says so. I
11 really have no comment.
12 Q. Turning back to page 3 in both languages, we read below
13 attachment 2 at the bottom of the page in the B/C/S that:
14 "Already in early June, only around ten days after the fighting
15 in the town, the army and police took over all direct securing of
16 facilities, property, and persons. Additional measures were taken to
17 ensure general security in the enterprise and very close co-operation was
18 also continued with the Army Main Staff and the Public Security Centre."
19 Now, you would have been aware, because you were next door to the
20 public security station and across the street from your old employer's
21 headquarters, you would have been aware that they were co-operating with
22 the police and with the army; right?
23 A. The fact that the building is close to my building doesn't mean
24 that I have to know what is going on in that building. So what you are
25 putting to me now is the first I've ever heard of it. I cannot confirm
1 or deny it.
2 Q. Turning to page 5 in the English and 6 in the B/C/S, we see a
3 list of high personnel in that company beginning with the acting
4 director, Ostoja Marjanovic. You knew him, yes?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you know that, as reflected here, he was, in 1992, acting
7 director of the company and was mobilised in the VRS?
8 A. I'm not aware of that.
9 Q. Now the resources of important companies, would they be mobilised
10 at times for the war effort?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. And you know, of course, the Ljubija mine company was an
13 important company in Prijedor; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Ran three mines, employed large numbers of people.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Its resources were also put at the disposal of the war effort;
18 right? Also mobilised.
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender this document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7385, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
24 Witness, I've one other question for you. When Mr. Traldi asked
25 you whether in companies people were dismissed as well, you said there
1 were such cases.
2 Looking at this document, I see that only for the Ljubija mine it
3 amounts to 1.500, if not more. I'm just wondering what you meant by
4 "there were such cases" instead of perhaps saying that this happened on a
5 massive scale?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what was then done at the
7 mine is something that I cannot know about. Among other things, the
8 reason was that production had ceased and also probably because of the
9 mass departure of non-Serbs from Prijedor. That kind of thing certainly
10 happened, too.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I understand that there is more to say about it, but
12 to say there were such cases where it happened on a massive scale. And I
13 take it it would not have escaped your attention that 1.500 - that's
14 quite a large number - were dismissed.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just to give a brief explanation.
16 When I said "individual cases," I meant what happened at the end of
17 April, or rather beginning of May, when only people in top positions were
18 being replaced; whereas, what happened after the 30th of May is a
19 completely different story, and it is true that then there were mass
20 dismissals of employees because everything bad that was done in Prijedor
21 was done after the 30th of May, 1992.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. TRALDI:
24 Q. You say everything that was bad was done -- in Prijedor was done
25 after the 30th of May, 1992. You know there was killing of large numbers
1 of Muslims, destruction of large amounts of Muslim civilian property
2 during operations in Hambarine and Kozarac before the 30th of May; right?
3 Yes or no.
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Now, turning to some of those other bad things, you testified
6 yesterday at transcript page 35504 that you had no contact with Omarska
7 and Keraterm. You knew during your time as public attorney in Prijedor
8 that people were being taken to Omarska and Keraterm, non-Serbs, and
9 non-Serbs were being murdered and tortured in those camps; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You testified a moment ago about the mass departure of non-Serbs
12 from Prijedor. Those were the people who yesterday you said were forced
13 to leave; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And one of the people who was held in Keraterm was a friend of
16 yours named Islamovic; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And he told you that he'd had to promise to leave Prijedor
19 municipality, and when he did promise to do so he was released; right?
20 A. Yes. He asked for help as well, to leave Keraterm. So I helped
21 him get out, indirectly.
22 Q. He was a Muslim; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you know that the Muslim and Croat places of worship in
25 Prijedor town were destroyed in 1992; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. One of the bad things that happened right on the 30th of May was
3 that a mosque was destroyed; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And after the fighting that day, Muslims and Croats had to hang
6 white flags from their houses; right?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not understand
8 the witness's answer.
9 MR. TRALDI:
10 Q. Sorry, sir. You're being asked to repeat your answer.
11 A. I said "yes."
12 Q. Now, you discussed on direct examination your letter objecting to
13 the occupation of abandoned houses, abandoned property. A lot of the
14 property which was abandoned had previously belonged to people who'd been
15 held in the camps; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, is it right that in your letter you did not at any point
18 refer to the need to return the property to its rightful owners. You
19 simply referred to the need to allow it to be allocated properly?
20 A. The objective of my letter was primarily to protect property, and
21 I pointed out there that it has to do with private property which is
22 inalienable, and that the municipality will be responsible if there is
23 destruction of property in order to have this property preserved and
24 returned to the owners one day. I said there that no one knows how long
25 the war will last. One day it would have to come to an end, and one day
1 people will come to get their own. And Dayton was written in that
2 context, roughly, as far as the return of property is concerned.
3 Q. Now, your letter was written in the context of a decision that
4 had been taken a month earlier to declare abandoned property in Prijedor
5 municipality the property of the state; right?
6 A. Yes, as far as I can remember. A temporary decision was taken;
7 that is to say, that it is temporarily the property of the state so that
8 it could be safe-guarded better. But it doesn't mean that it's owned by
9 the municipality, and no one ever thought that it was supposed to be
10 owned by the municipality.
11 Q. And your letter makes it clear that the priority is allocating
12 this abandoned property that's now property of the state to VRS soldiers
13 and their families; right?
14 A. Yes, that property was supposed to be distributed to the families
15 of the fallen soldiers and to people who were disabled during the war.
16 At that time, many buses full of Serbs arrived from Travnik, Zenica,
17 Sarajevo, and other places. So these refugees were supposed to be put up
19 Q. Now, I want to turn back for just a moment to the take-over of
20 Prijedor. At that time for the first time Radio Prijedor played Chetnik
21 nationalist songs; right?
22 A. I was not in Prijedor from the 15th of April until the 15th of
23 May, so I don't know about that period. After that, there were songs,
24 among others, Serb national songs, including Chetnik songs.
25 Q. You were asked in your interview whether it was announced at the
1 time of the Prijedor -- sorry, the take-over of Prijedor that Prijedor
2 was going to be called the Serb municipality of Prijedor. You explained
3 that that wasn't necessary because Prijedor was part of the Autonomous
4 Region of Krajina and all of the municipalities within the ARK had Serb
5 authorities, so you considered it logical that the authorities in
6 Prijedor would be Serb authorities. Do you stand by that today?
7 A. That first part of the question, as far as this name "Serb
8 Prijedor" is concerned, this is the first time I hear of it. And in
9 relation to that, if there is a Serb autonomous region, then that was the
10 region that was in favour of the preservation of Yugoslavia, then there
11 was no need to change the name of Prijedor, and then there are these
12 authorities that are in favour of preserving Yugoslavia.
13 Q. Well, let's have quickly 65 ter 32564, page 24.
14 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for it, can I ask one follow-up
16 You explained your letter when asked by Mr. Traldi by saying
17 that, of course, after the war would be over, Muslims would return to
18 their homes and that's what all was to be expected.
19 Now, that's not very explicit in that letter. And this Chamber
20 has heard evidence that it may not have been on everyone's mind that
21 Muslims who had left the territory in those municipalities were expected
22 to return. We even have heard evidence which hinted at an expectation
23 that they would not return and that was even intended, that they would
24 not return.
25 My question to you is: Apart from your implicit understanding of
1 what the expectations were, could you point at any document or any
2 specific fact in which it becomes clear that your assumption that
3 non-Serbs would return to the areas which they had left was realistic and
4 that was really what was expected to happen? So concrete points which
5 would have expressed that, such as if, after the war, the Muslims will
6 return, we should keep their homes ready for them or whatever. So I'm
7 seeking concrete facts which would support what you describe, more or
8 less, as an implicit assumption.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, allow me to answer this
10 question. First of all, when I wrote the letter, after all, I'm a person
11 who had a great deal of experience as a lawyer even then, and I was
12 familiar with international law, and as a reserve officer I was familiar
13 with the law of war, and I knew who in wartime --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm not asking that. I'm not asking on
15 what your assumption was based. I'm asking you about concrete facts, and
16 I just gave a possible example, concrete facts which would contradict
17 some of the evidence this Chamber heard and which would be in support of
18 your assumption.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the essence was to
20 protect the privately owned property of Prijedor that belonged to the
21 citizens who had left Prijedor. I believe I wasn't clear enough on that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Secondly, I wish to indicate --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've been perfectly clear on that. You
25 told us that in very clear terms, but it's not an answer to my question.
1 Do you have any minutes of meetings where it was explicitly discussed how
2 Muslims would be helped to return, how to bring them back their property,
3 et cetera? I mean, I'm asking you about concrete facts, to your
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're looking for written
6 evidence, I don't have any on me. However, later at the meetings of the
7 municipal assembly, those issues were discussed. I left Prijedor after
8 that, so I don't know what was going on.
9 But there is one thing that I need to say: Property or assets
10 did not fall into anybody else's hands. Whatever it was, it waited for
11 its rightful owners to return, like everywhere else in Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina. So Prijedor did not differ from other towns, such as
13 Zenica, Bijeljina, Travnik, and others.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The last part, again, is not an answer to my
15 question but apparently something you want to emphasize. I leave it to
17 Mr. Traldi.
18 Oh, Judge Moloto.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just so that we don't interrupt you many times,
20 Mr. Traldi.
21 Sir, just want some clarification to one of your answers here.
22 At page 50, lines 15, you were asked a question:
23 "So not just the top people in government. People throughout the
24 society, particularly in positions of authority - Muslims and Croats,
25 were dismissed from their jobs; right?"
1 You answered:
2 "Yes. I think that the dismissals came after the units of the
3 Republika Srpska Army were being formed. Those who did not accept that
5 My question to you is: What is the significance of mentioning
6 units of the Army of the Republika Srpska in relation to this question
7 put to you?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The significance of that lies in
9 the fact that those units were replenished from the ranks of those who
10 wanted to defend Republika Srpska and who wanted to live there. Those
11 who didn't want to do so decided to leave Prijedor, so they resigned
12 because there was no production, or certain companies drafted their own
13 lists, and I suppose that the ethnic principle was used in drafting such
14 lists, and those people were fired from their positions.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid you're not answering my questions. You
16 are telling the Court that the dismissal of people escalated after the
17 VRS was formed. So I don't understand what you mean by "replenishing VRS
18 soldiers," because they were not being dismissed from the army, they were
19 being dismissed from their companies, and you say this happened after the
20 units of the VRS had been formed.
21 Am I to understand, if I may put it bluntly, that you are saying
22 here that the escalation was there because the VRS was promoting it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we spoke at
24 cross-purposes here. I said --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking you how you spoke. I'm just asking
1 you whether this is what you meant. You volunteered VRS. There was no
2 mention of VRS in the question. You volunteered the fact that this went
3 up after the VRS units were formed.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I claim --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: What are you saying "no" to? Are you saying you
6 didn't volunteer the VRS name?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I may have mentioned the
8 VRS --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did mention --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- by accident.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did mention it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the 30th of May, after the
13 attack on Prijedor, there was a large-scale dismissal from companies of
14 non-Serb workers. And if I had mentioned the VRS --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And this happened, according to this statement
16 that you have given, that happened after the formation of the VRS units?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I would like to withdraw that
18 from my statement.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately you cannot, it's on the record.
20 Thank you so much, Mr. Traldi. You may proceed.
21 MR. TRALDI:
22 Q. Sir, just returning to the question of your view on the Serb
23 nature of the authorities in the municipality within the ARK, you were
24 asked a similar question to what I'd asked you in your interview, and you
1 "I don't remember the prefix 'Serbian,' but that is possible.
2 This was a long time ago. I don't remember. I think it wasn't necessary
3 to specially state that it was a Serbian municipality, because through
4 that it didn't become the Member ... It was already now a member of The
6 You were asked:
7 "The Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina?"
8 And you answered:
10 And you were asked:
11 "What do you mean by that 'it became part of the Autonomous
12 Region of Krajina'?"
13 And you answered:
14 "'Cause all the municipalities within the Autonomous Region of
15 Krajina had Serbian authorities. It's just that the question that you
16 asked whether it was a 'Serbian" or just 'The municipality of Prijedor.'
17 You didn't have to say that it was Serbian, because it had become ... it
18 was logical that all the municipalities which were part of the ARK would
19 be Serb municipalities."
20 And you added that you didn't think that the name had changed.
21 Now, do you stand by that portion of your interview that I have read back
22 to you as truthful and accurate?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. And you'd heard that, speaking of the ARK, its Crisis Staff
25 President, Radislav Brdjanin, referred to Muslims as balijas; right?
1 A. Yes, I did hear that.
2 Q. And that's a derogatory term for Muslims, yes?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Now, finally, sir, yesterday you testified that the Ljubija mine
5 company that you'd worked for owned three mines: The Ljubija, Omarska,
6 and Tomasica mines. You confirmed earlier that you'd known that people
7 were detained in terrible, criminal conditions on the Omarska mine
8 property at the Omarska camp; right?
9 A. Yes. I knew that non-Serbs were detained there.
10 Q. Now, the Chamber has received evidence that there were mass
11 graves on the properties of both the Ljubija and Tomasica branches of the
12 mine company. Were you also aware of that?
13 A. There were rumours about Ljubija. I didn't know about Tomasica
14 until perhaps a few months ago.
15 Q. Well, it was exhumed in 2013, so you've known for at least a year
16 and a half; right?
17 A. What do you mean? Are you referring to Ljubija?
18 Q. Tomasica, sir.
19 A. Ah, Tomasica. Ah, yes. What I meant was I have learnt about
20 that only recently.
21 Q. So your evidence is you weren't aware of that mass grave until
22 after the war, long after the war; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And so you were never, as a military prosecutor, directed to
25 investigate either the creation of the grave or the murders of the people
1 who were buried there, were you?
2 A. No.
3 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Traldi.
6 Mr. Stojanovic, we'll take a break. Could you tell us how much
7 time you would need after the break?
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not more than ten minutes, Your
9 Honour. I need to cover three different topics.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break first.
11 Mr. Radulj, you're invited to follow the usher. We'd like to see
12 you back in 20 minutes because we will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you remind Mr. Mladic and tell him
18 how to behave in the court, also in relation to the public gallery. If
19 you address him, then ...
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radulj, you'll now be further examined by
22 Mr. Stojanovic.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radulj, after the setting up of the VRS and
25 after the mobilisation, could somebody who was not a member of the
1 military or who did not have work obligation stay working in a company,
2 irrespective of his or her position there?
3 A. As far as I can remember, all militarily able-bodied men had to
4 be either in the military or they had to do work obligation. Therefore,
5 there was no third option. I'm talking about militarily able-bodied
7 Q. If a militarily able-bodied man, a military conscript, did not
8 respond to a mobilisation call and didn't want to defend the state, could
9 he then be subject to criminal responsibility for not responding to that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You already spoke about that as a case that had priority before a
13 military judiciary. Why? Why would such cases enjoy priority before the
14 military judiciary?
15 A. Those cases had priority in order to boost military discipline.
16 On the other hand, complying with constitutional obligation on the part
17 of every citizen meant that they had to serve in the army, if necessary.
18 Q. In the Ljubija mine, did people of Serb origin have to leave for
19 the aforementioned reasons?
20 A. Irrespective of ethnic affiliation, those who did not respond to
21 the call-ups had to be criminally charged or, rather, prosecuted or they
22 were investigated, and that applied to Serb citizens as well.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to call
24 up P7385. I believe that I'm interested in page 3 of this document.
25 Q. Just a while ago we had an occasion to see it when the Prosecutor
1 asked you about that document.
2 Do you remember the document that you have before you?
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S, I'm interested in the
4 following page, please, and in the English version I believe that we are
5 on the page that I'm interested in. Let's go to the following page in
6 B/C/S, please.
7 Q. You were shown one part of this report; inter alia, you were
8 asked about that. It says here of the total number of 4.297 employees,
9 1.887 were dismissed during the first differentiation.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where are you reading in the English, Mr.
11 Stojanovic? I found it.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- yes, that's
13 correct, thank you.
14 Q. Can you now follow me? 1.887 were dismissed. After the legally
15 prescribed procedure had been conducted, 216 appeals of workers whose
16 appeals were valid and grounded as shown by the attached documents were
17 held, or better put accepted.
18 After subsequent checks, another 74 workers were dismissed,
19 including 16 Serbs who had left the territory of Republika Srpska of
20 their own volition. In other words, the emphasis is put here on the
21 reasons why Serbs were dismissed. When it says that they left the
22 territory of Republika Srpska of their own volition, what did they --
23 what did that imply, Mr. Radulj?
24 A. In the prosecutor's office, we considered such cases as a
25 departure in order to evade military service, if those people were
1 military conscripts, and we found those cases interesting. As for other
2 cases and departure for other reasons, that was not subject of our work
3 at all.
4 Q. And now I'd like to ask you this: If somebody left their town
5 and the company that they worked for, if they didn't turn up for work for
6 no reason at all and for a certain time, could they be kept in employment
7 according to the then-prevalent laws?
8 A. I believe that the prevalent laws said that if an employee was
9 absent from work for five consecutive days without a justified reason was
10 summarily dismissed, and I believe that we are talking about that kind of
11 cases. I suppose that that is the case because I didn't read the entire
13 Q. And now I will finish with another question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'll just intervene for one moment.
15 You earlier confirmed the differentiation referred to,
16 differentiation along ethnic lines, the dismissals of Muslims and Croats.
17 Now, if you say: "I suspect that that was, I've not read the whole of
18 the document, there must have been other reasons as well," you confirmed
19 the differentiation is ethnic differentiation, and what is written here
20 is about what happened in the context of this differentiation.
21 Therefore, I am putting this to you that if you now suggest that
22 there may have been other reasons not having read the document, that the
23 document is about dismissals on the basis of the differentiation as was
24 instructed, and that is, I think, differentiation.
25 So if you want to say, well, there were other reasons to dismiss
1 people as well, fine, may be the case, but that's not what this document
2 is about. And since you were wondering whether you had sufficiently read
3 the document to make any comments, I just am explaining to you now how
4 the words are used in this document so as to give you an opportunity to
5 comment on that use of language in this document.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've not seen this document before,
7 i.e., the question based on the document that was put to me by the
8 Prosecutor. But now that the Defence lawyer has read the document to me
9 and when he has put the question to me, and I realised that there were
10 Serbs that were also dismissed, I know that there were such cases.
11 However, when I answered the Prosecutor's questions, I spoke
12 about the large majority of non-Serbs who failed to respond to call-ups,
13 inter alia, but there were others as well as you can see from this report
14 issued by the Ljubija mine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I have a little follow-up here. The 16 Serbs
17 that were said to be dismissed were dismissed because they left of their
18 own volition. What would be the point of keeping them on the payroll if
19 they are not coming to work? In fact, they seemed to have resigned
20 rather than being dismissed.
21 Thank you. So that cannot be the answer.
22 Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. And now, Mr. Radulj, I would like to take you to page 41,
25 lines 11 through 19, of today's record. You were asked whether the cases
1 of non-Serb victims were delayed for some other time, and you said yes.
2 I would like to ask you why were those cases left for later? Why were
3 they prosecuted only later, not at the moment when they happened?
4 A. I must emphasize that nobody ever issued a document or a decree
5 for those cases to be left for later. It was down to the situation.
6 There were priorities, and those priorities involved the military-related
7 cases. I've already spoken about that. It was virtually impossible to
8 secure evidence that would have made it possible to have lawful
9 proceedings in those cases. Neither the prosecutor's office nor the
10 court had enough staff or equipment in order to do things properly at the
12 Later, when things improved somewhat, those cases were dealt with
13 one by one. Those proceedings are still ongoing at various courts all
14 over Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 Q. Mr. Radulj, on behalf of the Mladic Defence, I would like to
16 thank you. We have no further questions for you.
17 A. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Stojanovic.
19 Do you have any further questions, Mr. Traldi?
20 MR. TRALDI: Very briefly, Mr. President.
21 First, can we have 65 ter 32447.
22 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:
23 Q. This is a document coming from the military prosecutor's office
24 attached to the army Main Staff entitled: "Dispatch on the Institution
25 of Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Who Have Not Responded to the
1 Call-up Or Left Units Without Authorisation."
2 MR. TRALDI: Turning to page 5, end of the document in both
4 Q. We see its sent to the various military prosecutor's offices.
5 It's correct that the priority -- that one of the priorities was dealing
6 with prosecuting people who didn't respond to the call-up and that that
7 priority was set by the Main Staff; right?
8 A. I've never seen this document before. It was never shown to me.
9 I see it for the first time here. As far as I can see, it was drafted in
10 the month of the September 1992.
11 Q. What --
12 A. I was not in office at that time.
13 Q. I'm aware of that. What it reflects, though, is the priority
14 that you mentioned on redirect, the priority of cases involving not
15 responding to a call-up being passed from General Gvero to the various
16 military prosecutor's offices; right?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 Mr. Stojanovic.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no objection, Your
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7386, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. TRALDI: And finally if we could have 65 ter 32564, page 46.
2 I see I've been recorded to say "23564" and I'd meant to say
3 32564. If we could scroll to the bottom.
4 Q. You're being asked about your work in the military prosecutor's
5 office, and you're asked a question about criminal law, both procedural
6 and substantive. You're asked whether: "... it would be possible for a
7 deputy military prosecutor, a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in a
8 case... where the accused gave a full confession to the military
9 prosecutor and the investigative judge, so a proper formal statement that
10 included a confession? To the crime of murder?"
11 Just to summarises it briefly, Mr. Resch asks or identifies other
12 available evidence:
13 "The victims' bodies and ballistic tests confirming the bullets
14 that killed the body came from the accused person's gun and asks:
15 "Under those circumstances, without a statement from the victim's
16 family whether he can get a conviction."
17 And if we turn to the next page. There is a lengthy discussion
18 about the procedure of the case, and if we scroll to the middle of the
19 page, summarising your answer, Mr. Resch says: "The fact that the
20 relatives did not testify would not preclude a finding of guilty."
21 Your answer:
22 "What do you mean by wouldn't preclude?"
23 He says: "Prevent, prevent ..."
24 And you say: "I think there are no legal obstacles to him being
25 pronounced guilty," which I take to mean the accused person in the
1 circumstances that were described.
2 So do you stand today by your answer in your interview that where
3 the victim's body is available, the murder is confessed, ballistic tests
4 confirm the murder weapon, the legal obstacles that you mentioned on
5 redirect would not have prevented a conviction?
6 A. Based on everything that I heard from you, I don't see a reason
7 why a conviction should not be pronounced. So, yes, I adhere by that.
8 MR. TRALDI: I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Traldi.
10 Mr. Radulj, this concludes your testimony in this court. I'd
11 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, a long way for you,
12 and very having answered the questions that were put to you by the
13 parties and were put to you by the Bench. I wish you a safe return home
14 again, and you may follow the usher.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you. [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We have some time left. We'll deal with some very
18 practical matters.
19 I'd first like to deliver two decisions and that may consume all
20 the time which is left. The first is a decision the Chamber will now
21 deliver on the expertise of Svetlana Radovanovic with regard to her
22 analysis of Prosecution expert reports authored by witnesses Ewa Tabeau
23 and Helge Brunborg.
24 On the 9th of February of this year, the Defence filed a notice
25 of disclosure of Svetlana Radovanovic's expert report pursuant to Rule 94
1 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Prosecution responded on
2 the 11th of March, submitting that while it does not challenge the expert
3 status of Radovanovic or the relevance of her report, it also does not
4 accept the conclusions of the report and therefore requests to
5 cross-examine her.
6 On the 25th of March, the Defence filed a response to the
7 Prosecution's 11th of March submission.
8 On the 1st of April, the Prosecution sought leave to reply and
9 filed its reply to the Defence response. The Chamber will address the
10 25th of March and the 1st of April submissions in a separate decision.
11 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
12 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October 2012 decision
13 concerning Expert Witness Richard Butler.
14 On the basis of Radovanovic's curriculum vitae and considering
15 that the Prosecution does not dispute Radovanovic's qualifications as an
16 expert in the field of demographics, the Chamber is satisfied that she
17 has specialised knowledge and expertise and that such knowledge and
18 expertise may be of assistance to the Chamber in assessing the expert
19 evidence presented by the Prosecution during its case-in-chief.
20 With regard to the Prosecution request to cross-examine the
21 witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Radovanovic to
22 give evidence. The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to
23 cross-examine her.
24 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94
25 bis that Witness Radovanovic may be called to testify as an expert
1 witness and shall be made available for cross-examination by the
3 The Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the report to
4 the time of the witness's testimony.
5 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
6 The next decision the Chamber will now deliver is its decision on
7 the expertise of Dragic Gojkovic with regard to the destruction of the
8 religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 and
9 his analysis of the Prosecution expert report authored by Witness Andras
11 On the 13th of February, 2015, the Defence filed a notice of
12 disclosure of Dragic Gojkovic's expert report, pursuant to Rule 94 bis of
13 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
14 The Prosecution responded on the 16th of March, submitting that
15 while it does not challenge the expert status of Gojkovic, or the
16 relevance of his report, it does not accept the report's conclusions and
17 therefore requests to cross-examine him. The Prosecution further submits
18 that 15 documents attached to the report should not be considered as a
19 part of the report and that the Defence should seek leave to add them to
20 its 65 ter exhibit list and tender them for admission separately.
21 On the 30th of March, the Defence filed a response to the
22 Prosecution's 16th of March submission.
23 On the 7th of April, the Prosecution sought leave to reply and
24 filed its reply to the Defence response. The Chamber will address the
25 30th of March and the 7th of April submissions in a separate decision.
1 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
2 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October, 2012 decision
3 concerning Expert Witness Richard Butler.
4 On the basis of Gojkovic's curriculum vitae and considering that
5 the Prosecution does not dispute Gojkovic's qualifications as an expert
6 on destruction of religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between
7 1992 and 1995, the Chamber is satisfied that he has specialised knowledge
8 and expertise in that field and that such knowledge and expertise may be
9 of assistance to the Chamber in assessing the expert evidence presented
10 by the Prosecution during its case-in-chief.
11 With regard to the Prosecution request to cross-examine the
12 witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Gojkovic to
13 give evidence. The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to
14 cross-examine him.
15 Concerning the Prosecution submissions related to 15 documents
16 attached to the report, the Chamber invites the Defence to request their
17 addition to its 65 ter exhibit list.
18 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94
19 bis that Witness Gojkovic may be called to testify as an expert witness
20 on destruction of religious buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina between
21 1992 and 1995 and shall be made available for cross-examination by the
23 The Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the report to
24 the time of the witness's testimony.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
1 We have two minutes left. Let me just take one or two small
2 items from the pending issues list.
3 I start with remaining associated exhibits to
4 Witness Vidoje Blagojevic's statement.
5 On the 1st and the 2nd of April, the Chamber inquired whether the
6 Defence's failure to address document bearing Rule 65 ter number 14584
7 during the testimony of Vidoje Blagojevic meant that it was withdrawn as
8 an associated exhibit.
9 The Chamber has not heard from the Defence on this matter and
10 considers its silence to be an implicit withdrawal. The Defence has an
11 opportunity to revisit the matter within three days.
12 My last item deals with P7038.
13 On the 21st of January of this year, the Chamber marked for
14 identification under seal P7038 based on the Prosecution's submission
15 that the whole document might not need to be admitted into evidence.
16 This can be found at transcript page 30337.
17 On the 2nd of April, the Prosecution informed the Chamber via an
18 e-mail that the parties had discussed this issue and are in agreement
19 that P7038 should be admitted in its entirety.
20 Assuming that the Defence does not object, the Chamber hereby
21 admits P7038 into evidence under seal.
22 We'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Thursday,
23 the 14th of May, in this same courtroom, I, at 9.30 in the morning.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day
1 of May, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.