Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3783

1 Thursday, 8 November 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 [The accused Milan Simic not present]

6 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case IT-95-9-T, the

9 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo

10 Zaric.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has noticed that Mr. Milan

12 Simic is yet to come, and we have been informed that Defence counsel have

13 agreed that the proceedings can continue and he will join us later.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, with all due respect, the waiver

15 is on our client. Yesterday I talked to him and he said we will meet

16 today in the Court. So I really -- I don't think that we can really state

17 in his name whether he's waiving his right again to be present in this

18 courtroom during the trial today or not. That is my position.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: We've been informed that he's on his way.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. He will be here in ten minutes. That's what

21 we heard from the guards.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So since we are continuing with

23 cross-examination of Mr. Tihic, what is your decision? We continue?

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I mean, Your Honours, this is just a matter of

25 principle. We -- of course, we don't have anything against this, that if

Page 3784

1 the Trial Chamber decides to go along with Mr. Tihic, because he will be

2 here in ten minutes. But as a matter of principle, I believe it should be

3 better that we wait ten minutes and then start with --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, I think there is a measure of

5 reasonableness in everything that has to be done.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree with you, Your Honours, a hundred per cent,

7 but it is just the matter of a principle when -- I haven't been able to

8 talk -- this is something I never expected to happen, and I haven't talked

9 to my client about this situation. If I had any kind of guidance in this

10 particular --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Nobody knew that this will happen this morning.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So there is no question of you having had

14 guidance from --

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, and that is why, because I haven't

16 consulted with my client, I cannot really state that we agree to go on

17 with the proceedings without him being present. That is the point.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The Trial Chamber decides that we shall

19 continue with cross-examination of Mr. Tihic. If, at the end of the

20 cross-examination, Mr. Tihic -- Mr. Simic is not here, we will stop the

21 proceedings at that point.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I mean, just for the record, I will

23 have to object to that.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Wow. Yes, all right. The Trial Chamber will

25 continue. The proceedings will continue.

Page 3785

1 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, on a different topic, just

2 a very brief matter, if I may raise it.


4 MR. DI FAZIO: Mr. Dagovic is here. He arrived, in fact, last

5 night but was involved in a motor accident last night, not a serious one,

6 I'm glad to say, and he will be able to give evidence. But the result of

7 the motor accident was that Mr. Weiner, who is going to lead his evidence,

8 has only been able to start proofing him this morning. If Mr. Pantelic's

9 predictions yesterday are correct, and he takes all morning, that,

10 together with re-examination, I hope, I hope, will provide Mr. Weiner with

11 quite enough time to proof the witness and simply bring him on and start

12 straight away.


14 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, I have not had an opportunity to speak to

15 Mr. Weiner a lot or extensively this morning other than to ascertain what

16 happened last night, and I don't know how the proofing is going. I know

17 that the Trial Chamber has indicated that it does not wish the -- to have

18 any adjournments in between witnesses, and I might say that I am not

19 saying at this point that I will be applying for an adjournment, making an

20 application to the Chamber for an adjournment to enable proofing to

21 finish, because I'm hopeful that it will be finished by the time

22 cross-examination is finished and that we can move seamlessly and smoothly

23 into the next witness, but circumstances may - I don't know -

24 circumstances may force the Prosecution into seeking an adjournment of a

25 short period of time, maybe an hour or two, if that process hasn't

Page 3786

1 happened.

2 I don't know what reception the Prosecution will have to such an

3 application, but I just wanted to foreshadow it's possible that that

4 application may be made. I'm hoping it won't be made, and Mr. Weiner is

5 doing all he can to make sure that we aren't forced into a position of

6 having to make that sort of application, but I just wanted it raise that.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There is also the point of your having

8 instructions from Mr. Tihic over the documents --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: The documents which are -- which Mr. Pantelic wanted

11 the witness to discuss.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes. Would Your Honour just bear with me for

13 one moment?


15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, what I propose is that we approach

17 Mr. Tihic during the morning break and use that time to get instructions.


19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, good morning, Your Honours.


23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]

25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tihic.

Page 3787

1 MR. PANTELIC: Unfortunately, Your Honours, I don't have the --

2 sort of official transcript of yesterday's hearing. I have only a draft

3 version, so I don't have paging in this version, so I'm referring now to

4 page 93 of yesterday's transcript, provisional transcript, line 9, until

5 -- well, there is also mix-up, 11, 12, 13, 14, and then 11, 15, 16.

6 There is some problems in the numbering here. Anyhow, this is the last, I

7 would say, paragraph of page 93 of this rough version of transcript. And

8 now I am referring to this part.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, yesterday, we talked about the number

10 of Serbs who voted in the plebiscite, if you remember?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. My question was the following:

13 [In English] "And to follow on from what we are saying, do you

14 know that 1.350.000 citizens of Serb ethnicity took part in the

15 plebiscite, yes or no?"

16 Your answer was:

17 "Well, that is a propaganda that is not true."

18 Question: "Thank you."

19 Answer: "There weren't that many Serbs in Bosnia at all so how

20 could they take part in the voting, that many?"

21 Then you tried to expand your answer and tried to stop it.

22 [Interpretation] So Mr. Tihic, yesterday after our sitting, I

23 looked at various documents and I think that this is a good opportunity to

24 clarify this situation, because this is a matter of facts, not propaganda;

25 isn't that right?

Page 3788

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I have the report of the State Institute of Statistics of the

3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina related to the census from 1991, and that

4 report was compiled in Sarajevo in 1993, that is to say during the war.

5 The number of this bulletin is 234. In that report, the total population

6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the census from 1991, is

7 4.377.033. According to this census, there were 1.902.958 Muslims.

8 According to this census, there were 1.366.104 Serbs. As for Croats, it's

9 not very legible --

10 A. 700.000 something.

11 Q. 780.000 something. As for Yugoslavs, there were 242.682. As for

12 the rest, there were 104.439. On the basis of this brief survey, although

13 both you and I are laymen for this particular subject matter but this is a

14 precise document, we will agree, won't we, that the figure I mentioned

15 yesterday, yet from another source, was not propaganda. It was based on

16 facts, wasn't it?

17 A. Pure propaganda. If you want to, I can explain it. I think the

18 Trial Chamber will understand too. Out of 1.366.000 Serbs, there can be a

19 maximum of 900.000 voters who are of age, so therefore there certainly

20 could not be that kind of a vote, because out of those 1.366.000, there

21 must have been children as well, so if you look at those two figures, you

22 will see that it is impossible for the turnout of the vote to be what you

23 said.

24 Q. My next question would be the following. Can we agree with the

25 possibility that in the territory under the control of the Bosnian Serbs,

Page 3789

1 or rather at that time - I stand corrected - this was November, 1991, so

2 there was no war on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in total then,

3 can we agree that Muslims, Croats, Serbs and the others could have taken

4 part in that plebiscite, yes or no, theoretically, yes or no?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 [The accused Milan Simic entered court]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we continue, the Trial Chamber wishes to

9 notice the presence of Mr. Milan Simic.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Milan Simic, your counsel objected to the

12 cross-examination continuing in your absence. The Trial Chamber ruled

13 that the cross-examination will continue in your absence.

14 The Registry is requested to provide the transcript for the

15 cross-examination that went on in your absence in a language you can

16 read.

17 Please continue.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before you proceed, Mr. Pantelic, the Trial

21 Chamber has been informed that perhaps the Registry will give Mr. Milan

22 Simic the audiotape --


24 JUDGE MUMBA: -- and the videotape, so he can listen to that part

25 of the cross-examination where he was absent. So that would be fine.

Page 3790

1 Would that satisfy you, Mr. Zecevic?

2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Please proceed.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, yesterday you did not agree with me

6 with the assertion that when the Serb MPs walked out, they being the

7 representatives of one of the constituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

8 Bosnia and Herzegovina actually ceased to exist; isn't that right?

9 A. I did not agree with you, yes.

10 Q. We will agree now that after the elections in 1990, at the level

11 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a presidency was formed, a presidency of the

12 Republic, on the principle of the tripartite [as interpreted]

13 participation of all three peoples; isn't that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I said, actually, three constitutive people;

16 not tripartite, but three constitutive people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17 Q. [Interpretation] That was my question, wasn't it?

18 A. [No interpretation]

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter notes that there was no audible

20 answer.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer was not -- the previous question, the

22 answer was not picked up by the interpreters. I think the witness may be

23 sitting a bit far from the microphone.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please move your chair up a bit and

25 speak into the microphone.

Page 3791


2 MR. PANTELIC: Well, in fact, Your Honour, page 8, line 5, the

3 answer was yes. I just -- my intervention was just with regard to the

4 notion -- I said three-partied constitutive nations, people in

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was not in my -- registered in my question. So

6 that was my intervention. But the witness said yes on my question.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. All right. You proceed.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Beg your pardon, Mr. Tihic. We just need to

10 clarify these technical matters.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. On behalf of the Muslim people, or rather, the party that won the

13 election, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic was elected to the Presidency; isn't that

14 right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Along with him, Mr. Fikret Abdic was elected?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. He's also a Muslim, isn't he?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Representing the Serbian people, Mrs. Biljana Plavsic was elected;

21 isn't that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Also representing the Serb people, professor Nikola Koljevic was

24 elected, the late Nikola Koljevic?

25 A. Yes.

Page 3792

1 Q. On behalf of the Croat people, Mr. Franjo Boras was elected; isn't

2 that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Also representing the Croat people, Stjepan Kljuic was elected;

5 isn't that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Mr. Ejub Ganic, a Muslim, was elected the seventh member of the

8 Presidency; isn't that right?

9 A. At that time he was registered as a Yugoslav in the category that

10 was entitled "The Rest." It was the Jews, Albanians, Montenegrins. I

11 don't know. He was elected to represent that category, not as a Muslim.

12 And he considered himself to be a Yugoslav. That's what it said by his

13 name.

14 Q. All right. And now tell me, was Mr. Ejub Ganic a member of the

15 SDA at that time?

16 A. I don't know. I don't think he was. I really don't think he was.

17 Q. Was he later?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When did he become a member? Do you remember? Do you happen to

20 remember?

21 A. I can't remember.

22 Q. Before he was a Yugoslav --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic --

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: For clarification, when you say such-and-such was a

Page 3793

1 member of a political party, how do you define "membership of a political

2 party" in the context of --

3 MR. PANTELIC: In the context, yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: -- these proceedings?

5 MR. PANTELIC: My basic approach is there were three national

6 parties: SDA, Muslim party; SDS, Serbian party; and HDZ, Croatian party.

7 So within these three parties, I try to establish my foundation with these

8 questions.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Okay. What, in your view, would you

10 consider -- what does a person have to do to be said to be a member of a

11 political party? I'm not talking about holding posts. Those are

12 obvious. But ordinary people. The reason I'm asking is one of the

13 witnesses we had did discuss how he joined a political party and resigned

14 from the political party and the steps he took. That's why I'm asking

15 this question.

16 MR. PANTELIC: That was exactly my point, actually, to

17 become -- theoretically, if one would like to become a member of political

18 party, he has to be registered in that party, in this particular party,

19 and then have activities, more or less. And then --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: If he decides to resign --

21 MR. PANTELIC: If he decides to resign, he goes to party and sign

22 a kind of document in the secretary -- in the administrative office of

23 that party, saying, "I don't want to be a member of your party."

24 JUDGE MUMBA: So there are actually some steps that are taken to

25 join a political party and to resign.

Page 3794

1 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, formal steps.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Do you agree with me, Mr. Tihic?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. I'm interested in the following: Mr. Ejub Ganic, before he was a

5 Yugoslav, do you know how he declared himself, from a national, ethnic

6 point of view?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Since he was a Yugoslav, as you said - and then it remained a bit

9 unclear - what did he declare himself as later on?

10 A. After Yugoslavia fell apart, most Yugoslavs declared themselves

11 either as Bosniaks or Serbs or Croats. It depended on who they belonged

12 to, where their roots were, and he probably declared himself as a Bosniak,

13 or rather, a Muslim, as it was before.

14 Q. I fully understand what you are saying. I imagine that we will

15 agree with the fact that in 1993, practically the notion of Bosniaks was

16 introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Of course, I don't want to initiate a debate in this respect.

19 This is just a fact. We have been operating with some different

20 categories here, until 1993, that is; that is to say, without any

21 intention of -- I mean, please do not think that I mean to offend anybody

22 in an ethnic sense. This is just the way these debates have been carried

23 on. So practically, later, he declared himself as a Muslim.

24 Very well. So in that Presidency, we had two Muslims, two Serbs,

25 two Croats, and one Yugoslav, who later declared himself as a Muslim;

Page 3795

1 isn't that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Will you agree with the fact that in the period after the

4 Republika Srpska was proclaimed, the members of the Presidency of the BH,

5 Mrs. Biljana Plavsic and the late Professor Nikola Koljevic left the

6 Presidency of the BH?

7 A. I don't think they did immediately. I think it was somewhat

8 later.

9 Q. Do you remember when?

10 A. First they walked out of the parliament.

11 Q. Excuse me. We're talking about the Presidency.

12 A. But I think that this was the order of the moves that were taken:

13 First they left parliament, and then they would come to meetings of the

14 Presidency and then they would not come to the meetings of the

15 Presidency. They stayed in government. So these are different periods.

16 I can't say now whether this was after the proclamation or whether a

17 couple of months had passed in the meantime.

18 I think that a couple of months had passed in the meantime until

19 they ultimately left the Presidency, but you can check this out exactly,

20 because after them, other Serbs were elected who were on the list. And

21 when this exactly happened, you can check this out. This can certainly be

22 established.

23 The next Serbs on the list who got the largest number of votes --

24 Q. Excuse me, I didn't hear you.

25 A. The other Serbs came, instead of them, to the Presidency, those

Page 3796

1 who were next on the list, in consideration of the number of the votes

2 they got, so then that can be checked out.

3 Q. My thesis is the following: A certain number of representatives

4 of one of the constituent peoples leaves the assembly, the Serb people;

5 that is the first stage. The second stage: The Serb representatives

6 leave the collective presidency, and I assert that from a constitutional

7 and legal point of view, Bosnia-Herzegovina did not exist as a state. Do

8 you agree with me, yes or no?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Tell me, please, is it correct that Mr. Fikret Abdic won the

11 largest number of votes in the election in 1991?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was he supposed to be president of the Presidency therefore?

14 Wasn't that the system?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Thank you. [No interpretation]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not getting interpretation in English.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Can I repeat the question?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear this microphone, please?

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can. Yes, we can hear.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Can I repeat the question?

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can repeat the question.

24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Can we agree with the thesis that when we see the breakdown of the

Page 3797

1 SFRY, we also saw the breakdown of its organs and institutions?

2 A. The institutions of the federal state, yes, I would agree there.

3 Q. That's what I was thinking of, yes. In the process of the state's

4 disintegration, following that logic, the JNA disintegrated too, did it

5 not?

6 A. Well, it was still there as a sort of entity, predominantly Serb.

7 It was no longer a Yugoslav component.

8 Q. Well, that brings me to my next question. From the JNA, the

9 representatives of other nations stepped down, officers, and so on, down

10 the chain of command?

11 A. Yes, gradually. It was a process which was to last over a longer

12 period.

13 Q. Very well, thank you. You will agree with me, will you not, that

14 a former officer of the JNA - I don't know what his rank was, but he

15 became a general later on, and I'm talking about Mr. Sefer Halilovic, a

16 former officer of the JNA - joined the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't

17 he?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I think you'll also agree with me when I say that --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you proceed, I would like to know what period

21 he left and joined the other.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. [Interpretation] You heard Her Honour's question. You heard what

24 the Presiding Judge, Judge Mumba asked. Could you specify, what period

25 was this? When did Mr. Sefer Halilovic step down, leave?

Page 3798

1 A. As far as I know, Sefer left the JNA in 1991, and the army of the

2 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was established sometime in April or May of

3 1992. So in that period, since he left, until the formation of the army,

4 he worked in a certain way on defence preparations in Bosnia, but the army

5 did not exist until April. I'm referring to the army of the Republic of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was established only in April.

7 Q. I think that Mr. Sefer Halilovic was a Muslim -- an ethnic Muslim,

8 was he not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And a former officer of the JNA, another one, Mr. Rasim Delic, did

11 he also leave the JNA and join the armed formations of the army of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

13 A. Yes, at the beginning of the war, he did that, yes.

14 Q. Can we say then that that was in 1992?

15 A. Yes, May, April or May, 1992.

16 Q. Very well, thank you. I have a factual piece of information that

17 General Jovan Divjak also moved to the BH army.

18 A. General Divjak first of all joined the staff of the Territorial

19 Defence and then he moved on to the army when it was set up. He was a

20 Serb by nationality.

21 Q. So the process was a similar one that -- in relation to Croatia

22 and their organisation of the HVO in Bosnia, this transition, this

23 transfer of former JNA army officers into the newly established army

24 formations; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 3799

1 Q. And this process took place with the army of the Republika Srpska

2 too, didn't it? It followed the same process of the former JNA officers

3 I'm referring to?

4 A. Well, 90 per cent of the former JNA remained in the army of

5 Republika Srpska.

6 Q. So that means that the Bosnian Serbs liked to be soldiers so --

7 they liked the profession of soldiers, so there were a lot of them, it

8 would appear; is that right?

9 A. Well, yes.

10 Q. Let us now go back, Mr. Tihic, to one point and the proverb that

11 birds of a feather flock together. Is that right?

12 A. For the most part, yes.

13 Q. We can then agree that in the period from 1990, and practically

14 speaking throughout the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, on the territory

15 controlled by the central government, the Muslim government in Sarajevo,

16 to all intents and purposes, several paramilitary units were set up such

17 as the Patriotic League; isn't that right?

18 A. No. It was the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina; it wasn't the

19 Muslim government.

20 Q. Very well. Was it the Patriotic League? Was that organised as an

21 armed formation, an armed unit?

22 A. I think the Patriotic League as an armed formation was organised

23 after the proclamation of independence on the 1st of March, 1992, when it

24 was no longer a paramilitary formation because it was all part of the

25 Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Page 3800

1 Q. But you will agree that preparations ran before that? It wasn't

2 in one day. The process of preparation was an ongoing process, was it

3 not?

4 A. Probably.

5 Q. Within the framework of those armed formations, we see the Green

6 Berets. They were part of the Muslim armed formations, weren't they, the

7 Green Berets?

8 A. They were never Muslim formations. They were formations of the

9 army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and a formation of the

10 Territorial Defence. The Green Berets were part of those units. And then

11 later on, everything became the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and they were

12 no longer called the Green Berets.

13 Q. Thank you. Well, then we can agree with the thesis that - and I'm

14 speaking of those formations - that the same pattern was followed by the

15 Croats, they too had formations of that kind that were legal, semi-legal,

16 quasi-legal, or legal, let's say they were legal, ultimately?

17 A. Well, the Croats had greater reliance on Croatia. That was the

18 difference. It was the HVO, as far as I know.

19 Q. Yes, but let's narrow the question down. I'm talking about their

20 existence. Can we agree that they existed in fact?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And finally, the same situation happened to the Serbs. They also

23 had their own formations functioning there on the territory of the

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25 A. They had the JNA. They didn't have need of any formations.

Page 3801

1 Q. So they had no paramilitary formations. Thank you.

2 A. They did have some. That is to say along with the JNA, various

3 paramilitary units did come in, such as the Grey Wolves, the Sivi Vukovi.

4 Q. Thank you. Volunteers from Serbia came, didn't they?

5 A. Yes, they were mercenaries, volunteers, what you like to call

6 them, looters and pilferers.

7 Q. And from Croatia as well, they came, these volunteers, and they

8 were placed at the disposal of the Croatian Defence Council, were they

9 not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And some volunteers probably came in from the Arab states, some

12 mujahedin, to be members of the BH army, wasn't that true, too?

13 A. A negligible amount, yes.

14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 [In English] Your Honours, can I have just a second?


17 MR. PANTELIC: For a short conference?


19 [Defence counsel confer]

20 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: You can proceed.

22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Tihic, does the name Nihad Halibegovic ring a bell?

24 A. Yes. I said that I knew the name yesterday.

25 Q. May we agree that Mr. Halibegovic, with his group of associates,

Page 3802

1 established the first staff of the Patriotic League, the regional staff of

2 Sarajevo, on the 31st of March, 1991?

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, Mr. Tihic, will you not, that

5 it was a little unusual for a political party, any -- whatever nationality

6 it was - I'm speaking in general terms, in principle - to take active

7 participation in the procedure of the arming and formation of armed

8 units? Wasn't that a little strange?

9 A. For normal states, yes, and for normal situations, yes, but given

10 the prevailing conditions in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, nothing was

11 strange.

12 Q. All right. So practically speaking, as I understand those

13 processes, the political party was a sort of guiding light in the

14 organisation of establishing armed force, party forces, patriotic forces,

15 or whatever you like to call them. It was the sort of guiding light, the

16 political party was, I mean. That was the situation, you've just said so,

17 haven't you?

18 A. Well, the party was one of the protagonists of the defence

19 preparations within the framework of the system of defence for the

20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that system was Territorial Defence.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, now I would like to introduce as the

23 evidence -- this document was provided to the Prosecution. The title of

24 this document is "Letter from SDA party headquarters Sarajevo," and the

25 title is "Information on full readiness of connection and following of

Page 3803

1 SDA."


3 MR. PANTELIC: Dated 20th of September, 1991. These documents

4 consist of two pages of letters, and attached is one, two, three,

5 four -- some kind of additional information.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: In what language?

7 MR. PANTELIC: In B/C/S language. And I have also English

8 translation.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Confirmation from the Prosecution?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the document was provided

12 to me some two days ago, and there is a translation. I don't know if it's

13 an official translation or not, but it certainly is a translation. The

14 position of the Prosecution is that at this stage it doesn't object to its

15 being marked for identification, but in the absence of any further

16 evidence, it would object to its full admission into evidence at this

17 stage, but certainly not from the point of view of marking it for

18 identification and putting it to the witness. He may say things that make

19 it admissible at a later point, but that's the --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Are you saying you haven't had time to investigate

21 it?

22 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that your reason for objecting?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's one of the reasons, yes, because we know

25 nothing about the document, given the fact that it was given to us two

Page 3804

1 days ago. So it's in the same -- it is, so to speak -- two or three

2 documents that we've received from Mr. Pantelic during the course of his

3 cross-examination --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: On this document alone. So your position is that it

5 can be marked for identification. You will inform the Trial Chamber

6 later.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Of our position in respect --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, after getting --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- of full admission --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.

11 The usher can assist counsel to distribute the document.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Also, Your Honour, I have original of this document

13 in B/C/S language, and I'm of intention to provide the document to the

14 witness so he can maybe give us some explanation. And then I will tender

15 it as an original document --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In fact --

17 MR. PANTELIC: -- in B/C/S language into the --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In fact, the Trial Chamber prefers having

19 original documents.

20 MR. PANTELIC: This is the original, Mr. di Fazio, B/C/S version.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number first?

22 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked Defence Exhibit -- or

23 Defence document D20/1 ter ID and D20/1 ID.

24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Tihic, would you take a look at that document, and take your

Page 3805

1 time.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, something occurs to me just

3 before Mr. Pantelic starts questioning on this document.


5 MR. DI FAZIO: We haven't got instructions on this document from

6 Mr. Tihic. We haven't spoken to him about it. It's in the same -- we're

7 in the same position in respect --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: With yesterday's --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- of this document as in the other documents that

10 have come through. We haven't spoken to Mr. Tihic yet. And as I

11 indicated --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Isn't this the one you received two days ago?

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: This one we are discussing?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. But I haven't spoken to Mr. Tihic. He's not

16 my witness at this stage, and he's being cross-examined. I haven't

17 approached him or spoken to him. Yesterday we got permission from the

18 Trial Chamber to speak to him in respect of another document --


20 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that was given to us.


22 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, I would propose to, as I said, at the morning

23 break, to approach Mr. Tihic and ask him about all of these documents --


25 MR. DI FAZIO: -- not just the one that was given to us

Page 3806

1 yesterday --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: And this one.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and which the Trial Chamber said -- permitted us

4 to go and speak to him.


6 MR. DI FAZIO: So I'd like to make it clear that with the

7 permission of the Trial Chamber, that I intend to approach the witness --


9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and ask him about all of these fresh documents

10 that have come to us. Now, that will mean that we'll be asking him about

11 this after we've heard the cross-examination on this particular document.

12 That doesn't bother me, but it certainly is -- I don't know if

13 Mr. Pantelic has got any concerns. I raise that and indicate that that's

14 the intention of the Prosecution.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You will be allowed to get instructions from

16 Mr. Tihic on this document --

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: -- during the break or whatever time will suit you,

19 before your re-examination.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Because I take it it's for purposes of clarifying

22 whatever the cross-examination may raise.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, exactly.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.

25 MR. PANTELIC: So now I think the original document can be

Page 3807

1 provided to the Registry, or maybe - I don't know - maybe --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Let's go ahead. The witness has got a

3 copy. You can go ahead with your cross-examination.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, would you prefer to see the original?

6 MR. PANTELIC: The original. Thank you.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Can we agree, Mr. Tihic, that this letter was

8 compiled in the SDA party at its headquarters in Sarajevo? Is that

9 correct?

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. In the upper left-hand corner, we see the name of the party, the

12 SDA.

13 A. Yes. I can't say that it was compiled at the SDA headquarters,

14 because I can't recognise the signature, especially as it said "for," it

15 was written on behalf of somebody, and there is no stamp, and everybody

16 could have got the letterhead and the writing paper.

17 Q. Yes. Well, we can ascertain that in due course.

18 Mr. Tihic, tell me, please: As this is an unofficial translation,

19 could you read out the title, where it says "subject," so that the

20 interpreters could translate this better.

21 A. "Information on full alert for communications and monitoring of

22 the SDA."

23 Q. We have had a problem with the English translation. Could you

24 read the date and number, if you see it, when the document was compiled.

25 A. The number was 105/90 something - I think it's 91 - and the date

Page 3808

1 was the 29th -- the 20th of September, 1991.

2 Q. Would you turn the page, please, and would you read who signed the

3 document.

4 A. It says here "for" the acting secretary, and I don't know who

5 signed it.

6 Q. What does it say after "secretary"?

7 A. Secretary of the SDA. So somebody signed for the secretary of the

8 SDA, and I don't know whose signature this is.

9 Q. And what's the name?

10 A. The name of the secretary is Hasan Cengic, but he didn't sign it,

11 because it says "for the secretary." The word "for" is there.

12 Q. Was Hasan Cengic the secretary of the SDA, in fact, at that time?

13 A. I'm not sure. Possibly, but I wasn't in the party leadership to

14 know exactly.

15 Q. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Hasan Cengic was involved in

16 the process of procuring weapons in Slovenia and transferring them to

17 Bosnia for SDA purposes? Yes or no? If you don't know, it doesn't

18 matter; say so.

19 A. Well, I learnt of this through the media, afterwards, after the

20 war.

21 Q. That he took part in that; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The essence of the document, the meaning of the document - and put

24 me right if I'm wrong - is that the SDA party should organise a certain

25 service for information and intelligence; is that right?

Page 3809

1 A. Yes. That would be the basic meaning of this document, if that is

2 it.

3 Q. Thank you. You can give the original back to the usher, because

4 we have finished with an analysis of this document. Thank you.

5 Mr. Tihic, we're discussing the period round about October 1991,

6 and I'm sure you'll agree that on the political level, there was a

7 coalition between the SDA party and the HDZ against the SDS party. That's

8 right, isn't it?

9 A. No, we can't agree there.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we leave this document, D20/1 ter ID and the

12 English one, the English translation is obviously with faults.


14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So we shall need a formal English translation

15 at a later stage.


17 JUDGE MUMBA: One can see that right from page 1.

18 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, I was not in charge for translation,

19 so ...

20 JUDGE MUMBA: So you will get the official translation.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. We shall provide it to the Translation

22 Services.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Because what strikes me is the date on the

24 Serbo-Croat when whatever is being said in this statement was being

25 stated, yes.

Page 3810

1 MR. PANTELIC: And therefore I asked Mr. Tihic just to clarify

2 that issue. Right, Your Honour. Thank you.

3 Q. Therefore, Mr. Tihic, at a local level in Bosanski Samac, can we

4 agree that a certain political coalition existed between the SDA party and

5 the HDZ party against the SDS party; yes or no?

6 A. It was not -- it's not -- I can't just give a yes or no answer,

7 like the question you asked before. Officially, it did not exist, but

8 sometimes those views were the same and were coordinated and dovetailed,

9 but there was no official coalition.

10 Q. All right. If it wasn't an official coalition, there was an

11 unofficial coalition at the level of Bosanski Samac, the local level,

12 between the HDZ and SDA. That would be true, wouldn't it?

13 A. It's difficult to say. It's not as simple as that. I can't give

14 a simple yes or no answer. We agreed on some issues, and we didn't need

15 to dovetail anything, because we had similar opinions on certain issues.

16 Now --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. May I give instructions to the witness?

18 It is very important that you explain what according to you was

19 the situation, because this area of the cross-examination is important in

20 this indictment, all right? So it's very important for you to explain.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain, but I cannot explain

22 it through yes/no answers.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Please give a broader explanation. I absolutely agree with that.

25 I didn't interrupt you. Please go ahead.

Page 3811

1 A. As for informal coalitions - I said that there was no formal

2 coalition - there weren't -- there wasn't an informal coalition either.

3 But these two parties, the HDZ and the SDA, with regard to certain

4 political matters, such as resolving the crisis in Yugoslavia and

5 arranging matters in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they had rather similar ideas.

6 They were not identical but the views between the SDA and the HDZ were

7 closer than the views between the SDA and the SDS.

8 The difference between us and the HDZ were in the following. The

9 SDA wanted Yugoslavia to be preserved, though somewhat different, and the

10 HDZ was in a hurry to get out of Yugoslavia. So that was the difference

11 between us. Therefore, it cannot be called a coalition.

12 The SDA wanted -- the SDS wanted Yugoslavia to remain but perhaps

13 even more different, a unitary type of Yugoslavia. We were in favour of a

14 referendum, the declaration on sovereignty, like the HDZ, and that is

15 where we had these points in common. But we differed in respect of the

16 following: We and Izetbegovic, we tried to preserve Yugoslavia. However,

17 neither Milosevic nor Tudjman wanted that.

18 Q. Thank you. So we can conclude that actually the SDA as a party

19 had more sympathy for the HDZ than the SDS, bearing in mind everything

20 that has been said. This can be sort of a small conclusion, right?

21 A. When these political issues were on the agenda, then, yes.

22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic --

23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I have to make short reference to the

24 -- I would say work of Mr. Tihic, in order to facilitate this

25 communication. Just -- I can pose a question, no problem, but I think

Page 3812

1 that it will be better that --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one is that?

3 MR. PANTELIC: This is the memoirs.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: We discussed that yesterday, and you get the

5 extracts you want and ask questions.

6 MR. PANTELIC: In order for him to better follow this.


8 MR. PANTELIC: Is it okay? Mr. Usher, please.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I would object to the use of the memoirs for Mr.

10 Tihic to better follow whatever it is that Mr. Pantelic wants him to

11 follow.


13 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think I need to repeat what I said

14 yesterday.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Mr. Pantelic wants to put a proposition to --

17 that he has found or extracted from the memoirs, let him put the

18 proposition without reference to the memoirs to the witness, and if the

19 witness agrees, he's made his point, and if the witness doesn't agree, he

20 can then point out the inconsistency from the memoirs. Now, that I

21 suggest is the right approach rather than picking up the memoirs

22 immediately and presenting them. Put the idea to the witness. He can say

23 yes or no. If he's in disagreement with something he said previously,

24 Mr. Pantelic has his memoirs to confront him.


Page 3813

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, no problem with me. In order to

2 speed up proceedings, that was my intention, but I will proceed along

3 these lines. No problem with me, no problem at all.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: We have to follow the correct procedure.

5 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No matter how much time it takes.

7 MR. PANTELIC: I'm always in certain -- so you can understand my

8 position, thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we talked about the relations between

10 the SDA and the HDZ at the level of Bosanski Samac, and you agreed with

11 me, and you practically gave the following assessment, that at that time,

12 the HDZ pursued a policy which coincided with the policy of the SDA; isn't

13 that right?

14 A. It did not coincide. The HDZ wanted to get out of Yugoslavia as

15 soon as possible, and we didn't want that. It did not fully coincide.

16 There were similarities, but it did not coincide.

17 Q. However, Mr. Tihic, you said this on page 5 of your memoirs. Do

18 you want to read that yourself?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel can read that.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Can I read? Good.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Slowly.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Slowly, of course.

23 Q. [Interpretation] On page 5 of your memoirs, you said the

24 following: "A great hindrance in their government was the head of the

25 public security station, Vinko Dragicevic, who pursued the HDZ policy

Page 3814

1 which then coincided with the policy of the SDA in the B and H."

2 Do you agree with this?

3 A. As far as security measures are concerned in the municipality of

4 Bosanski Samac, we agreed there, security on the bridge, security and

5 safety in general. That's where it did coincide. So on certain points,

6 we did coincide. On others, we didn't.

7 Q. Thank you. We will agree with the fact that you mentioned, during

8 the cross-examination by my colleague Mr. Lazarevic, that the SDA and the

9 HDZ in Samac practically organised the Territorial Defence; isn't that

10 right?

11 A. The commander of the Territorial Defence headquarters and the

12 Minister of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina issued a document establishing

13 the Territorial Defence. In terms of appointments, the HDZ and the SDA

14 took part. Whether other parties participated in that, Mato Nujic,

15 president of the municipality, should be asked about this.

16 Q. However, we will certainly agree that there is a procedure based

17 on the statute of the municipality and how things are done; isn't that

18 right? You are a legalist.

19 A. There always has to be a procedure.

20 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, Mr. Tihic, that as president

21 of the municipal committee of the SDA in Bosanski Samac, were involved in

22 sending your members for anti-sabotage training in Bosanski Samac, right?

23 A. Alija Fitozovic was involved in these activities. I knew that

24 there were people who were being sent to some kind of training, but that

25 was done by Alija Fitozovic.

Page 3815

1 Q. Was Alija Fitozovic a member of the SDA?

2 A. Yes. And was he president of this commission for defence and

3 protection?

4 Q. Did you decide this at party level or was this an individual

5 decision to send these trainees for sabotage training?

6 A. I don't know whether it was actually sabotage training. It was

7 training for defence preparations or something like that.

8 Q. Thank you. Let me jog your memory a bit. On page 7 of your

9 memoirs, you said the following, speaking about arming: "People from SDA

10 headquarters came from different regions, and they acted more in an

11 advisory capacity and offered professional assistance. Professional

12 seminars were organised. So we from the municipal committees sent people

13 for sabotage training. Among these people from Sarajevo was Sefer

14 Halilovic as well. We from Bosanski Samac did not greatly believe in this

15 defence from Doboj, in view of our position, so we turned to a greater

16 extent to cooperation with the HDZ and Slavonia."

17 Do you remember having written this?

18 A. You will see in the very introduction of these sentences that

19 these were seminars, more of an advisory nature, counselling. So this

20 does not go together with the other part that speaks of sabotage training.

21 Q. Let's turn it the other way around. I do apologise.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, do pause. Do allow the witness to

23 complete his answer. If you don't agree with the answer, you know what to

24 do.

25 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.

Page 3816

1 Q. Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, can we put it this way: These were

2 seminars for improvement in sabotage skills; is that right?

3 A. No, because there was no practical improvement in training in this

4 way. As far as I was informed, it was mostly talk.

5 Q. So let's move on to this other sentence. Then you turn to the HDZ

6 and Slavonia and cooperation in that respect. Slavonia is in Croatia,

7 isn't it?

8 A. Yes, it is.

9 Q. As for Mr. Alija Fitozovic, I conclude, on the basis of the papers

10 I have here, that your position with regard to him is that he is a rather

11 extremist sort of person and fond of alcohol, isn't he?

12 A. He was a bit more radical, and he did not think sufficiently. He

13 was rather rash, and he did get drunk from time to time.

14 Q. He was inclined to the Croats, wasn't he?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. At that time, it wasn't that bad either from the position of your

17 party?

18 A. We made an effort to have the same kind of relationship with the

19 Serbs and the Croats. It's a different thing how much some people pushed

20 us, through their own actions, towards others, but we made an effort to

21 have equal relations with both Serbs and Croats.

22 Q. However, this --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to be clear with the timing because your

24 questions -- your questions contained "at that time." Then you continued,

25 and the answer was given. I would like the witness to give us the time

Page 3817

1 period to which his answer is related.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's 1991-92. That's the

3 time that we were speaking about.

4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Thank you.

6 A. My recollections pertain to the period up to the 14th of August,

7 1992, from 1990 until the 14th of August, 1992.

8 Q. In the context of Alija Fitozovic, I would like to remind you that

9 on page 7 of your recollections you said about him: "He was considered to

10 be a bit more extremist, inclined towards the Croats, which at that time

11 was not that bad."

12 So that is all the things that you said, that you had some

13 sympathies towards the Croats, that you were sort of inclined towards

14 them. That's what you meant, didn't you?

15 A. It wasn't that bad, because that meant that he could carry out

16 cooperation with them, because the other side did not want to cooperate.

17 Q. This cooperation, I assume, related to the following field that I

18 wish to ask you about right now. As a party, you established a Crisis

19 Staff, didn't you?

20 A. This is this commission for protection and security.

21 Q. Very well. Also, as a party, the SDA formed its own military

22 command; isn't that right?

23 A. That was this commission, all of that. There was no military

24 command. What would you command?

25 Q. As the SDA party, you also made a war plan, didn't you?

Page 3818

1 A. I don't know. Make a war plan? Perhaps there was some kind of a

2 plan for these defence preparations.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I would kindly ask the Registrar to

4 provide us with -- actually, two documents, D3/4 ter and D2/4 ter. These

5 are documents related to municipality military headquarters, and it was

6 admitted, I don't know, is it ID or exhibit?

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. They are identified only.


9 JUDGE MUMBA: These were numbered for identification only, yes.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, could you be so kind to put on the ELMO

11 English version of document with the title "Municipality Crisis Staff"?

12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, do you recognise this document?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Would you please read out who the president of this municipality

15 Crisis Staff is?

16 A. President Sulejman Tihic.

17 Q. Would you please explain to me what this number is to the right of

18 your name?

19 A. This is my home telephone number.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Mr. Usher, would you please be so kind

21 to put on the ELMO the other document, "Municipality Military

22 Headquarters"?

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in this document, the "Municipality

24 Military Headquarters," will you read out the first name on the list of

25 members?

Page 3819

1 A. Sulejman Tihic.

2 Q. And on the right-hand side, what is that?

3 A. The telephone number.

4 Q. Do you recognise this document?

5 A. You will really have to ask Alija Fitozovic about these documents,

6 because I really do not know enough. And this military headquarters --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please don't overlap the witness. I know it's very

8 tempting because you're speaking the same language. Do remember that the

9 answers have to be completed and interpreted.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, I tried to

11 speed up things and proceedings. Mr. Tihic would like to explain

12 something. I said no, I am speaking just about this document, end of

13 story.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: But you have to remember that the record has to make

15 sense.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The record has to make sense. So allow the

18 answer to be completed and interpreted before you stop him. You wait, and

19 if you don't want that answer, you know what to do. But always avoid

20 overlapping, please.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I will take that in mind.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tihic. Mr. Tihic, let us recall

23 with regard to this subject, you say on page 7 of your recollections, the

24 following: "At the same time, in the party we established a Crisis Staff,

25 a command, and we established the necessary documents such as the war plan

Page 3820

1 and the like."

2 Do you stand by this?

3 A. All of this was on paper. Alija compiled these papers, but then

4 you did not have people, you did not have weapons to back this up. All of

5 this was on paper, you know. The Crisis Staff looked into the political

6 situation. Alija made these papers concerning some kind of military

7 staff, but you didn't have the people and you didn't have the weapons, and

8 you have to know that. Because he was some kind of a reserve officer, and

9 then he made these plans, just like this advice came from Sarajevo, by way

10 of advice. But specifically, nothing. Specifically, zero, nothing.

11 Q. I think that your headquarters in Sarajevo and the high leadership

12 of your party, and I'm specifically referring to Mr. Alija Izetbegovic,

13 president at the time -- that is to say that the top leadership of the

14 party absolutely knew and practically organised and supported this arming

15 of party units; isn't that right?

16 A. No. We made an effort to have all of this go through the staff of

17 the Territorial Defence, especially where this was possible, and in most

18 municipalities, this was possible. Where it was not possible, these

19 crisis staffs were established that were supposed to take things into

20 account. In Samac, Serbs were armed to the teeth, and Croats were getting

21 weapons from Croatia, and we were there on our own. There were 7 per cent

22 of us in Samac. We were sitting there. We were establishing some kind of

23 crisis staffs, working out some papers, but there was no force behind

24 that, no military organisation and no weapons, you see. We were 7 per

25 cent there, Serbs were 41 per cent, and Croats were 44 per cent.

Page 3821

1 Q. Very well. Then, Mr. Tihic, let me remind you that on page 36 of

2 your recollections, you said the following: "Truth to tell -- "

3 Actually, you were talking about what happened in 1991 in Igman: "On that

4 occasion, Alija Izetbegovic tacitly agreed with local party arming." You

5 said this on page 36.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. It is too fast

7 for the interpreters.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, slow down. The interpreters have to

9 interrupt what you are reading.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, interpreters, I'm

11 sorry.

12 Q. [Interpretation] On page 67 of your recollections, in the context

13 of this event, you said the following:

14 "In a certain way, he said" - you were referring to Alija - "that

15 we should carry out preparations, but he did not say anything specific

16 about how this should be carried out, nor did the party have the right

17 kind of organisation in this direction. However, after a few meetings at

18 the regional board, I realised that certain activities were underway.

19 However, all of that was at a rather low level and mostly individual."

20 Did you write that?

21 A. Yes, I wrote that, and that's the way it is. However, I have to

22 tell the Trial Chamber as well -- you see, these recollections were

23 written in an abbreviated form, in a vocabulary that does not sufficiently

24 explain things, because these recollections were not made for a court of

25 law. Had I known that I was doing this for a court of law, I would have

Page 3822

1 been very careful with the wording; I would have paid attention to each

2 and every word and sentence. So some of the wording is rather harsh and

3 does not involve the kind of finesse in terms of how things really

4 happened. So please, let us not stick to this, to these recollections, as

5 if it were the holy gospel. That's basically the way things were, but

6 this requires quite a bit of explanation.

7 Q. Rest assured, Mr. Tihic. This is precisely an opportunity for you

8 to explain it, and that's why I'm asking these questions. Don't think

9 that anybody is abiding by this as by the holy gospel, as you had put it.

10 A. That's why I have this need to speak a bit at length.

11 Q. That's all right. Just go ahead.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, don't be rude to the witness.


14 JUDGE MUMBA: And may I remind the --

15 MR. PANTELIC: It was not my intention, Your Honour, absolutely.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I've been reminded by the Registry that the

17 documents D2/4 ter and D3/4 ter, and their English translations, were

18 actually admitted into evidence on the 17th of October, and this is

19 important to note, especially for the answers that were given.

20 You can proceed.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

22 Q. [Interpretation] And now in this stage of local party arming, it

23 was my understanding that you organised yourselves from a political and

24 military point of view, or rather, your organisation did; isn't that

25 right?

Page 3823

1 A. Well, that's the way it's written.

2 Q. Thank you. So to that end, you had certain contacts with the

3 representatives in Slavonia, the representatives of Croatia, with regard

4 to this arming; isn't that right?

5 A. Some people did conduct talks in Slavonski Brod with regard to the

6 general situation, and I described that there, how these talks went on and

7 what the result of these talks was.

8 Q. The essence is that activities were underway and that arms were

9 being brought in; yes or no?

10 A. The way it says over there.

11 Q. Thank you. And explosives were being brought too; right?

12 A. Yes. Yes, and it was not used, as far as I know.

13 Q. Do you remember approximately how much of explosives?

14 A. I can't really remember, and it probably says so there in the

15 recollections, that I was against explosives being brought in, but they

16 were brought in nevertheless.

17 Q. Was it a hundred kilogrammes or something like that?

18 A. Actually, you have to take a look at this.

19 Q. Mr. Tihic, I'm not looking at your recollections; I'm looking at

20 your witness statement dated the 22nd and the 23rd of September, 1994, and

21 the 31st of October, 1994. In the B/C/S version it is page 9, and in the

22 English version -- [In English] English version, there is no ERN number.

23 It's page 8.

24 [Interpretation] You said the following to the Prosecutor in that

25 statement:

Page 3824

1 "On one occasion before the war, Izet Izetbegovic and Alija

2 Fitozovic had been talking to some commanders in Slavonski Brod. The next

3 day they said they were expecting 100 to 200 kilos of explosives."

4 And then further on you said the following within the same

5 statement:

6 "Fitozovic got the explosives from the Croats and he signed for

7 the receipt of these explosives."

8 Do you abide by the statement you made then?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. PANTELIC: It is almost time for a break, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's 11.00.

13 MR. PANTELIC: I have another three lines of questioning, so maybe

14 it's a good time to have a break. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take our break and resume the

16 proceedings at 11.30 hours.

17 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.

18 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, you're continuing.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: You have half an hour.

22 MR. PANTELIC: You mean more?

23 JUDGE MUMBA: You tell the Trial Chamber.

24 MR. PANTELIC: You mean net or gross? Because we have to

25 introduce some evidences.

Page 3825

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yesterday, you said you needed maybe two hours.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Net. I have it in translation. In transcript, two

3 and a half, maybe three.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, no, no.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I know the page.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yesterday?

7 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. It was day before yesterday.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, because when we first calculated the dates, I

9 was generous to say seven hours in total.

10 MR. PANTELIC: But my friends were a little bit shorter, so I use

11 their time.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: But we have already got eight hours actually in

13 total.

14 MR. PANTELIC: But, Your Honour, gross or net, without all these

15 moments?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Continue, Mr. Pantelic.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. First of all, if you permit me, there

18 is a small intervention in the transcript. It's page 38, line 21.


20 MR. PANTELIC: Instead of 67, reference to the page, it should be

21 page 6 and page 7, just for the record.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we left off discussing armaments and

25 arming. I should like you to tell me whether you agree with me that there

Page 3826

1 was a certain type of agreement between the political structures in

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the JNA with respect to arming, that all illegal

3 arming should be suppressed and so on. Did you know that?

4 A. Well, there were various agreements.

5 Q. I'm asking you about this particular agreement, if you remember.

6 A. I don't know. I'm not sure.

7 Q. Do you happen to remember a situation or incident linked to an

8 agreement between the republican MUP and the JNA with respect to the

9 organisation of a joint control of checkpoints, manning of checkpoints and

10 so on? Do you remember that?

11 A. Well, I do remember there was some kind of agreement.

12 Q. All right. You, as the SDA party in Bosanski Samac, were you

13 opposed to the stationing of JNA units and the republican MUP as a mixed

14 control at the Uzarija point, yes or no? Were you in favour or were you

15 against?

16 A. We were against. We did not wish the JNA units to be stationed

17 there, but we were in favour of having the republican MUP stationed there.

18 Q. If I may, Mr. Tihic, I should like to remind you of this event.

19 In fact, it's an event which you describe on page 12 of your

20 recollections, and you're talking about those checkpoints, and you state

21 the following: "We said that we had nothing against having them in

22 Crkvina because, ultimately, that already existed, according to the

23 agreement between the republican MUP and the TZB JNA, while we were

24 against the stationing at Uzazrija. The reason for this was the reaction

25 of the Croatian side, which could close off the bridge, and for Bosnia,

Page 3827

1 that is its only way out into Europe."

2 And then you go on to state: "In fact, the real reason was that

3 we knew full well that weapons were being transported across the bridge to

4 Bosnia, so that a checkpoint at Uzazrija would prevent the import of

5 arms."

6 That's what you wrote, didn't you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could you clarify one point? When you say "we," who is that

9 "we"? What do you mean by "we"? Who are they?

10 A. I knew, not in detail, of course, and not fully, but as all the

11 bridges across the Sava had been blown up, that was the only bridge by

12 which something could be introduced into Bosnia, brought into Bosnia, and

13 among other things, weapons, too. That was common knowledge. The JNA

14 knew that. Everybody knew that that was the only way you could get into

15 Bosnia, because everything else had been destroyed, all the bridges had

16 been destroyed. That was no secret. It was common knowledge. Trucks and

17 so on. Now, why the JNA insisted upon that point is that they knew that

18 it was via that bridge that weapons and other logistics were being brought

19 into Bosnia, that way. And Bosnia was full of soldiers of the JNA. So

20 everything coming in was restricted, because there -- and limited, because

21 there was only that one bridge at Bosanski Samac across the river Sava.

22 Q. Well, my question was a simple one: Who did you mean when you

23 said "we"?

24 A. Well, I don't know what I said --

25 Q. You said "we."

Page 3828

1 A. Well, we, everyone. I'm speaking in the plural. So we from the

2 SDA and the SDS and the HDZ, all of us knew; we knew that the bridge was

3 used for those purposes as well.

4 Q. Let me remind you of one point. On page 11 of your recollections,

5 you stated the following:

6 "For the most part, we would pull the wool over each other's

7 eyes. The only concrete demand and proposal was that we, that is to say,

8 the SDA, should agree that the army be stationed at the Crkvina checkpoint

9 and at Uzarija."

10 And then we come to the second passage that I read out, where you

11 say, "We had nothing against it being in Crkvina.".

12 A. Now, you've just reminded me that it was the meeting in Obudovac,

13 so the "we" there are Izet and myself. You extracted it, pulled it out of

14 its context. But quite obviously, it was the Obudovac meeting with

15 Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic. So when I say "we" in that context, I mean

16 Izet and myself, because we were the only two there, so I mean the two of

17 us. But other people were aware of that as well.

18 Q. Yes. We heard about that. But as you said "we," the SDA, I

19 wanted to clarify that point. This brings me to my next question. At the

20 time you were president of the SDA, that's right, isn't it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And what position did Mr. Izetbegovic hold in the party at that

23 time?

24 A. He was my deputy.

25 Q. So to all intents and purposes, this means the two leading people

Page 3829

1 of the SDA party in Bosanski Samac; is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. [No interpretation]

4 A. [No interpretation]

5 MR. PANTELIC: He got an English translation.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: We also didn't get the interpretation in English.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English now properly, on the

8 proper channel?


10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Could you listen to what you wrote on pages 14 and 15 with respect

12 to the organisation of the TO in Bosanski Samac and the process with

13 respect to the contacts with Mr. Jerko Doko, the minister at the time, and

14 the procedure, and how the TO was actually organised in Bosanski Samac.

15 That's my next question. And you state the following:

16 "Within the preparations for defence, it is important to stress

17 that we, that is to say, the HDZ and SDA (Mato Nujic, Filip Evic, Izet

18 Izetbegovic and myself), sent a proposal for the formation of a TO staff

19 for Bosanski Samac. And then the Defence minister, Jerko Doko, and Hasan

20 Efendic, issued a decision on relieving of duty the existing commander and

21 appointed a new one, Marko Bozanovic, and the Chief of Staff, Alija

22 Fitozovic. This move on our part caused dissatisfaction on the Serbian

23 side, because we did it without holding any meeting. We did it at our own

24 initiative."

25 Do you remember having said that and do you stand by it?

Page 3830

1 A. I remember it.

2 Q. Do you stand by it?

3 A. Yes, I stand by it.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 A. There was no meeting, because Mato held further consultations. He

6 was president of the Municipal Assembly, so ask him that. It was our aim

7 to set up a Territorial Defence staff and headquarters. The Bosniaks and

8 others that had these illegal weapons, that it come under the control of

9 the TO, because there was the danger of having these weapons abused.

10 Q. Thank you. We heard about that. But I wanted to know about this

11 procedure.

12 Mr. Tihic, this brings me to another question at this point. You

13 are a highly respected lawyer, you have a great deal of experience, and

14 your professionalism means that you were a legalist, were you not?

15 A. Yes. That is why I insisted that a staff and headquarters of the

16 Territorial Defence be set up.

17 Q. And like any other legalist, you would put forward the thesis and

18 idea that within the frameworks -- within legal frameworks, according to

19 the constitution and the law and rules and regulations, everything must be

20 within those frameworks if a country wishes to call itself civilised; is

21 that right?

22 A. Yes. Of course, bearing in mind the prevailing conditions and

23 situation, and you choose the lesser of two evils in a situation of that

24 kind.

25 Q. Aha, I see.

Page 3831

1 A. I thought it was beneficial for Samac to have a Territorial

2 Defence so that the forces, being Croatian and Bosniak, should be under

3 the cap of the TO staff as a legitimate organ of the Republic. And the

4 Territorial Defence staff was a constitutional category, in fact.

5 According to the agreement, according to the agreement between the SDA and

6 SDS, the Chief of Staff should have been a Croat, because that position

7 should have been given to a Croat, because a Serb was the national defence

8 secretary.

9 Q. That was not my question, Mr. Tihic, so let's move on. This means

10 that you were willing to give up your principle of legalism if the goal

11 justified the means. So were you a machiavellist; yes or no?

12 A. Well, I can't say yes or no.

13 Q. Well, if you say you were not in favour of a legal procedure but

14 wanted a pragmatic approach, then I can conclude that sometimes you are a

15 legalist, at other times you are not.

16 A. It wasn't up to me to decide; it was up to the president of the

17 Municipal Assembly.

18 Q. Thank you. May we agree, then, that the situation in Samac,

19 Mr. Tihic - and I'm speaking about April 1992 and onwards - was very

20 difficult, in view of the war, the combat action, and the circumstances

21 generally?

22 A. Yes, it was exceptionally difficult.

23 Q. I think we can also agree that Samac, in fact, was under siege,

24 under an encirclement. Was that right, in a wartime encirclement?

25 A. Well, Vukovar was close by, there was fighting going on, there

Page 3832

1 were incidents in Brod, so this general atmosphere and currents around

2 Samac, the conflicts and so on. Samac was in the middle somewhere.

3 Q. To assist the Trial Chamber, would you please -- and I need the

4 usher's assistance. Could you take up your pointer, please, Mr. Tihic,

5 and change your headsets and use the other microphone so that we can

6 demonstrate to the Trial Chamber how this looks, geographically speaking?

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have no objection to the

8 line of cross-examination here --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: As I said, no objection to the line of

11 cross-examination, but I think the Chamber would be assisted if

12 Mr. Pantelic were to be a bit more specific about this wartime

13 encirclement of Samac. If he were able to specify if he's talking about

14 the town, if he's talking about the municipality, if he's talking about

15 the night of the 16th and 17th, and if he's able to specify who is

16 encircling the town, then that might be of assistance, too, to the

17 witness, because at this stage it seems to me that the questions are

18 somewhat vague, and if this evidence is to be useful, we have got to know

19 precisely what period of time we are talking about, who is doing the

20 encircling. Is he talking about the town or the municipality as well?


22 MR. DI FAZIO: Because, of course, they are crucial features of

23 the evidential scenario, and it's not appropriate at this stage to speak

24 in generalities.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber agrees, Mr. Pantelic.

Page 3833

1 MR. PANTELIC: Me, too.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Please particularise as asked by Mr. di Fazio.

3 MR. PANTELIC: I agree, too. Thank you, my friend, for these

4 suggestions.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, can you hear me? Excellent. We are

6 discussing the period from April 1992, as I've already said, onwards. So

7 we are focusing on 1992 and the Samac municipality, not the town, the

8 municipality of Samac, and it is under an encirclement. Around it we have

9 the HVO units, the Croatian army from Croatia, the BH army, and other

10 military and paramilitary units. So all around Samac. Opposite we have

11 Slavonia, Croatia. To the left, we have Brod, Odzak and that whole

12 region, Modrica, Gradacac on the south.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: May we have what are the other military formations?

14 MR. PANTELIC: Paramilitary formations.

15 Q. [Interpretation] So that's what we are talking about. So could

16 you please indicate, to the best of your knowledge and recollections, what

17 the situation was like? Could you please point out the Samac

18 municipality, to begin with, and then tell me who was where, to the best

19 of your recollections?

20 A. First of all, it is not correct that Samac was encircled.

21 Gradacac, the BH army, Orasje, the HVO forces, Odzak. I have to stress

22 that. But it is true that Samac was full of JNA soldiers, the whole

23 municipality was full of the Yugoslav People's Army. But it is true that

24 opposite Samac, we did have the Croatian army. The Croatian army was

25 there.

Page 3834

1 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber what region that is?

2 A. Bosanski Samac is the confluence of Sava and Bosna River. And

3 there was the Croatian army opposite, across the river, but all the rest

4 was the JNA, no other armies, no paramilitary units, nobody else but the

5 Yugoslav People's Army. On this side of the Sava River, we did have the

6 Croatian army and all their formations and units, but on the Bosnian side,

7 there were no other paramilitary units.

8 Q. Well, I'm in a real predicament here. First of all, you say that

9 it was a very difficult situation, fighting on all sides. Was the JNA

10 fighting against itself?

11 A. Well, when I said the situation was difficult, I meant the general

12 situation. There was mining in town, out of town. I'm talking about

13 Vukovar, which was 50 kilometres away, 70 or -- to Samac where the war had

14 flared up. Then there was Bosanski Brod. There was a war there. That's

15 what I was thinking.

16 Q. Who was at war in Bosanski Brod, for example?

17 A. Well, the Yugoslav People's Army on the one hand, and on the other

18 side, the HVO and probably the HV.

19 Q. Could you point out the Bosanski Brod region on how far west is it

20 from Samac?

21 A. I think it is 55 kilometres away, west of Samac.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, remember pausing, please.

23 MR. PANTELIC: This is a war situation, so I'm really focused on

24 it.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: This is not a battlefield. This is a courtroom.

Page 3835

1 And the interpreters are stressed. Please.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

3 Q. [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Tihic. Tell us about Doboj.

4 Were there any military operations in Doboj at that time? Had the war

5 reached Doboj in April 1992?

6 A. As far as I know, no, not before the attack on Samac.

7 Q. What about Modrica?

8 A. In Modrica, there had been some things going on there. The JNA

9 entered Modrica, as far as I recall, with their tanks, and then later on,

10 they left, they withdrew, but there wasn't any --

11 Q. Who did the JNA fight with there, which units?

12 A. As far as I know, they just entered the town of Modrica.

13 Q. There was no war in Modrica?

14 A. As far as I remember, there was no shooting.

15 Q. What about the Gradacac region, south of Samac? Were there any

16 military operations there?

17 A. No.

18 Q. What about towards Brcko? Any operations there?

19 A. As far as I know, no.

20 Q. Thank you. You may resume your seat. I have other questions for

21 you. Mr. Tihic, can you hear me now?

22 A. I hear you.

23 Q. Very well. Do you know about the corridor military operation? It

24 was called "corridor"?

25 A. Well, I heard something about the name of "corridor" under

Page 3836

1 different notions.

2 Q. I'm asking you about the military sense, in the military sense,

3 the military war operation called "corridor"?

4 A. I know that the Serb side wanted to have this corridor, to

5 establish this corridor with Serbia, Krajina and Posavina to Serbia.

6 Whether it was a military operation and what its name was, I can't say,

7 but there was always a war around the corridor.

8 Q. So can we agree that the army of Republika Srpska organised a

9 military action, military drive, called "corridor"?

10 A. I don't know. What time do -- what period do you have in mind?

11 Q. I'm talking about the summer of 1992.

12 A. Well, I don't know. I was in a camp then.

13 Q. Did you hear after you left the camp?

14 A. I did hear that it was a large battlefield and that there was

15 fighting going on all the time. At one point, it was the JNA, then the

16 Army of Republika Srpska, but there was fighting over there all the time.

17 Q. Very good. Excellent. What did you hear? Who was the Army of

18 Republika Srpska fighting against at that time, if you heard? If you

19 didn't hear anything about that, doesn't matter, no problem.

20 A. The Yugoslav People's Army at the time was fighting from the Sava

21 area. There were the HVO and HV units, as far as I knew -- know, and on

22 the other side, there was the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 but that was the time when the army had already been established. It

24 could have been June, July, as you say, the summer. And the whole --

25 during the whole war, the fiercest fighting was precisely there.

Page 3837

1 Q. Thank you. That's precisely what I wanted to hear. Thank you.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Could I have a second, please?

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, go ahead.

4 [Defence counsel confer]

5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in your professional experience, while

7 you were a judge, was anybody able to influence you in making a court

8 decision? Were you independent as a judge?

9 JUDGE MUMBA: What has this got to do with these proceedings?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely in two questions, you will see my point.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: He won't answer that question. It won't be allowed.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, in the legal system, the president of

14 the municipality, can he call a judge and tell him what kind of judgement

15 to come up with?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Can the president of the municipal assembly call a prosecutor and

18 say, "You are to make such and such a decision with respect to detention,

19 setting a term of detention"?

20 A. No.

21 Q. In Samac, in April 1992, a municipal court existed, did it not?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And there was the public prosecutor, was there not?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And an investigating judge?

Page 3838

1 A. Within the frameworks of the court.

2 Q. And the court functioned?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. In April 1992, members of the paramilitary units

5 arrested you, that's right, isn't it?

6 A. I was arrested in April. It was a special forces man and one

7 wearing a police uniform, a reserve police uniform or whatever, I'm not

8 quite sure, the two of them.

9 Q. You are talking about the presence of a certain number of

10 paramilitary units from Serbia; is that right?

11 A. Yes. They were units of the Yugoslav People's Army. In fact, I

12 don't know if they were paramilitary units.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 A. Because they acted jointly together.

15 Q. Thank you. Within the framework of the members of those forces,

16 there were real criminals, weren't there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. One of the main objects -- objectives of criminals in war is to

19 loot and plunder; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In your statement, your September and October 1994 statement to

22 the OTP, you said that you were taken to an office, they didn't know what

23 they would find, they were looking for valuables but couldn't -- weren't

24 able to assess what valuables were. They asked for money and you gave him

25 a total of 6.000 Deutschmarks; is that right?

Page 3839

1 A. That's what they found when they searched.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we proceed, I want a clarification.


4 JUDGE MUMBA: You asked in the paramilitary forces, there would be

5 criminals, something like that, and then you said that -- you asked him,

6 "Within the framework of the members of those forces, there were real

7 criminals, weren't there?" The witness answered yes. "One of the

8 objectives of criminals in war is to loot and plunder." Now, what I want

9 clarification on it, because the forces do include criminals, is it the

10 objectives of those who form such forces, including criminals, for their

11 criminals to loot and plunder, or is it that the criminals on their own go

12 and plunder?

13 MR. PANTELIC: I will pose that question. I will clarify that.

14 Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. [Interpretation] So you have heard the intervention of the

16 presiding judge. My question was focused on these individuals who went

17 into war as mercenaries or volunteers, whatever you want to call them, but

18 basically these individuals have an individual goal, to plunder; isn't

19 that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Is that enough for clarification?


23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

24 Q. [Interpretation] During your detention, you must have heard from

25 other compatriots and co-citizens of yours that many of them were

Page 3840

1 plundered, they took their valuables, gold, jewellery, et cetera?

2 A. My brother had to bring an additional 15.000 Deutschmarks so they

3 would release me. They kept interrogating me all the time and asking me

4 for more money, things like that. They asked me to say which people would

5 give money for me.

6 Q. You just mentioned that your brother gave some 15.000. To who and

7 on what occasion?

8 A. When I was in prison, I talked to Lazar Stanisic, and he said to

9 me then that with 20.000 Deutschemark that would be given to someone from

10 these paramilitaries, I think to Crni, that that could make it possible

11 for me to be released. And then I said to him, "Call my brother." And he

12 was in Tisina. That's where he was. And he called him, and then he said

13 to him 15.000, not 20.000, and my brother brought 15.000 to Gradacac.

14 Teodor Djukic, a neighbour of mine, came to Gradacac, took this money,

15 gave it to Lazar Stanisic. Lazar confirmed this to me after the war that

16 he accepted this money, but to no avail. I have known this Lazar, because

17 he was my client when I was a lawyer.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, can I just pose a question to my

20 learned friend from Prosecution to ask him about did they achieve the

21 checking of these documents in the break, so I can proceed with the

22 introduction of this document, or no?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. My colleague was able to proof Mr. Tihic

24 during the morning break in respect of the three documents.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right. So Mr. Pantelic, you can proceed.

Page 3841

1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Madam President.

2 Q. [Interpretation] You speak about certain activities in Samac: on

3 the one hand, the 4th Detachment, on the other, the SDA, the military

4 formation, and the HDZ. The situation there is very difficult, and you

5 say that there are some members of the Muslim ethnic community from Samac

6 who are members of the 4th Detachment, and that because of that

7 affiliation with the 4th Detachment, certain measures were taken in order

8 to brand them, in a way, in this community; isn't that right? Do you

9 remember that? Do you remember that specific situation?

10 A. We condemned the fact that these people joined the 4th

11 Detachment. We did not believe that this was a good thing. We tried to

12 talk them out of this, because some of them came and talked about what was

13 going on in the 4th Detachment. That's why I can say this to you, what

14 happened at some meetings. They said, well, weapons were distributed, and

15 they were saying this and they were saying that. Because, you see,

16 Muslims were Yugoslav-oriented to a considerable extent and they could not

17 just change overnight. For them, the JNA --

18 Q. What do you mean, they could not change? What do you mean?

19 A. They could not change in terms of turning against Yugoslavia.

20 Q. Who was against Yugoslavia?

21 A. In order to simplify things, the question was whether somebody was

22 for or against Yugoslavia.

23 Q. Thank you. We'll come to that, Mr. Tihic.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Overlapping. Overlapping. Whether or not you don't

25 like the answer, Mr. Pantelic, it has to be interpreted. Please, stop

Page 3842

1 overlapping the witness.

2 MR. PANTELIC: I like these answers, believe me. The answers are

3 good.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour pleases, I can't tell from the

5 transcript, but listening to it, the exchange, it seems to me that some

6 answers are not being finished as well, and that's another question that's

7 concerning me.


9 MR. DI FAZIO: Otherwise I'm going to be burdened with

10 re-examination that's not going to end, and I want to avoid that. If the

11 witness can finish his answer, very often I won't have to re-examine on

12 it, so ---

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is clear.

14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Tihic, that's right; it did not enter the transcript here.

16 When we were talking about this, when I asked you who was against

17 Yugoslavia, and you started your answer and then there was this

18 overlapping with the interpretation. So then who was against Yugoslavia?

19 Let me help you. Was it perhaps the SDA and the HDZ?

20 A. The SDA was not against Yugoslavia, you see. Slovenia and Croatia

21 were in favour of getting out of Yugoslavia.

22 Q. I do apologise, but we're speaking about the 4th Detachment.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, I think I'll put in some rules. You

24 face the Bench, and the witness should also face the Bench. I think that

25 will stop the exchange.

Page 3843

1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much. Your Honours --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Because we have microphones, so ...

3 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, please be so kind. We were talking

5 about the 4th Detachment; we were not talking about Slovenia or Croatia.

6 Please be so kind, just within this activity in Samac, and in relation to

7 the 4th Detachment, please tell us: In this community, in Samac, in the

8 community in Samac, who was against Yugoslavia? Please.

9 A. In town, in Samac itself, there were very few people who were

10 against Yugoslavia. The SDA was not against Yugoslavia, but it was

11 against that kind of Yugoslavia that attempts were being made from Serbia

12 to impose through the JNA, and it was the 4th Detachment in Samac that was

13 an extended arm of Serb policy and of the JNA. That's the way we took

14 it. We were not against Yugoslavia.

15 Q. Very well. Please, Mr. Tihic, since this is how you took this in

16 Bosanski Samac, there were certain condemnations of Muslims who were

17 members of the 4th Detachment, and in that respect certain leaflets were

18 made, and they were distributed in town and also they were posted in

19 various places.

20 A. I am aware that there were some leaflets.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I have a leaflet here with the list

23 of domestic traitors. I have original here. It will be good -- I

24 provided these documents to the Prosecution. The original can be put in

25 front of the witness, just to --

Page 3844

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one? Is it the ones we had already or is that

2 a new document?

3 MR. PANTELIC: New document, yes. There is enough copy for Trial

4 Chamber and also for the rest.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: May I also see the original, please?

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. Excuse me. Excuse me, my friend.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I notice that the

8 translation doesn't include -- there's a little bit of brief handwriting

9 on the back. I don't know what that means, but perhaps Mr. Pantelic could

10 assist us with getting the witness to identify what's written in

11 handwriting on the back.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: That is on the original?

13 MR. DI FAZIO: On the original.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Because -- of the Serbo-Croat?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is. It's just --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the copies we have don't have any

17 writing on the back.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: It's handwriting on -- I don't know if you can see

19 from here, but it's handwriting on the back of the document. It's just

20 two lines. I don't know what it means, but if that could be clarified.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps Mr. Pantelic can explain whether the

22 handwriting at the back should be excluded, if you can look at the

23 original.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Maybe it's not a bad idea. Let me check. I

25 also don't know what's on the back.

Page 3845

1 Well, it should be excluded. These are the list of medicines, you

2 know, against the headache and one -- the other is for the injuries.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you cross it out, yes, with pen?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Can I --?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, at the back.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I don't know who --

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, before that occurs --

8 MR. PANTELIC: I don't know who --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- we don't know what the -- I've received this

10 document just a few days ago.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Did it have the writing at the back?

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't know. I got a copy of it --

13 MR. PANTELIC: This is original.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: -- some days ago, and I don't recall seeing, on the

15 copy that I had, any handwriting on the back. It may be that it's

16 completely innocuous material, the handwriting on the back, but I think we

17 should preserve it, because the Prosecution position at this stage is

18 this: We've been supplied with a document. We have no evidence at all as

19 to the origin of the document, where it comes from, how it was created.

20 For all I know, that little bit of handwriting might be important. It's

21 most unlikely, but it might be. So I think it would be safer -- the safer

22 course would be for us to just preserve the original as it is.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: As it is. Okay. We will have it marked for

24 identification.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And I'd ask -- that brings me to

Page 3846

1 another point. Because of these considerations, I would ask that it

2 simply be marked for identification at this stage rather than --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because we are having this problem almost all

4 the time. The translation itself into English is not official. This case

5 went on at pre-trial stage for a long time. Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I know

6 that your client --

7 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, absolutely, you're right, but you

8 know, it's an ongoing process, you know. I can assure that there are not

9 so many documents, but still, from time to time it rises.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but it is important to comply with the Rules,

11 that the documents must be translated in one of the official languages,

12 and where the Trial Chamber is using one or the other in the official

13 language the Trial Chamber is using.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Because, you see, the problem here is this is

16 evidence we're dealing with, and the Prosecution are entitled to have it

17 in its entirety. Because it's no use the Prosecution having the proper,

18 the formal translation long after the witness has left. What do they do?

19 They will recall the witness? We can't have that. It will cause

20 confusion in the proceedings.

21 MR. PANTELIC: I agree. I agree.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will stop any document which does

23 not have official translation in English, all right? This is the last

24 one. It will be marked for identification only, subject to what the

25 Prosecution will say after they are fully informed about the document, and

Page 3847

1 that is getting the official English translation.

2 MR. PANTELIC: That brings us, Madam President, to another

3 problem. We, as Defence, we don't have official Translation Service here

4 within the Tribunal. So what we can do, we can make an official draft and

5 then we can provide an official Translation Unit with the documents, and

6 then, according to the, you know, schedule here, they can give us back.

7 More or less, it takes at least one month, up to two. So that's really a

8 serious situation.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but this is a case which has been in pre-trial

10 already.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but -- absolutely. But this is a short

12 document which is only with several -- so sometimes it's more practical --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not the point. The point is not that it's a

14 short document. At what stage was the document obtained, and what steps

15 have the Defence taken to have it officially translated? Have they

16 informed the Prosecution of their problem of having it officially

17 translated and their intention of using it in the proceedings?

18 MR. PANTELIC: Well, maybe that's a good idea. We could approach

19 to Prosecution, in our way of cooperation, give them, actually, B/C/S

20 version, because they have a better --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. You see --

22 MR. PANTELIC: And then we can --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. Let me stop that before it goes

24 anywhere. It is not the duty of the Prosecution to translate documents of

25 the Defence; strictly, it's not. So you follow the procedures, you have

Page 3848

1 problems at pre-trial stage. There was a senior legal officer, there was

2 a pre-trial Judge. Always bring these problems to the attention of the

3 Trial Chamber so that we avoid delays during the trial. The reason we

4 have pre-trial stage is to make the trial go smoothly.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Everybody knows what the evidence is from each side,

7 everybody knows what documents will be used in the proceedings. Any other

8 document which has no official translation will not be used in these

9 proceedings --

10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: -- except those which we have already discussed and

12 talked about and we are waiting for official translation. Any new

13 document from now on. And this goes to all the Defence counsel. It is

14 getting out of hand. The proceedings will not be fair to the

15 Prosecution.

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MR. PANTELIC: Can I have a second to confer, Madam President?

18 Can I have a second just --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And when you are consulting, you should also

20 tell the Trial Chamber when you came across this document.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Good. Thank you.

22 [Defence counsel confer]

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honours, the situation is as follows:

24 We were obliged to give the Prosecution a list of our evidences which we

25 want to tender into evidence during the course of trial. We complied with

Page 3849

1 that. The ongoing procedure about the translation is more or less here.

2 I mean, there is a lot of documents. But in specific case when the

3 Defence is in possession of a newly discovered document --


5 MR. PANTELIC: -- that's another problem, because in this

6 particular situation, we are in, I would say, position not to have enough

7 time to obtain official translations from the Translation Unit, in this

8 specific and unique situation. So what I would respectfully suggest: We

9 could go from case to case to explain what actually was this

10 [indiscernible].

11 That brings me to the answer to Your Honour Judge Williams that

12 Defence obtained virtually this document last week, last week. So that's

13 something which is absolutely new for the Defence. And given the fact

14 that we have a certain lines of questions and ideas, you know, we decided

15 to use that for this cross-examination. So that's the basis of the

16 problem.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Provided that for any newly discovered

18 document, the Prosecution is informed immediately.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Pending whatever steps you are taking to have it

21 formally translated.

22 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct.


24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I understand.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.

Page 3850

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have another problem

2 here with these documents. We have a problem with the order in which the

3 Prosecution witnesses are taken. If we find out on a certain day, or a

4 day or two earlier, about a certain witness -- for example, such a witness

5 was not in the monthly schedule at all, so the prepared documents that we

6 have already disclosed to the Prosecutor have to be prepared in terms of

7 the translation as well. So that's an additional problem, like the

8 problem we have with the current witness today. We find out only a day or

9 two before the witness is actually called, and this has -- for example,

10 these documents were already provided to the Office of the Prosecutor, but

11 they were not translated yet. For example, we give them to the

12 Translation Service 15 days earlier. So please bear that in mind, in view

13 of the documents that have already been disclosed to the Prosecution a

14 month or two or three ago, or even a year ago.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is an exception to the Rule, of course.

16 Because, like I said even earlier on, that if you have them in

17 Serbo-Croat, you disclose them to the Prosecution and inform them that you

18 are making your efforts to have them officially translated. That is

19 fine. Because then the Prosecution will be able to confirm. They've

20 had -- then, you know, the problem is not there. And then we wait for the

21 official translation. Because one hopes that once the Prosecution have

22 got a document, they will use their own efforts to understand that

23 document, to get instructions from the relevant witnesses before the

24 witness comes on the -- comes for cross-examination, at least.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree with you, but I hope

Page 3851

1 that the OTP will understand us, that they do not complain that we give

2 them translations so late. And we submit the documents in the original,

3 but then it takes time to have them translated.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the Prosecution is listening to all this

5 conversation. They know what the problem is.

6 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, I would like a

8 clarification, because I am obviously misinterpreting you.


10 MR. ZECEVIC: This is the situation. When Mr. Hasan Bicic - I

11 don't know whether you remember that particular incident, let's call it

12 like that - when Mr. Hasan Bicic was brought here, I informed the

13 prosecutors that I have obtained some statements of Hasan Bicic and other

14 witnesses. It was almost a month ago, 25 something days. At that

15 particular moment, I did the unofficial translation because the time was

16 very short, and I explained that to this Honourable Trial Chamber. At the

17 same day, I gave all the statements for the official translation. I

18 received them just two days before yesterday -- the day before yesterday,

19 and I have given them to the Prosecutor.


21 MR. ZECEVIC: The situation is this. So I have complied

22 immediately with the Rules. The moment I received it, I gave it to the

23 Prosecutor in a Serbo-Croatian version. I gave it for the official

24 translation, but 25 or one month has elapsed. Within that time, some of

25 the witnesses have been here.

Page 3852


2 MR. ZECEVIC: If I correctly understood Your Honours, you are

3 right now -- you are not -- you're right now not giving us the opportunity

4 to use such documents if they are not officially translated.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: No, if they were not disclosed to the Prosecution.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. That is what I misinterpreted. Thank so

7 much. I'm sorry.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: We all know about the delays in the translation of

9 the documents. The unit is quite overloaded. But diligent steps should

10 be taken.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that. Thank you, Your Honours.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we proceed.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, I would like to give you original to

15 give it to Mr. Tihic, please, of this document.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has agreed that the words at

17 the back will not be crossed out for the points raised by the Prosecution.


19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the numbers, please, for identification

20 only?

21 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be D21/1 ter ID and the English

22 translation will be D21/1 ID.

23 MR. PANTELIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you may proceed.

25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

Page 3853

1 Q. Mr. Tihic, are you familiar with this document?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Are you familiar with the author of this document?

4 A. Possibly. It was the people -- our people from the SDA who did

5 this. This was more on the propaganda side.

6 Q. Will you agree with me that the persons who are on this list -- or

7 let's take it one by one. Topcagic, Fadil, was he a member of the 4th

8 Detachment, to the best of your knowledge?

9 A. I think all of them were.

10 Q. Oh, I see. All of them were. Could you please give me your

11 comment on these nicknames? Could you please read the nicknames? Maybe

12 they are not nicknames. Maybe they are descriptions about these persons

13 that were written by your people from the SDA. Could you please read

14 that?

15 A. First of all, by these names we have the real nicknames of these

16 persons. For example, Topcagic, Fadil, nicknamed Brada. Djuheric, Avdo,

17 nicknamed Coc. So those are their real nicknames. That is what they were

18 called in town. And now they added this, the rest. Basically they were

19 overdoing it, exaggerating it.

20 Q. Would you please read this to me, what your people from the SDA

21 wrote for these people, wrote about these people?

22 A. Topcagic, Fadil, Chetnik duke, Vojvoda. Djuheric, Avdo,

23 first-class butcher.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't know if Mr.

25 Pantelic wants to ask this question from the point of view of emphasis,

Page 3854

1 but is there any need for the witness to read it out? We all read. We

2 can see what it says, and the defendants can see what it says.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: I think he wants to emphasise a point.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. If that's the point of it, then I'll

5 withdraw my objection in those circumstances.


7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. So Mr. Tihic, you don't have to read the names. Let us just speed

9 up the process. Please just read what the people of your party wrote what

10 they called them. Chetnik duke, Vojvoda, you read that. First-class

11 butcher, you read that. Just read those, okay? And then let's proceed.

12 A. Second-class butcher, sniper, assistant butcher, fool,

13 hand-grenader, machine-gunner, ideologue, carnivores.

14 Q. And the text below?

15 A. "The list of other traitors of the Muslim people will follow in

16 the next announcement. We invite all the misguided members of this unit

17 to quit the detachment by the 6th of April, 1992, at the latest, because

18 after that, they will be tried by the Bosnian people. Free Bosnia."

19 Q. Thank you. Can we agree, since you say that this was done by your

20 people from the party -- or, actually, let me ask you before this: Do you

21 know specifically who did this from your party?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. Very well. Can we agree that the appearance of this kind of a

24 leaflet in town actually was a serious reason for concern and anxiety

25 among the people who are mentioned here, in terms of their own safety?

Page 3855

1 Can you agree with me in this?

2 A. No. I could not fully agree on that.

3 Q. Thank you. So for you, actually, this is a benign joke?

4 A. For me, it is a misguided joke. It is not benign, but it's

5 misguided and also it's an exaggeration.

6 Q. But I understand that at the end of this pamphlet there was a

7 direct threat.

8 A. Well, not as direct as all that. It says that they will be

9 judged, sentenced. Doesn't say that they -- tried. That they would be

10 tried, and not that they would be harmed.

11 Q. Can we agree with the following: That bearing in mind the general

12 atmosphere at the end of March and beginning of April and the inflammatory

13 atmosphere, where passions were high, that pamphlets of this kind would

14 fan the flames and lead to an even worse situation? Can we agree with

15 that?

16 A. No, we can't.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher. You can get this original

18 for the registrar and also the other ones.

19 Can I have a second? Sorry.


21 [Defence counsel confer]

22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Tihic, let's move on to another area of work of your party.

24 You confirmed yesterday that there were certain contacts that took place

25 at the level of the main board of the SDA party with respect to the

Page 3856

1 international activities and a solution to the crisis in Bosnia, and I

2 have in mind the Lisbon agreement, first and foremost.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Furthermore, I think we can agree with the fact that there were

5 some party activities at the level of the region, the district, in Doboj;

6 is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I have a document here. I don't know who the author of it is and

9 whether it has anything to do with you, so I should like to ask you to

10 take a look at it, to comment, and then we can see.

11 MR. PANTELIC: That was a document that yesterday I practically --

12 my intention was to deal with. So I have only, almost illegible

13 handwriting in B/C/S, and I have original document. So I would like --

14 probably my friend from Prosecution discussed about this document with the

15 witness. So also I --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Which documents are these? You're saying you

17 provided them.

18 MR. PANTELIC: These are the minutes, handwriting document, and

19 they probably discussed that during the break. I have the original here,

20 so they can inspect this original.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes, yes, if the Prosecution can

22 confirm.

23 MR. PANTELIC: These are the copies.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I wanted the Prosecution to see them first and

25 then confirm with the Trial Chamber that these are the documents we are

Page 3857

1 dealing with.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. We've received copies. I've seen the

3 original.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: And these are the ones on which you got instructions

5 from Mr. Tihic?

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Again, our position is that we would object

7 to their full admission into evidence at this stage. Certainly, being

8 marked for identification is another matter.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I also should point out that -- perhaps for the

11 benefit of my learned friends from the Defence, that one of the concerns

12 of the Prosecution is the origin of these documents, not just this one

13 that is now being put in front of the witness but, for example, the

14 list-of-traitors document. It may be that they will have further evidence

15 to provide to the Prosecution that could go some way to defusing the

16 situation and making it easier for us to lift our objections to the full

17 admission of these documents. So that's a general matter. More

18 specifically, we don't have any actual English translation for this

19 particular document at all. I don't think the Chamber has one either.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No. We don't have that. That's a problem. And the

21 point of -- the point pointed out by the Prosecution, the authors, the

22 origins, because this criminal trial isn't just going to use any piece of

23 paper picked from anywhere.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Pantelic.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, the chain of custody, as usual, the source

Page 3858

1 and the report, like they are obliged to provide us with a report about

2 the variant A and B. So we are very well aware.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Now, on this particular document, the one in

4 longhand writing, where do you say you obtained it from? Where did you

5 obtain it from?

6 MR. PANTELIC: Through my Defence team, through my investigators

7 on the field. Yes, we can give the report. It's no problem.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. It's because the Trial Chamber is

9 supposed to know before the document is used in the proceedings. This is

10 why I am asking.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, they were on the field in Bosanski Samac, and

12 I was supplied with this document but, as I said, I cannot be 100 per cent

13 sure that this document is related to Mr. Tihic. So it's a kind of

14 clarification and identification. If he says, "It is not my handwriting,"

15 so what, no.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Why do you want to use it? Because you don't know

17 where it came from, apart from saying that your investigators gave it to

18 you.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In fact, this is my conclusion, my

20 understanding that relating to the original board of SDA Doboj, might be

21 in some way be in relation with this witness, and also, the other document

22 about the main board of the SDA relating to the Lisbon agreement. So that

23 was my general idea.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the numbers, for

25 identification purposes only, for the one in longhand?

Page 3859

1 THE REGISTRAR: Document D22/1 ter ID.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead with your questions.


4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, first of all, would you please take a

5 careful look at this piece of paper, the document? It is the minutes of

6 something, I assume. Is it familiar to you?

7 A. This is no document at all. This is my handwriting, probably torn

8 out of some notebook which I carry to meetings with me and which I use to

9 make my own notes when I attend certain meetings. This is a page that I'm

10 being shown, and it speaks of a meeting of the regional board with respect

11 to the referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they are my own personal

12 notes on the different items on the agenda of that meeting. It's not an

13 official document. It's not the minutes from the meeting or anything like

14 that. Like any of us like to take a notebook to a meeting and like to jot

15 down some things, I did the same.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a part of your personal diary?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All of us who go to meetings usually

18 have a sort of notebook to jot down what happened at the meeting. And

19 that's what I used to do. And this is one of my -- one of the things I

20 noted down. It's not an official note of any kind. It's not even

21 chronological. I write what I consider to be important. What I don't, I

22 don't.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's clear that it is your personal diary.

24 Therefore, it cannot be discussed in these proceedings.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 3860

1 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, allow me to say this thing.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has made a ruling.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Can I have a short submission, please?


5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I comply. Can I use my right to appeal

6 to this ruling?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead. In the meantime, you proceed

8 with the other -- with cross-examination.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Would you prefer to hear my submission now about

10 that, or I just follow the rules?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, if you insist, you can put it on record.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, please. Madam President, assuming, arguendo,

13 that this is some kind of part of personal notes of Mr. Tihic --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: But in your submission, I will not allow you to

15 quote anything from it.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the ruling is that this is a personal

18 diary. It's not going to be used in these proceedings.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Even if certain facts are related to a political

20 activities and general issues? Even then?

21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. You know very well, if you have

22 information which you want to put to the witness, you can go ahead and use

23 it. What the Trial Chamber is objecting to is to have this personal diary

24 discussed.

25 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.

Page 3861

1 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is aware that maybe, since you can

2 read the language - this is another problem - besides it being a personal

3 diary, maybe you have information which is also in this diary, but the

4 Trial Chamber will not allow this personal diary to be used in the

5 proceedings.

6 MR. PANTELIC: I understand.

7 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, if you have some general questions to

8 put to him regarding something, without reference to this document, well,

9 test him and ask him first.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I don't have any choice.

11 JUDGE SINGH: But you have the ruling here.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, okay.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, are you familiar with the fact --

14 aware of the fact that you were at the regional board of the SDA in Doboj

15 on the 18th of February, 1992? Were you there?

16 A. I attended several meetings, so I suppose I was there on the 18th

17 of February, too. I can't say.

18 Q. Very well. On that occasion, at that meeting, did you discuss

19 preparations for the referendum?

20 A. According to this note, yes, I did.

21 Q. No. Let's forget that note, as if it didn't exist.

22 A. All right. But one of the meetings was used to discuss the

23 referendum.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe to make it easier, the usher should collect it

25 and give it back to Mr. Pantelic. It's been marked. Give it back to the

Page 3862

1 registry. The witness can repeat the answer.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, please.

3 Q. [Interpretation] The referendum was discussed, wasn't it, at the

4 meeting?

5 A. At the meeting of the regional board, discussion was held about

6 important political issues, and one of them being the referendum.

7 Q. At the meeting of that regional board, did you discuss the

8 organisation of military operations and sabotage by the SDA meeting in the

9 Samac region, yes or no?

10 A. No, never.

11 Q. Could you please give me a few names, who was present, if you

12 remember? Who attended the meeting of the regional board from the SDA

13 party?

14 A. I can tell you who would usually attend. Now, who was actually at

15 that meeting, I don't know, but usually there would be the presidents of

16 the municipal organisations of the Doboj region, or rather members of the

17 regional board.

18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, do you happen to remember a meeting at the

19 main board of the SDA at which, apart from members of the main board of

20 the SDA, the members of the deputies club and ministers in the government

21 attended, as well as other respected citizens, influential citizens?

22 A. I spoke about that yesterday with respect to the Lisbon document.

23 I did attend that meeting of the main board, and we discussed that

24 particular document. The ministers, the president, Izetbegovic, was

25 there, and everybody else, if that's what you're interested in.

Page 3863

1 Q. Was Mr. Cengic there, Hasan Cengic?

2 A. I don't know whether Hasan was there. I think Muhamed, Muhamed

3 Cengic, attended.

4 Q. What about Mr. Behman?

5 A. I can't remember the names. Probably Omer was there because he

6 was in Sarajevo. He was in the party leadership, so I can only assume he

7 was there, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, if your memory serves you, at that meeting, did

9 the SDA discuss its platform at Lisbon between the SDA and HDZ as a sort

10 of coalition against the SDS? Was that discussed at the meeting?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 A. It was a meeting after Lisbon, after the Lisbon meeting.

14 Q. That's what I'm asking you. Did you discuss negotiations that the

15 SDA and HDZ delegations had in Lisbon concerning the attitude as a sort of

16 small alliance against the SDS, yes or no?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, how long have you known my client, Dr.

19 Blagoje Simic?

20 A. Before the war? I knew him perhaps for three or four years

21 before.

22 Q. How old was Dr. Blagoje Simic when you met him first?

23 A. I don't know exactly, but he was a young man. I knew his father

24 too, and his brother. His brother is a neighbour of mine. I knew Blagoje

25 less.

Page 3864

1 Q. Well, if we take it that the war began in 1992, you have known him

2 since about 1988. Are you a close friend of Dr. Blagoje Simic?

3 A. No, I'm not.

4 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Dr. Blagoje Simic, at the end of

5 1991 and until the first few months, including April and May of 1992, was

6 doing his professional medical specialist training? Do you remember that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. I'm sure you know that Dr. Blagoje Simic performed his functions

9 as vice-president of the municipality of Bosanski Samac on a volunteer

10 basis.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I'm sure you also know that Dr. Blagoje Simic is married, with

13 children.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And that he was in 1992 as well.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So I'm sure you know that a young man who was doing his specialist

18 training, who had volunteer work, who had his obligations in the health

19 clinic and had a family, had very little time to associate and socialise

20 with others, other people.

21 A. Well, that depends on the man.

22 Q. In other words, you at the time were a lawyer in Bosanski Samac,

23 weren't you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You moved around town, you would frequent restaurants and cafes;

Page 3865

1 is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In other words, you had a dynamic social life?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you see Dr. Blagoje Simic in those same cafes and

6 restaurants that you frequented at that time?

7 A. Rarely.

8 Q. I think that I can understand from what you said that your

9 contacts were limited to official meetings within the municipality, when

10 you would discuss municipal business, because you were municipality

11 functionaries, deputies of some kind, weren't you?

12 A. I think that Blagoje came to see me as a lawyer once with

13 respect to an apartment of his, and then after meetings --

14 Q. That's not what I asked you. Could you answer my first question,

15 what I asked you before that, and that was that the character of your

16 contacts were within the -- on an official level, within the municipality?

17 A. Yes, mostly.

18 Q. But when you mentioned that you represented him, did he give you

19 his power of attorney?

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Pausing, please.

21 A. I can't quite remember now.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Pausing, please.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember or don't you?

25 A. I don't remember. He came to see me about a matter of that kind,

Page 3866

1 but I don't remember.

2 Q. Thank you. You see, I would like us to ascertain this fact and

3 not to ramble on. In preparing to defend my client, I checked out some

4 things in the field, I saw some people in Samac, and collected a certain

5 amount of information and data. Tell me, do you know Dragan Lukac?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. My information tells me that the people in Bosanski Samac saw him

8 as -- he's a Croat by ethnicity, is he not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Anyway, my information tells me that the people in Bosanski Samac

11 saw him as somebody who was imitating Tudjman. Did you hear about that?

12 A. No, I didn't hear about him imitating Tudjman.

13 Q. Were you aware of that general opinion?

14 A. No.

15 Q. All right. But we can say that people have their own views. It

16 doesn't have to be correct, but everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

17 A. Well, I didn't hear of anything like that.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, this is a discussion, if Your Honours please.


21 MR. PANTELIC: It is not discussion, Your Honours. This is a very

22 precise question, because I'm referring to the statement of this witness

23 before this Trial Chamber. So please allow me to finish my

24 cross-examination. This is not discussion.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect --

Page 3867

1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Let the Prosecution state what they want to

2 state.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Okay.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, it is. It's very clear what

5 Mr. Pantelic was seeking to elicit from the witness, that Lukac was some

6 sort of Tudjman imitator or adherent. The witness says no, he

7 doesn't -- he never saw that. And then Mr. Pantelic asked him about the

8 general opinion of others in that regard, and Mr. Tihic said no. And then

9 there's questions about people having their own views and so on, and

10 that's the objection. It was that latter question that I was objecting

11 to, and that's what I say was discussion. He can ask him about

12 Mr. -- whether Lukac or not was a Tudjmanophile, but once he's got his

13 answers, that's the end of the matter, surely.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: You've understood what the Prosecution is saying.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also received information --

19 JUDGE SINGH: What do you mean by "imitating"? I mean, is it in

20 jest? Seriously? It's a big word.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe I wasn't so clear, or maybe it's a problem

22 with translation. I will clarify that.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. I said that I had been told not that he was imitating Tudjman, but

25 he left the impression, he gave the impression that he sort of resembled

Page 3868

1 Tudjman in a way; not physically, but by his behaviour, conduct, his way

2 of thinking, that kind of thing.

3 A. Dragan didn't like Tudjman, so I don't know.

4 Q. Thank you. I'm repeating the impression that other people got,

5 some other people. And some people gave me their personal opinions that

6 you yourself resembled, in your attitudes and in your life and behaviour,

7 that you resembled Alija Izetbegovic. Can we say that those people were

8 correct in assuming that, in saying that?

9 A. Well, I don't know. I'm just hearing this from you here and now.

10 Q. But can we agree that people had different opinions? They don't

11 have to be correct.

12 A. Well, people can think whatever they like. I don't know what to

13 say.

14 MR. PANTELIC: I'm going to the point.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Because this witness said that my client --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wait for me?

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: When a matter has been raised and you have been

20 directed as to how you should handle a witness, you must listen and

21 abide. What's the name of your co-counsel? I can't remember it right

22 now.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Vukovic.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Vukovic, would you please stand.

25 Mr. Pantelic, would you please sit down.

Page 3869

1 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, Mr. Vukovic. You are co-counsel.


4 JUDGE MUMBA: At any stage if this impudence continues, the Trial

5 Chamber will order that you continue with the proceedings.

6 MR. VUKOVIC: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, please continue.

8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Before this Trial Chamber, you said that on one occasion you were

10 together with Blagoje Simic and that it was your own personal impression

11 that Dr. Blagoje Simic was imitating and had certain similarities with

12 Slobodan Milosevic; is that right?

13 A. [No interpretation]

14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, may we touch upon some other details. When

15 you mentioned my client -- but in those statements, I don't think that

16 there was anything actually relevant to this case, in the sense of the

17 conditions that are necessary with respect to the practice of this

18 Tribunal, so I won't be asking you any more questions. I have concluded

19 my cross-examination. Thank you for having come and for giving your

20 answers.

21 MR. PANTELIC: I've finished cross-examination. Thank you so

22 much.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Krgovic.

24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just something with

25 respect to the transcript. After Mr. Pantelic's question, the witness'

Page 3870

1 answer was "yes," but that did not appear in the transcript.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Where it is written "no interpretation," yes.

3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Line 14.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Where Mr. Pantelic was talking about Mr. Blagoje

5 Simic.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Actually, yes. This is at page 86, line 14. The

7 answer was --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The answer was "yes," actually, because I

9 heard the "yes."

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you are through with --

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's all that I -- thank you

13 so much. And it's 1.00.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it is.

15 How long does the Prosecution think it will take in

16 re-examination?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it would definitely finish today, and in fact

18 I'm hoping that we'll start with Mr. Dagovic today. I can't say exactly

19 how long.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just wanted to have an indication, roughly,

21 whether it would be possible.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not a question of dragging it on into tomorrow

23 or anything like that. I'm very hopeful of starting Mr. Dagovic today.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: And I think that's a realistic hope.

Page 3871

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll adjourn for lunch. The proceedings

2 today will start at 1530 hours up to 1700 hours.

3 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.























Page 3872


2 --- On resuming at 3.30 p.m.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Re-examination by the Prosecution.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. My re-examination will be

5 relatively brief, I hope. There will be a few further questions asked by

6 my colleague also as part of the re-examination.


8 MR. DI FAZIO: Dealing on one aspect of Mr. Pantelic's

9 cross-examination.


11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

12 Re-examined by Mr. di Fazio:

13 Q. Mr. Tihic, I just want to ask you a few brief questions about your

14 evidence from today, from this morning. You were asked some questions

15 about a body, I believe, within the SDA called the commission for

16 protection and security. And I think it was likened to a Crisis Staff.

17 Can you tell us when that body was formed, approximately when it was

18 formed?

19 A. It was formed sometime around the end of 1991.

20 Q. All right. And do you know whose idea it was? Was it a general

21 party idea or was it pushed by any particular individual?

22 A. The commission for security was formed according to the

23 instructions pertaining to the entire party.

24 Q. Do I take it from that answer that it was an instruction from

25 Sarajevo?

Page 3873

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 Q. What was its function?

3 A. You see, all political parties had their own commissions for

4 security respectively, the League of Communists beforehand and these newly

5 established parties as well. The function of the commission was to look

6 into security issues in the territory of the municipality of Bosanski

7 Samac, in the context of developments in the municipality itself, beyond

8 the border, and generally speaking, to see what could perhaps happen and

9 what we should do in order to reduce the lack of security and to have the

10 security problems resolved in a peaceful manner.

11 Q. Thank you. You say that this body was -- existed in all parties,

12 including the League of Communists. Now, I think it's generally agreed

13 that the League of Communists had existed for many years in Yugoslavia.

14 Given that, my question is this: Was the commission for protection and

15 security a ubiquitous thing, something that occurred in common to all

16 parties, and had a long history in Yugoslavia, or was it the product of

17 the special crisis in the early 1990s? Do you understand?

18 A. It did exist before, too, invariably. There was always this

19 commission for security, in the League of Communists, in all the parties,

20 in state organs. It was called the council for security. Before that,

21 this commission existed for the protection from internal and external

22 enemies, you see. That's what it was called then.

23 Q. Was the function -- was its functioning within the SDA conducted

24 in secret or was its activities known to others, to the public?

25 A. Public, transparent. There was no reason for any secrets. These

Page 3874

1 are political assessments of the situation on the ground related to

2 security, political measures that should be taken in order to overcome

3 this, also taking a stand with regard to these matters, a political stand,

4 things like that.

5 Q. Thank you. Can you give the Chamber an idea of the sorts of

6 issues it was dealing with in the months, the few months, leading up to

7 April of 1992?

8 A. Well, if we're looking at it on this level, certain incidents were

9 looked into: for example, when the bridge was mined, and also when some

10 other facilities were mined; possibly some ethnic related conflicts, if

11 they did happen, how this was reflected elsewhere. And then also it went

12 beyond that a bit: the situation in Croatia; in Vukovar there was a war;

13 and also some of these units came to Samac, both one and the other, Serb

14 and Croat. Sometimes some people went across. So this was analysed, this

15 situation, it was followed. Then also the mining of some kiosks.

16 Q. Thank you. I have an idea now. Thank you. Can I just ask you if

17 the commission that we have just been talking about maintained any

18 relations with the police and other security organs, or was that done on

19 an ad hoc basis?

20 A. Well, it was a commission only for the needs of the party, for our

21 political needs.

22 Q. Thank you. You were also asked this morning whether the SDA sent

23 its members to Slavonia for anti-sabotage training --

24 A. No.

25 Q. And --

Page 3875

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honours. To the best of my

3 recollection, the question was not formulated as someone was sent to

4 Slovenia for anti-sabotage training. It was rather different, so perhaps

5 maybe our learned friend could help us during the redirect with some

6 references on the transcript, and then we can follow easily.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll try and assuage Mr. Pantelic's concerns. I

8 don't think I'm misquoting the evidence. May I just very briefly have a

9 look at the --


11 JUDGE SINGH: May I just seek a clarification from you,

12 Mr. Tihic? This is just before April 1992, so the SDA has its commission

13 for security, and I suppose the other two parties also have their

14 commissions and they put up assessments and security reports. So how is

15 the coordination done? I mean, do you have --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE SINGH: -- different bodies, three different commissions

18 with reports, assessments?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the level of the municipality,

20 there was a council for security and a council for national defence, and

21 that is where the parties brought together their political views and

22 discussed them; that is to say, within the municipality there was a

23 council for security and a council for national defence. And every party

24 considered, within itself, the political situation and the

25 security-related situation, and then it was debated further at municipal

Page 3876

1 level.

2 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.


4 Q. Yes, Mr. Tihic. I think Mr. Pantelic's objection was right, but

5 only just. You were, in fact, asked -- the question that was put to you

6 was that the municipal committee of the SDA in Bosanski Samac was involved

7 in sending members for anti-sabotage training in Bosanski Samac, and you

8 said:

9 "Alija Fitozovic was involved in these activities. I knew there

10 were people who were being sent to some kind of training, but that was

11 done by Alija Fitozovic."

12 Now, that's what you said, and I quote from the transcript.

13 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

15 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, that was a mistake in transcript. My

16 question was not anti-sabotage, but sabotage units. And then, if you

17 follow the other part of my questioning, I was making a reference to the

18 memoirs of Mr. Tihic, where exactly he said that they were training for

19 sabotage, command, or whatever. It's not anti-sabotage. It's a big

20 difference. So that was my intervention about the transcript, in fact,

21 and then --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: I --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: So you have corrected what --

25 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct. It is --

Page 3877

1 JUDGE MUMBA: -- what you wanted to say.

2 MR. PANTELIC: This is page 32, and the line 6.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Of this morning's proceedings?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Of this morning. And then, in order to clarify

5 that, if you see after this particular question, you will see that I make

6 a reference on exact words of Mr. Tihic. So maybe that's a problem with

7 the translation. But my question was very precise. These were the

8 members, party members, sent to sabotage, command, whatever. Thank you.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I see the reference to "sabotage" alone in later

10 questions and answers, but the record says "anti-sabotage." That's what I

11 read in one of the sentences and in the sentence that I quoted. Now, that

12 isn't going to matter much for my purposes. If there's to be any

13 amendment to the transcript, if Your Honours please, perhaps the

14 interpreters could attend to that and --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The audio people would give us the

16 correct -- what was actually spoken.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. But whether it was "anti-sabotage" or

18 "sabotage" is not what I'm concerned with, so can I please proceed?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you can proceed.

20 MR. PANTELIC: If you allow me --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: We will get the transcript from the people who

22 listen, and then they will give us the part of the transcript so that

23 everybody can see what was said.


25 Q. In fact, Mr. Tihic, later in your evidence, you said you didn't

Page 3878

1 know if it was actually sabotage training, it was just training for

2 defence preparations or something like that. Now, what I'm interested in

3 - and Mr. Pantelic asked you this as well but I don't think you gave a

4 very clear answer - was whether this activity of sending -- of people

5 going to Slavonia for this military training of whatever nature, was

6 conducted under SDA auspices, under SDA approval. Now, was that ever

7 done?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Again, Your Honour, could I have a second, just to

10 check this portion of transcript, please?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, go ahead.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I think I catch the problem. Slavonia

13 is the region in Croatia which is just across the river from Samac, and

14 Slavonia was mentioned in context of arming. That's one problem.

15 Probably my friend is mixing, you know, because it's very similar, these

16 terms. And Slovenia is the former republic of Yugoslavia. And my

17 question with regard to Slovenia was whether Mr. Cengic, one of the

18 prominent figures within the SDA party, was involved in armaments from

19 Slovenia to headquarters of SDA in Sarajevo. So we have now three

20 different aspects, actually. So in order to help my friend, I mean, there

21 is not any mention about Slavonia and military training.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

23 Q. All I'm really interested in, Mr. Tihic, is just a simple thing.

24 Did you send -- did the SDA send people off for training outside of

25 Bosnia? That's all I want to know.

Page 3879

1 A. The SDA did not send people anywhere to Bosnia or elsewhere,

2 either for sabotage or anti-sabotage training.

3 Q. Thank you. And this activity of Alija Fitozovic for sabotage or

4 anti-sabotage in Slovenia or Slavonia, was it conducted under the auspices

5 of the SDA or was it something that was his own action?

6 A. This was not done within the SDA, nor was it done by Alija

7 Fitozovic. Anything that had to do with sabotage or anti-sabotage units

8 or training was not done by Alija or the SDA, not in Slavonia, not in

9 Bosnia.

10 Q. Thank you. Okay. You also mentioned today in your evidence in

11 cross-examination that a meeting -- that there was no meeting to set up

12 the TO but that Mato Nujic had, and I quote, "further consultations on

13 this issue." What further consultations were those?

14 A. You see, I said that Mato Nujic talked to us from the SDA and from

15 -- with the HDZ about the establishment of the Territorial Defence

16 headquarters and the names of persons who are supposed to be proposed for

17 that. Whether he talked about this any further with other political

18 parties, I don't know. And that's what I said. Also, I said that no

19 special meeting was held of the municipal assembly or something like that,

20 where this issue was discussed. But Mato Nujic should explain this,

21 whether he talked to someone else, apart from the SDA and the HDZ.

22 Q. Thank you. You were asked, in the course of your evidence, about

23 plundering and looting.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, please, may I have a reference of the

Page 3880

1 page and line so that we can follow on which part of today's transcript my

2 learned colleague is referring so that we can, you know, easy follow

3 that? I mean, because obviously he's making some reference, so would it

4 be fair to know?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think that is the procedure here - we are in

6 re-examination - that counsel has always to cite the page of the

7 transcript. That's not the procedure.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: No, it's not. And I might be able to assist

9 Mr. Pantelic, by coincidence, because I happen to have it here for this

10 morning, but for the other stuff, from the other days, I have not got that

11 and I simply can't do that. So if it's any assistance to Mr. Pantelic in

12 this particular question, I can tell him it's at lines 56 and 57 but I --

13 with respect, I agree with what the Chamber says. I'm not obliged to

14 point it out.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: And it's up to Mr. Pantelic to follow, to remember

16 what the answers were, and things like that, and unless he's challenging

17 that that never arose in cross-examination, that is fine.


19 Q. Now, you were asked by Mr. Pantelic about plunder and looting on

20 the part of paramilitaries and Her Honour Judge Mumba asked you whether

21 the forces or criminals who loot and plunder do so on their own

22 initiative, so to speak, and Mr. Pantelic adopted that question and posed

23 it to you, and asked you whether these -- such individuals had an

24 individual goal to plunder, and you said yes. Can you rule out any joint

25 intention to plunder?

Page 3881


2 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour, obvious speculating,

3 speculating question. And we are getting beyond the issue of redirect.

4 That's my objection.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Speculating, yes, I agree.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: But with respect, as my learned colleague points

7 out, Your Honour's question is that whether it was the objective of those

8 who form such forces.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Forces, yes, to include criminals.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: To include criminals.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: So that the criminals could go and plunder and do

12 it.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Now, that part, that aspect of the question,

14 wasn't put by Mr. Pantelic. He merely focused on individuals.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can ask him.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm asking whether there was a joint -- he can

17 comment on a joint intention on the parts of those particular individuals

18 to plunder and loot.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Put it to the witness because what arose there was

20 something like forces, the forces that were formed, the armed forces that

21 were formed, included criminals, right? And those would go and plunder

22 and loot. And I asked whether it was the objective of those people who

23 formed those forces to include criminals for that purpose or were the

24 criminals plundering and looting on their own accord.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. In that case, Your Honour, I will adopt

Page 3882

1 your question and put it.

2 Q. You heard Her Honour's question, I believe. Was it translated to

3 you?

4 A. I cannot claim with certainty what the intention was of those who

5 established these forces when they included criminals in them, whether the

6 intention was, in addition to fighting, to have them plunder as well.

7 However, the rule was, after the fighting, after territories were taken,

8 these forces would loot these territories. It was some kind of a rite of

9 theirs which belonged to them after the successful outcome of the battle.

10 Q. You were asked about, for want of a better description, the list

11 of traitors. The exhibit is D21/1 ter ID. I don't need to show you that

12 document. I think you recall it from this morning, don't you? It was the

13 list of --

14 A. Yes, yes, I remember.

15 Q. You said that it originated -- or the effect of your evidence was

16 that it originated somewhere in the SDA. Do you know who the actual

17 author was?

18 A. I said that I didn't know, you know. But it was not a big volume

19 that was involved, as far as this leaflet is concerned. It was just typed

20 out. It wasn't in hundreds of copies. Perhaps it was about 10 or 20.

21 But that is not a serious -- it was not done in a serious way.

22 Q. I'm not suggesting it was. But what I'm interested to know is

23 that -- clarify for the Chamber this, this issue: You say it originated

24 with someone in the SDA. Was it in any way an official document, or did

25 it in any way represent the position of the SDA in Bosanski Samac?

Page 3883

1 A. I said that I assumed that it was some of our people from the SDA

2 who did it. And this was not an official stand, you know. It was more of

3 an individual thing, the individual thinking of some people who in that

4 way wanted to provoke, and there was no sign of the SDA there, no

5 letterhead, whatever.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, let's turn to your --

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. Will the Chamber just bear with me for

8 one moment?


10 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be provided with D3/ter ID [sic].

11 D3/2 ID. I'm sorry. Could also the English be placed on the ELMO,

12 please.

13 Q. Now, your evidence -- and I am here referring to evidence that you

14 gave in response to Mr. Zecevic's questions on the 6th of November. Your

15 evidence in respect of this document was that you don't recall issuing it;

16 you considered that it was unlikely that you would have done so; that you

17 had no reason to issue Hasan Bicic with such a document; and that you only

18 ever issued one such document, but that was to Jasenica, Fuad.

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: -- for the purposes of clarification and fairness --


24 MR. ZECEVIC: -- the witness has stated that he gave one document

25 to Jasenica, Fuad and Ibrahim Salkic.

Page 3884

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: You forgot your -- my learned colleague, you forgot

3 to say "Ibrahim Salkic." You just said "Jasenica, Fuad."

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. My apologies. That

5 document plainly refers to Ibrahim Salkic as well, the other document.

6 I'm sorry. I wasn't deliberately concealing that.



9 Q. Do you understand, Mr. Tihic, that the other document that I

10 referred to and that I'll be drawing your attention to shortly related not

11 just to Jasenica, Fuad but also to Ibrahim Salkic, okay?

12 Now, let's turn our attention back to this document here,

13 please. Just assuming for the moment that this was a valid document,

14 where would it normally be stored or kept? Assuming for a moment that it

15 was in fact your document, where would it normally have been kept?

16 A. In the archives of the party.

17 Q. Was that --

18 A. The protocol in archives.

19 Q. Would that --

20 A. The office of the party, and that's where it was.

21 Q. Yes. I see. And back in the early 1990s, in 1991 and 1992, was

22 it the practice -- tell us, if you can: Was it the practice to use carbon

23 copies or make photocopies? How did you keep records of material that

24 you -- documents that you sent out?

25 A. Well, the mechanical machine was used. There were electrical

Page 3885

1 typewriters too, but I think that this was a mechanical one, and it would

2 be typed out in two copies, three copies, a document, depending on how

3 much was necessary, using a carbon, a carbon copy. And then it would be

4 typed out and I would sign, as president. And the party might be given a

5 copy, a carbon copy, and one would remain in the archives.

6 Q. As a matter of general practice, back in 1991 and 1992, early part

7 of 1992, did copy documents that you kept in the SDA, copy documents that

8 you signed - I'm not referring to the original that was used or sent to

9 someone, but the copy document that was kept in the SDA and that you

10 signed - would they have had your signature on them, either copy signature

11 or original?

12 A. Yes. There had to be a signature on the copy, not on the stamp;

13 not stamp, but copy -- but signature, sorry.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I've done with that document. May the

16 witness now be shown D9 -- it's now D9 -- Exhibit D9/2, sorry.

17 Q. Mr. Zecevic asked you questions about this document on Wednesday

18 morning, and you said that you recall the episode that the document

19 referred to but that you weren't certain about the authenticity of this

20 particular document, and you commented that the document had no logo, no

21 letterhead, was unsigned, didn't say "president" at the bottom. My

22 question is: Can you explain the absence of those features from this

23 document?

24 A. I don't see that this document has a protocol number either. I

25 don't know if this is the logo type of the machine or not, whether it was

Page 3886

1 different from the previous one. I said that I cannot assert, confirm,

2 the authenticity of the document. I would rather say it was not, but I

3 don't know. But I did say that I told my secretary to write a document to

4 this effect and to bring it to me to sign. This isn't signed. It

5 wouldn't say "Municipal Board Bosanski Samac." It would say "president"

6 first. Then there would be "Sulejman Tihic," my name, and I would sign

7 it. So I don't know how come we have a certificate like this one here.

8 But as to the contents, yes, I did agree to have my secretary write a

9 piece of paper to that effect.

10 Q. Thank you. I now want to ask you some questions about the actual

11 episode that D9 purports to refer to, okay, the actual factual matters

12 relating to Mr. Fuad and Mr. Ibrahim and the acquiring and receipt of

13 equipment.

14 In your evidence, you said that Ibrahim Salkic was a member of the

15 SDA. Can I ask you this? Are you aware of Ibrahim Salkic ever having

16 left the SDA?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. Thank you. Why did Mr. Jasenica, Fuad, approach you with the sort

19 of proposal that you discussed? And I'm referring of course to the going

20 to Croatia for the purposes of acquiring weapons.

21 A. Jasenica contacted me because we are distant cousins, and he said

22 that he had some people in Croatia, as far as I remember, who would be

23 able to give him weapons, but that he needed a certificate of some kind to

24 support his request. But I didn't believe he'd do that. I didn't believe

25 he'd actually go ahead with it, because he was a man who liked to

Page 3887

1 exaggerate and to make himself look more important than he was. So I

2 never thought that anything would come of that, of that certificate, and

3 all of rest of it. But later on, he told me that he didn't actually hand

4 over the certificate, that he didn't need to, and that they gave it to him

5 even without the certificate.

6 At the time, judging by the date, if it was the 14th, if the date

7 is correct here, then the staff had just been formed that day or perhaps

8 the day before.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 A. Maybe that's why he came to me, because he didn't know of the

11 existence of the TO staff and headquarters, that they had actually been

12 established.

13 Q. Mr. Zecevic asked you questions about Mr. Jasenica, and then asked

14 you, "Mr. Tihic, what kind of equipment are we talking about here?" And

15 you answered, "Well, the two of them, or one of them, I think Fuad came

16 and said he had a connection of some kind in Croatia and said that he

17 could procure some weapons, that he would need a certificate to prove that

18 he was there on behalf of someone." In your answer, you started to say

19 that the two of them approached you and then you said, "or one of them,"

20 and then you said you think it was Fuad. Can you say with any degree of

21 certainty whether or not Ibrahim Salkic approached you as well? That's

22 what I want to know. I'm only talking about the approach. I'm not

23 talking about the whole episode. I'm only talking about the approach. Do

24 you want me to reread your answer?

25 A. No. I know what you're asking me, but I can't remember whether

Page 3888

1 Ibrahim came to me or whether it was just Fuad Jasenica.

2 Q. Thank you. You then went on to describe the result of their

3 venture and you said - and this is part of the same answer - and I quote,

4 "And not much time went by, perhaps a day or two, and I received

5 information that they had brought in, I think, 50 automatic rifles, and I

6 told them to take them off to the Territorial Defence headquarters in

7 Bosanski Samac, which had been set up two or three days prior to that. So

8 that those weapons were taken there straight away, and I assume that they

9 were distributed later on in part or at least."

10 What I want to know is this: Did you actually see Fuad and/or

11 Ibrahim Salkic at the time of the arrival of the weapons in Bosanski

12 Samac, or did you simply issue instructions as to what was to be done with

13 the weapons?

14 A. I think Fuad came to my office and said -- I asked him, "Where is

15 it?" And he showed me -- pointed out a kombi van and he said, "Over

16 there." The van was over by the embankment. And I said, "Take it to the

17 Territorial Defence headquarters and hand it over there." He did that --

18 sorry, he did that, and I know that it was issued -- later on the weapons

19 were issued to members of the Territorial Defence. I think that when

20 Samac was attacked, some of the weapons stayed on in the warehouse.

21 Q. Can you say with any degree of certainty if Ibrahim Salkic was

22 present on this occasion when you issued instructions to Fuad as to what

23 he should do with the weapons? If you can't say so, please let us know.

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Thank you. Mr. Krgovic asked you some questions on the 7th of

Page 3889

1 November, also in the morning, and he asked you about Mr. Miroslav Tadic,

2 and asked you about the episode where you saw him in the TO. You gave

3 evidence that he was there for about five minutes. In that time, would he

4 have been able to see the condition of the men who were in, inside the

5 TO?

6 A. Well, it was the first or the second day, because later on, I was

7 transferred to the SUP building, to the prison in the police station.

8 Now, whether he could have seen or not, at that particular moment, well,

9 there weren't that many people who were beaten on that first or second

10 day. People looked not too bad, if I can put it that way. Some had been

11 beaten but not that badly yet. So whether he did see them, he could have

12 seen them, but as I say, there were not that many people. Had he come on

13 day ten, we were all -- they were all black and blue, everybody had

14 injuries. But on the first and second day, there were fewer people, and

15 fewer people who were injured and bruised. If he came across them, he

16 could have seen them. If he went the other way around, he might not have

17 seen them. So I can't really say. But had he come ten days later,

18 everyone had visible injuries.

19 Q. Thank you. You described an episode involving a gentleman named

20 Senad Memic and the transportation of weapons on behalf of the SDA. This

21 episode involved a truck breaking down in Bosanski Samac and the taking of

22 20 rifles. Where were those weapons destined for?

23 A. Well, he was driving weapons with a truck with Ljubljana [Realtime

24 transcript read in error "Lubana"] number plates, and then they

25 transferred it to the van belonging to the veterinary station, and then as

Page 3890

1 remuneration, he gave them a box with 20 rifles, and those rifles were

2 given there, but he distributed them among our guards and things like

3 that, the watches that we kept and so on.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Madam President, in the interest of justice

6 maybe it would be good to see this Ljubljana plates were from which state

7 maybe.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: To do what?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe we could hear from which state Ljubljana

10 plates are belonging, simply as that.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see, the plates on the motor vehicle.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Plates on the truck, yes.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Region or state, thank you.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honour just bear with me for a moment?

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I thought I had my geography wrong but Ljubljana is

18 the capital of Slovenia, unless I'm wrong.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that so?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, because in transcript it's "Lubana," which is

21 a little bit unclear.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, it's the spelling.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Spelling. It's not Lubana. It is

24 L-j-u-b-l-j-a-n-a.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.

Page 3891

1 MR. PANTELIC: It's not Lubana. It's Slovenia, of course.


3 Q. These were Slovenian plates, were they?

4 A. Yes, yes, they were.

5 Q. All right. And yes, thank you. Mr. Lazarevic asked you a number

6 of questions about the 4th Detachment. And he asked you if the arming of

7 the 4th Detachment was a public exercise. You said that arms were

8 distributed to members of the 4th Detachment, they took their weapons in

9 their cars to the homes of other members of the 4th Detachment. In your

10 experience, in the former Yugoslavia, was it the practice for army

11 soldiers to take their weapons home?

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, as a matter of clarification, as I

14 remember, Mr. Tihic stated that the weaponry was delivered in the

15 facilities of Mladost, if I remember correctly, of Samac industry of

16 textile, actually, that it was delivered there to the members of the 4th

17 Detachment, and also delivered in the houses of the members. Just a

18 matter of clarification.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: I was wondering what the difference was.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: All I'm interested in is the use -- the keeping of

21 weapons at home by members of the 4th Detachment. How the weapons

22 originally came into Bosanski Samac is not my concern. My concern is the

23 fact that 4th Detachment members, members of the JNA, taking their guns

24 home, keeping them with them. That doesn't seem to me to be soldierly

25 practice. Now, I just want to know if that was the case --

Page 3892

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And in any case, Mr. Lazarevic has cleared

2 what he wasn't sure about, so --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not trying to misquote the evidence, but --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: You can proceed.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that's not what I'm interested in at all.

6 Q. Mr. Tihic, you may have had that exchange translated to you. You

7 understand my question. What I want to know is this: In the former

8 Yugoslavia, did soldiers take their guns home, keep them at home? I'm not

9 talking about officers or generals; I'm talking about the usual soldiers.

10 A. As far as I know, no. Only at the military training sessions.

11 And when they came back, they would leave it at the headquarters. They

12 wouldn't take them home. No, you wouldn't take weapons home.

13 Q. Thank you. You were also being asked questions by Mr. Lazarevic

14 in relation to the 4th Detachment, and you were asked -- yes. You were

15 asked whether it was by order of the commander of the 17th Tactical Group

16 that the 4th Detachment was formed, and you said, "I think it was

17 precisely through that order. However, we thought that was illegal

18 because this is a form of Territorial Defence." And counsel then said,

19 "You have already presented your point of view while giving testimony."

20 I want to hear what your point of view was on the illegality of the 4th

21 Detachment. What were you about to say at that point?

22 A. We consider that this form of organisation of the JNA was not in

23 conformity with the law and that units of that kind can only exist within

24 the frameworks of the Territorial Defence and at no events within the

25 JNA. The Yugoslav People's Army and their units, and its units, imply the

Page 3893

1 existence of barracks, uniforms, and life and work organised in the

2 barracks, whereas units in the field, people sitting in their homes and

3 going about their daily business, that can only be the Territorial

4 Defence. And that's why we consider that the JNA came under the

5 competence of the Territorial Defence and that it was an illegal act to

6 form the 4th Detachment and the other similar ones. That was our

7 opinion. That's what we said to Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic at the

8 National Defence Council, that he had no authority to set up units of that

9 kind, according to the law, because units of that kind could only exist

10 within the Territorial Defence and not within the JNA.

11 Q. Thank you. Mr. Lazarevic also asked you about the meeting in Prud

12 where discussion of a joint HDZ and SDA crisis staff occurred. You gave

13 evidence that that meeting did not produce any agreement for a crisis

14 staff, for such a crisis staff, and that you took a strong stance against

15 it. He then asked you about a second meeting at a place called - and I'm

16 not sure of the pronunciation. It's either Grebnice or Grebnica - I'm not

17 sure, where the same subject was discussed.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the witness'

19 remark.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters didn't hear what the witness said.

21 Can the witness repeat what he said?

22 MR. DI FAZIO: I think the witness was giving the proper, correct

23 pronunciation.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Of what?

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Of Grebnice.

Page 3894

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Proceed.


3 Q. Now, the same subject was discussed, but you weren't asked whether

4 at that second meeting any agreement was reached on a joint HDZ or SDA

5 crisis staff, and that's what I want to know. What was the result of the

6 second meeting?

7 A. I didn't attend that second meeting, but a joint crisis staff was

8 not set up.

9 Q. I have already touched upon this issue earlier in this

10 re-examination, but Mr. Lazarevic also touched on the issue, and that is,

11 namely, the proposal endorsing Bozanovic and Alija Fitozovic as TO

12 leaders, and that proposal being sent to Sarajevo. In your evidence, and

13 in answer to questions by Mr. Lazarevic, you said that that procedure that

14 you adopted was the correct procedure but that no meeting was ever held to

15 discuss those proposed appointments with the Municipal Assembly. My

16 question is this: Was there ever time for a meeting to be held before the

17 hostilities began and for the Municipal Assembly to consider that very

18 issue?

19 A. Had they been in agreement, they would have found the time, and

20 Mato Nujic probably thought that there wouldn't be agreement. So perhaps

21 because of that, he didn't convene the meeting, realistically speaking.

22 Because the ratio of forces was roughly 50/50, it was difficult to take a

23 decision. And Mato made use of his right to propose that, but, at the

24 same time, responsibility if he had made a mistake, doing it without the

25 Municipal Assembly.

Page 3895

1 Q. Thank you. You were also asked this question and this answer, and

2 I need to quote it, and I'd ask that you listen carefully to the question

3 in particular:

4 Q. Can we agree that members of the 4th Detachment took

5 the right banks of the Sava and Bosna rivers,

6 respectively, in order to prevent the HVO from

7 penetrating?

8 A. As far as I know, yes, and on the bridge on the

9 Drina and on the Bosna.

10 So in that question there were two questions: First of all,

11 whether the 4th Detachment took the right banks of the Sava and Bosna

12 River.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. My learned colleague has just

15 mentioned river Drina, and it has nothing to do with Samac. I mean, it's

16 river Sava, I believe.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'm grateful to my learned friend.

18 It's not a matter that's going to be of particular significance. If

19 there's a -- I've got "Drina" here in my transcript. I see it here:

20 D-r-i-n-a. But whether it's Sava or Drina matters not for my purposes,

21 and I'm sure it won't trouble Mr. Lazarevic when he hears my question

22 asked in full. Because I'm not interested in what the names of the rivers

23 are. It's the two-barrelled question that I'm interested in.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think his concern was that one river is in

25 another region and the other one is in a totally different area, I think.

Page 3896

1 Yes. So he needed to have that corrected. So he has corrected it

2 himself.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Well, perhaps I'll put in "Sava," the

4 word "Sava," substitute the word "Sava."


6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. After that, I just want to go back and

7 I want you to understand the question clearly. I'll just quickly read it

8 for you again.

9 Q. Can we agree that members of the 4th Detachment took

10 the right banks of the Sava and Bosna rivers,

11 respectively, in order to prevent the HVO from

12 penetrating?

13 A. As far as I know, yes, and the bridge on the Sava,

14 on the Bosna.

15 Now, there are two questions there. One, did they take those

16 banks; and two, was it to prevent the HVO from penetrating? You seem to

17 agree with the proposition. I want to know your answer to both aspects of

18 the question, and in particular, whether it was to prevent the HVO from

19 penetrating.

20 A. As far as I know, members of the 4th Detachment took -- assumed

21 positions on the right bank of the Bosna, on the embankment that was by

22 the river. I don't know about the Sava. I don't know them taking up

23 positions on the Sava bank. Now, why they had done that, I said probably

24 to prevent reinforcements from coming in to town from the village of Prud

25 and the HVO and the rest. Probably because of that.

Page 3897

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: The re-examination isn't complete, but my

3 colleague, Ms. Reidy --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Is continuing with Ms. Reidy, yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- has a few questions on another aspect of

6 Mr. Pantelic's questions.


8 Re-examined by Ms. Reidy:

9 Q. Mr. Tihic, my question, or series of short questions, just goes

10 around one part of Mr. Pantelic's examination in cross.

11 MS. REIDY: And while I don't want to set a precedent,

12 Mr. Pantelic, in case you want to follow me closely, it's on page either

13 3753 to 3754 of the official transcript or pages 124 to 128 of

14 yesterday's, depending on which numbering system you're using.

15 Q. And what that questioning was about was about whether or not the

16 central government in Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled all the territory.

17 And you had answered that it could not control the entire

18 territory because the Yugoslav People's Army did not allow them to do that

19 as well as various paramilitary formations, et cetera. You were then

20 asked to point out on the map, which for the record is Prosecution Exhibit

21 P15, which areas were under the control of the central government, et

22 cetera.

23 And Mr. Pantelic concluded that part of his statement by saying,

24 "Let the record show that the witness explained on the Exhibit P15 the

25 regions under the control of the central government of Bosnia and

Page 3898

1 Herzegovina in the period from mid-April 1992 and the other years."

2 Now what I want to clarify is in fact, while you did indicate a

3 lot of areas, Mr. Pantelic never at any time tied down the time period

4 which went hand in hand with the areas that were controlled. So I

5 understand you began by pointing out the areas which were under the

6 control of the central government in April 1992. Can you tell me whether

7 there was a significant change in the area in May 1992?

8 A. There were changes in May and the month of June and later,

9 throughout the war, there were certain changes. But the central

10 government controlled central Bosnia, Tuzla, the Tuzla canton, so to

11 speak, down towards Mostar and Mostar, Krajina, Bihac, and that area of

12 the Bihac Krajina, actually. They kept that under their control all the

13 time. That didn't change. As for the other towns, it depended on when

14 they would fall. Some fell in April, some fell -- I don't know. Let's

15 take Srebrenica, that was 1995. It was lost from under their control.

16 And Zepa.

17 Q. My question --

18 A. And then later the territory was enlarged again and Sanski Most

19 was liberated, and Kljuc was liberated and then Donja Vakuf was liberated.

20 Q. On the basis of that, can you say was there a dramatic increase in

21 the control of the territory enjoyed by the central government of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina between 6th of April, 1992, and the 23rd of May, 1992?

23 Or if not, is there even a decrease in the amount of territory that the

24 government controlled?

25 A. The territory was decreased between the 6th of April and the 23rd

Page 3899

1 of May, the territory under the control of --

2 Q. And just my last question again, between May and, say --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer was not completed.

4 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry, I apologise, I didn't hear.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: I didn't hear the interpretation.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The witness broke off.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the witness, I think, broke off. Can the

8 answer be completed, please? The answer was, "The territory was decreased

9 between 6th of April and the 23rd of May, the territory under the control

10 of -- " Can the answer be completed?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory under the control of

12 the central government was decreased, and the central authorities of the

13 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.


16 Q. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't realise I was interrupting you. Then

17 my last question would be, again, between May 23rd and, say, the beginning

18 of 1993, was there again a dramatic increase in the effective control

19 enjoyed by the central government, in terms of the amount of territory?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously leading, Your Honours.


22 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously leading question, so please let my

23 learned colleague rephrase that.

24 MS. REIDY: With respect, Your Honour --

25 MR. PANTELIC: The witness should give his answer to the best of

Page 3900

1 his knowledge and without this kind of question. Maybe it's appropriate

2 for cross but not for redirect. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't appreciate, because this is re-examination.

4 Anyway, Ms. Reidy, you can do your best to satisfy Mr. Pantelic.

5 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Tihic, between May -- the 23rd of May, 1992, and let's take

7 the beginning of 1993, can you say whether there was any change, increase

8 or decrease, in the territory which the central government of

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina enjoyed?

10 A. I think that until the end of 1992, there was a small decrease in

11 the territory.

12 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much. That's the end of my questions.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that the end of re-examination?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is, if Your Honours please.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

16 Questioned by the Court:

17 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Tihic, I just want to get a clearer picture on

18 the Territorial Defence. Now, before the formation of the 4th Detachment,

19 can you please tell us very briefly what was the framework and the extent

20 of the framework for Territorial Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina and

21 particularly in your area, and who participated in it?

22 A. The Territorial Defence is a constitutional category of the

23 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of the

24 constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is also a legal category. That is

25 the legal framework. All the nationalities of Bosnia-Herzegovina took

Page 3901

1 part in it: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and others.

2 JUDGE SINGH: Now, the next thing you said was that the 4th

3 Detachment can only exist within the framework of the Territorial Defence?

4 A. Yes.

5 JUDGE SINGH: So in 1992, the 4th Detachment was formed through

6 the 17th Tactical Command?

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE SINGH: So what does that mean? Were they trying to replace

9 Territorial Defence through Territorial Defence units?

10 A. You see, the Territorial Defence was under the control of the

11 presidency of the -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is to say, that it was

12 headed by Alija Izetbegovic. The JNA was under the control of the General

13 Staff, Slobodan Milosevic, and that team from Belgrade. It did not suit

14 them to have Territorial Defence units established, you see, so the JNA

15 established something that it was not in charge of. It established a unit

16 that did not belong to it, that had to be within the command of the

17 Territorial Defence and the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That was

18 the reason why they established this, you see, because they did not want

19 this to be under the control of the presidency -- the command of the

20 presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina but under the control of the General

21 Staff of the JNA.

22 JUDGE SINGH: So did the Territorial Defence units at the end

23 become ineffective?

24 A. In view of the fact that weapons were taken away from the

25 Territorial Defence, that the JNA took weapons, they became inefficient or

Page 3902

1 how shall we -- ineffective in Bosanski Samac, and in other places.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Out of the answers from the questions from the

3 Bench, any clarification? The Prosecution?

4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, thank you.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: The Defence?

6 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour, on behalf of all defence team,

7 thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Tihic, for giving evidence to the

9 Trial Chamber. You are now released. You can go.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 MR. PANTELIC: In the meantime, Your Honours, could we follow the

12 practice of the swap of the position of the defendants because there is a

13 new witness coming?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Before the witness comes, all right, yes. What

15 would you suggest?

16 MR. PANTELIC: Let the Registrar give a proposition.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought you would like to say which seats.

18 MR. PANTELIC: I don't have any particular -- let's be quick.

19 Maybe Mr. Zaric can come here and Mr. Blagoje Simic can go to the other

20 place so that we don't waste so much time. Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can proceed. The Prosecution -- I hope the

22 usher is coming with the witness.

23 MR. WEINER: Before the witness arrives, can we go into private

24 session for one minute?

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. Can we go into private session?

Page 3903

1 [Private session]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [Open session]

12 JUDGE MUMBA: The Defence counsel, I take it, since we shall

13 proceed tomorrow morning, you would like the setup of the accused to be

14 the same tomorrow morning as it is now?


16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, that is correct. Thank you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The witness can be brought in.

19 [The witness entered court]

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

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


23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, please sit down.

25 Yes, Mr. Weiner, you can proceed.

Page 3904

1 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

2 Examined by Mr. Weiner:

3 Q. Would you please introduce yourself to the Court?

4 A. I am Esad Dagovic.

5 Q. Could you tell us how old you are?

6 A. Thirty-three.

7 Q. What's your date of birth?

8 A. The 28th of May, 1969.

9 Q. Are you married?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you have any children?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. How many?

14 A. One, seven months old.

15 Q. Boy, girl?

16 A. Girl.

17 Q. Where were you born?

18 A. In Gradacac.

19 Q. And are you a member of any ethnic group, sir?

20 A. I'm a Bosniak Muslim.

21 Q. Thank you. Where did you go to school?

22 A. In Bosanski Samac.

23 Q. What did you study?

24 A. In Samac.

25 Q. And what did you study there, in high school?

Page 3905

1 A. I would like to correct you. It was a vocational secondary school

2 for electrotechnical engineering.

3 Q. Okay. Thank you. April of 1992, could you tell us where you were

4 living?

5 A. I lived in Bosanski Samac.

6 Q. How long had you lived in Bosanski Samac?

7 A. From when I was born.

8 Q. Did you have any other family members that were living with you in

9 Bosanski Samac?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Who is that?

12 A. My mother, my father and my brother.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the

14 microphone?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe he should be helped to get closer to the

16 microphones.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.


19 Q. Sir, were you a member of any political party?

20 A. Yes, I was a member of the SDA.

21 Q. Were you an active member?

22 A. An active member? Yes, I was.

23 Q. Okay. Did you own any weapons?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What did you own?

Page 3906

1 A. I owned a pistol, Crvena Zastava 9 millimetres, and I had a permit

2 for it.

3 Q. Where did you get that permit?

4 A. I got it from the Ministry of the Interior in Samac.

5 Q. Sir, where did you work?

6 A. I worked at the pizzeria called Rendezvous in Samac.

7 Q. What did you do there?

8 A. I was a waiter.

9 Q. And how long had you worked there?

10 A. About three or four years.

11 Q. Do you know who owned that pizzeria?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Who?

14 A. Hasan Bicic.

15 Q. Did any of the other Bicics work there?

16 A. Yes, his brother, Muhamed Bicic worked there.

17 Q. And what was your relationship with the Bicics?

18 A. We had an excellent relationship. We were like brothers; perhaps

19 I should put it that way.

20 Q. And how was the Bicic family viewed or considered in Bosanski

21 Samac?

22 A. Well, they were a well-respected family of means.

23 Q. Sir, you talked about their families being of means. Could you

24 describe the means of your family, the wealth of your family, prior to

25 April 18th, 1992?

Page 3907

1 A. Well, let me tell you. My family was relatively a middle-class

2 family, but my grandfather was a Beg. "Beg" is a title among Bosnian

3 Muslims.

4 Q. And what is a Beg? Could you please describe it to the Court.

5 A. Beg was a title among the Bosnian Muslims. It meant

6 that -- along with it went a large portion of property. He had a lot of

7 shops, real estate, both houses and arable land.

8 Q. How long had your family lived in Bosanski Samac?

9 A. My family lived in Samac from its very inception, that is to say,

10 after they were expelled from Uzice in Serbia.

11 Q. Now, sir, did you own any homes? Did you and your family own any

12 homes in Bosanski Samac?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. How many?

15 A. We owned my father's house and we owned my grandmother's house,

16 that is to say, my father's mother's house; namely, two houses.

17 Q. And where were they in relation to each other? Where were they

18 located?

19 A. In the street of Pere Bosica, that is to say, in the centre of

20 town.

21 Q. And were the two houses near each other?

22 A. Yes. They were within the same courtyard.

23 Q. Did you own any vehicles or have any vehicles?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And could you tell the Court what you had?

Page 3908

1 A. I had a Ford Capri, and I used a vehicle that was given to me by

2 Hasan Bicic. That was a Suzuki Jeep. How should I put it? I had it with

3 me all the time, except that it was not owned by me.

4 Q. And where did you store that Jeep?

5 A. I kept it in my yard, or sometimes in a garage that Hasan Bicic

6 had near his house.

7 Q. And sir, where did you and your family members store their money?

8 Did you use banks or did you keep the money at home?

9 A. In view of the poor situation of our banks and the prevailing

10 insecurity, we did not keep money in the bank; we kept money at home. We

11 did have a bank account, though, but there was very little money in it.

12 Q. Sir, having lived your whole life in Bosanski Samac, or up to 1992

13 your whole life in Bosanski Samac, I'm going to ask you if you know

14 certain people. Do you know a man by the name of Simo Zaric?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I'd ask you to look around the courtroom, and could you tell me if

17 he is in this courtroom at this time?

18 A. Yes. The gentleman is over here, at that first table, and he has

19 grey hair and a chequered suit.

20 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Milan Simic?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can you tell if he's in this courtroom at this time?

23 A. Yes. He's the first sitting on the left-hand side, in a blue

24 jacket.

25 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Miroslav Tadic?

Page 3909

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you see him in the courtroom at this time?

3 A. Yes. He's sitting in the middle.

4 Q. And do you know a man by the name of Blagoje Simic?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And can you tell the Court whether he's sitting in this courtroom

7 at this time?

8 A. Yes, he is. He is sitting on the right-hand side. He's the man

9 with the beard.

10 MR. WEINER: Your Honours, may the record reflect that all four

11 defendants have been identified by the witness.



14 Q. Sir, I'd like to go to April 16th, the evening of April 16th, the

15 evening just before the attack. Could you tell us whether you were

16 working on that evening?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Where were you working?

19 A. At the pizzeria.

20 Q. And could you tell us what sort of crowd you had on that night.

21 A. Since I was used to seeing customers of all ethnicities, that

22 night I did not see any clients of Serb ethnicity, and that is to say that

23 there were very few customers in the pizzeria, generally speaking.

24 Q. As a result of the very small number of patrons, did you do

25 anything? Did you close early? Did you -- what did you do?

Page 3910

1 A. Normal working hours were until 12.00 or perhaps until 1.00 at

2 night; however, that night I closed at 11.00 in the evening.

3 Q. After you closed, what did you do?

4 A. After I closed the pizzeria, I went home. Since it was too early

5 for me to go to bed, I watched a movie.

6 Q. Sometime around 2.00, 3.00 in the morning, did something happen?

7 A. Yes. I heard shooting in town.

8 Q. What did you do?

9 A. What did I do? I waited for a while and then I went out into the

10 yard, or rather, in front of my house, into the street, to see what was

11 going on.

12 Q. And while you were outside, did you see anything?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What did you see?

15 A. I saw military vehicles that were moving in all directions.

16 Q. What did you do next?

17 A. Nothing. I went back into the house.

18 Q. Later that morning, did you go anywhere?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Where did you go?

21 A. I went to the owner of the pizzeria in order to hand him in the

22 money earned the previous day.

23 Q. And who was that, the owner?

24 A. The owner was, as I had previously said, Hasan Bicic.

25 Q. And did you go to the Bicic home?

Page 3911

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And where was the Bicic home in relation to your home?

3 A. It was halfway from my house to the pizzeria, that is to say, 50

4 metres away from my house.

5 Q. After you gave the Bicics the money, did you return home?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And did you see the Bicics again later that morning?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. How did you come to see them?

10 A. Since their mother and the wives of Hasan and Muhamed Bicic, they

11 came to my mother's for breakfast and coffee.

12 Q. After you had breakfast, what did you do?

13 A. After breakfast, since there was shooting in town, we decided, my

14 father and my brother and I, to clean up the basement a bit, and also to

15 put bricks on the windows so that we would have a shelter in case there

16 was shelling.

17 MR. WEINER: Pardon me. Your Honours, since it's 5.00, would you

18 like to break at this moment, or should I continue?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will adjourn and resume our proceedings

20 tomorrow morning at 0930 hours.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.00 p.m.,

22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of November,

23 2001, at 9.30 a.m.