Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4884

1 Friday, 30 November 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

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

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav

9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Cross-examination is continuing. Mr. Zecevic.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Before I start, I would

12 like to inform the Trial Chamber that my client is experiencing some

13 medical problems again, and he would like to waive his right of appearance

14 immediately after we finish the cross-examination of this witness or at

15 the first pause.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes, he will be excused. He can leave.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. If just then the registrar

18 makes the arrangements for his transportation.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I believe the Registry will do that.


21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, madam, do you hear me?

24 A. Good morning.

25 Q. Can you hear anything in your earphones?

Page 4885

1 A. Very faintly.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, every morning, we have to test the system.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: That is exactly, Your Honours, what I'm trying to

4 do.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Can you hear me now?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Through your earphones?

8 A. Yes. Yes, I can hear you.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: And the accused are okay, they can hear the

10 witness?

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Then let's continue.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, madam.

15 A. Good morning.

16 Q. Let me remind you, yesterday we left off on the 11th of August

17 after you came to see Mr. Milan Simic and the explanation he gave you on

18 that occasion. After that, you went to see Simo Bozic; is that right?

19 A. Yes. Not the same day, but the next day.

20 Q. You asked him, too, to help you; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If I understood you correctly while you were testifying in direct

23 examination, you had the impression that he was willing to help you?

24 A. Well, I didn't conclude otherwise, that is, that he didn't want to

25 help me. He read out to me his own proposal that my husband should defend

Page 4886












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4887

1 himself from freedom, and I've already told you he treated me very

2 nicely. He received me very nicely.

3 Q. In those few days, you also talked to Savo Cancarevic, the

4 commander of the police; is that right?

5 A. Yes. When I was looking for Mr. Stevan Todorovic, Stiv.

6 Q. And Mr. Savo Cancarevic told you not to ask Stiv?

7 A. Shall I repeat?

8 Q. No, just yes or no.

9 A. First, he asked me what I was looking for. I said I was looking

10 for Mr. Steven, and he said, "Don't look for him, you'll be bringing

11 trouble upon yourself, upon your own hand," and Steven is the one who

12 detained him anyway.

13 Q. In other words, he warned you that it was dangerous to talk to

14 Stiv Todorovic, didn't he?

15 A. Well, he did.

16 Q. When cross-examined by my colleague, Mr. Pisarevic, you said,

17 yesterday's transcript page 26, lines 5 and 6, you said, "In my opinion,

18 my husband was detained on the orders of Stiv Todorovic"; is that

19 correct?

20 A. That was my impression, and whose orders it was really, I don't

21 know. I never saw the warrant.

22 Q. Despite Mr. Savo Cancarevic's warning and everything that you knew

23 at that moment, you still went to see Stevan Todorovic; correct?

24 A. Yes, because at the outset of the war, he asked me to bake him

25 bread and roast a chicken, and before the war Stevan and I were on good

Page 4888

1 terms.

2 Q. And of course, you knew that he was the head of the police, and if

3 anyone could help, it was he?

4 A. If I had approached anyone else -- if anyone else occupied such a

5 position, I would have addressed them, too. I was desperate enough to

6 clutch at a straw, and despite everything I knew about what happened to

7 other people, I was convinced it wouldn't happen to me.

8 JUDGE SINGH: Sorry. Just a little clarification here. If

9 Todorovic was the head of police at the Bosanski Samac police station,

10 what about Savo Cancarevic? Now, he's commander of police. What

11 jurisdiction does he have? Is he higher than Todorovic? And where is his

12 office?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was in a lower position, Savo

14 Cancarevic, I mean. His office is also in the SUP building. But as far

15 as I know, Savo Cancarevic was not commander of the police for long. He

16 was replaced by a man from Orasje whom I never met. I think his name is

17 Stoko, S-t-o-k-o.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, madam: On several occasions yesterday,

20 you stated, for instance, that guards sometimes warned you that Stiv was

21 in the MUP when you had come to bring a sandwich to your husband; is that

22 right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Then they warned you not to come too close, and sometimes someone

25 would shout, "Stiv is coming," and you would run away; is that right?

Page 4889

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. The first time they came for you to take you to Zasavica, if you

3 remember saying this to the Prosecutor, you said you wouldn't go, and they

4 replied, "All right. We didn't find you at home, but please don't go

5 out." And you said, "I suppose they asked me not to go out so that Stiv

6 wouldn't see me in town." Right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. If I understand you correctly, you were seriously afraid of Stevan

9 Todorovic at that time.

10 A. I got really frightened, scared of Stevan Todorovic after I met

11 him in front of the department store. That's when I understood what kind

12 of man Stiv was. And before that, he would say, when we met,

13 [redacted], where are your cakes?" because he had opportunity to

14 taste my cakes at weddings and other celebrations. And when he asked me

15 to make him -- to bake bread for him and roast a chicken, I did that.

16 Q. Please, please try not to mention your last name.

17 A. Oh, it's not -- we're not in closed session, are we?

18 Q. No, we're not. You said you were scared of Stevan Todorovic after

19 that incident in the street when he said, "You want me to lay you right

20 here?" and when the rifle was mentioned.

21 A. That was the only incident involving Stevan that I experienced.

22 There was nothing else after that.

23 Q. When you said you were scared, you mean that he could have

24 detained you or that he could mistreat you, things like that?

25 A. I was afraid of him, and just how I was afraid, nobody knows but

Page 4890

1 me. Because that night, after that conversation we had, I didn't even

2 spend the night at my own place.

3 Q. All right. So we can understand that you were really very afraid

4 of him if you were too afraid to spend the night at your own house.

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe that we should now move to

7 the closed session, because I am moving to another topic and --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we move into closed session? There may be

9 need to use the ELMO?

10 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't think so, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Then private session?

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, just a second. Let me check out my notes

13 and --


15 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't need the use of the ELMO, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So private session.

17 [Private session]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 4891













13 Pages 4891 to 4918 redacted private session.













Page 4919

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [Open session]

23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I believe we are now in open session.

24 Yes?

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we are.

Page 4920

1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, please, in order to facilitate the work of

3 the Trial Chamber, I am about to give you a proposal. Since both you and

4 I speak the same language and what we say is being interpreted, after I

5 finish with my question, I would ask you to count to 4, and then after

6 that give us the reply, because this would give ample time for everybody

7 to take in the answer. So let us try.

8 You have told us, madam, that you worked for a number of years in

9 the regional self-interest group community for several municipalities.

10 A. I worked in the work organisation of municipal self-interest

11 communities, and it served a number of self-interest communities, namely,

12 eight of them.

13 Q. You will probably agree with me that prior to April 1992, in

14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were regional communities.

15 A. Yes. This is where I worked, in fact, in one of those.

16 Q. Thank you. And this was in accordance with the constitutions,

17 with the legislation, and other regulations providing for this?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, won't you, if I say that the

20 inter-ethnic environment and the relations between people in Bosanski

21 Samac were good; people respected each other, regardless of their ethnic

22 background. Isn't that so?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. We will also agree with the fact that when the war broke out, the

25 mere fact that there was a war going on, that in itself was enough to

Page 4921

1 disturb this atmosphere of goodwill and of good human relations that

2 existed in Bosanski Samac?

3 A. Unfortunately, this is what happened. That was disturbed.

4 Q. You will agree with me that an inevitable result of the war was

5 that there were many refugees, people evicted from their houses?

6 A. Yes. And I felt really sorry for these people.

7 Q. You will also agree with me, won't you, that the villages

8 surrounding Samac, and by this I mean Novi Grad, Odzak and some other

9 towns in the surrounding area in May and April of 1992, a number of

10 Serbian refugees came into Samac from these villages and towns; isn't that

11 so?

12 A. I was waiting for the interpretation to finish. I don't know

13 whether they came in April. I didn't see this, but perhaps we could say

14 that exchanges started in May. Well, April, May, June and on. So as the

15 residents were leaving Samac, the others, people from other towns were

16 coming into it.

17 Q. Are you aware of the fact that prior to April 1992, some 200

18 Serbian families came into Samac from Kakanj, and Kakanj is a town near

19 Sarajevo?

20 A. This is the first time I'm hearing this. I didn't know about this

21 and I didn't see -- I didn't see these people from Kakanj in Samac.

22 Q. Well, if you didn't see this, you can simply say no, and then we

23 will proceed quicker.

24 After April and May, did you see a large number or a certain

25 number of Serbian refugees from the area surrounding Samac such as

Page 4922

1 Gradacac, Tuzla, Zenica, Orasje, Novi Grad, Odzak? Were Serbian refugees

2 coming into Samac; yes or no?

3 A. No, I didn't see this.

4 Q. Several sources testified to this, as did your husband, that Samac

5 was shelled in 1992; do you agree with this?

6 A. Well, it wasn't bombed, it was shelled.

7 Q. Thank you. Your husband also told us, and this is a well-known

8 fact that on one occasion, a Croatian plane dropped a sort of handmade

9 bomb on the water plant. Were you aware of this?

10 A. I'm still waiting for interpretation. I was detained in Zasavica

11 at the time and I can tell you -- I can tell you what I heard. I didn't

12 see this because I was detained in Zasavica, but I saw that it was some

13 kind -- I heard that it was some kind of a gas bottle, the butane gas

14 bottle. I didn't see this, I simply heard of this.

15 Q. You will then agree when I say that in view of the shelling, there

16 was a certain danger for civilians, wasn't there, because bombs cannot

17 distinguish between civilians and soldiers, can they?

18 A. Certainly. Shells do not discriminate.

19 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that Samac lies on one bank of

20 the Sava River and that Croatia is on the other side of the river; isn't

21 that so?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Will you please tell me, based on your knowledge or your

24 assumptions, where do you think these shells were fired from on Samac?

25 MR. WEINER: Objection, "Based on your knowledge or assumptions,"

Page 4923

1 and it's --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: The objection is sustained.

3 Mr. Pantelic.


5 Q. [Interpretation] Since you had a lot of interaction with your

6 fellow citizens, have any of them told you where were the shells coming

7 from, the shells that were fired on Samac?

8 A. I'm no expert, and I couldn't know --

9 Q. I have to interrupt you. My question was: Had you heard from

10 someone. I didn't ask you if you were an expert or not. Have you simply

11 heard this from someone?

12 A. No.

13 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that Zasavica is a small

14 village some seven kilometres away from Samac towards Modrica?

15 A. Well, seven to ten kilometres, I'm not quite sure.

16 Q. We will also agree, won't we, in view of the fact that there was

17 shelling of Samac, this, in itself, made Zasavica a safer place for the

18 residents?

19 A. No. I don't know why -- what would make it safer.

20 Q. Well, simply this, if Samac was shelled and Samac was close to the

21 front line, isn't it true that since Zasavica is further away, that made

22 it a safer place?

23 MR. WEINER: I'm going to object to that question.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

25 MR. WEINER: He's asking her a question concerning if shells were

Page 4924

1 coming and Samac was closer. She's not an expert in explosives, in

2 bombing and in shell fragmentation, to really make decisions.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: She doesn't even know where the shells were coming

4 from.

5 MR. WEINER: Yes.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.


8 Q. [Interpretation] You stayed in Samac until November of 1992,

9 didn't you?

10 A. No, until 7th of September, 1992 in Samac. I was detained in

11 September, on the 7th of September, 1992.

12 Q. Well, when I say Samac, I mean that entire area. So you left

13 Samac in November of 1992.

14 A. Yes, I left the municipality then.

15 Q. Are you aware of the fact that there were people who were killed

16 and wounded in Samac as a result of the shelling; yes or no?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you perhaps have a figure, have you heard a figure being

19 mentioned, a figure of how many people?

20 A. No.

21 Q. [redacted],

22 you will probably agree with me that when we're talking about a period up

23 to April of 1992, that when a military -- when a conscript went to a

24 military drill, he was entitled to some kind of a financial compensation

25 from the company where such person was employed?

Page 4925

1 A. Well, I don't know. I was never involved in any military drills

2 so I never received any kind of compensation for participating in them.

3 Q. Well, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant perhaps some

4 employees with whom you dealt professionally. What I meant was if

5 somebody participated in a military drill, then he -- that person was

6 entitled for a monetary compensation for the time spent there?

7 A. I replied yes, but I did not personally encounter that because in

8 my company we did not have any employees participating in military

9 drills. All of us had our assignments in the companies where we worked.

10 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that the municipality of Samac

11 after 1992 never had an official name of Serbian Samac?

12 A. I don't know whether it was officially registered as such.

13 Q. Thank you. Do you know that the organisation of the work

14 obligation concept was carried out by the Ministry of Defence of Republika

15 Srpska through its branch office in Samac? Are you aware of this or not?

16 A. I don't know about that.

17 Q. Will you agree with me when I say that Mr. Milos Bogdanovic was in

18 fact the head of this branch office of the Ministry of Defence in Samac?

19 Yes or no? Or you perhaps don't know.

20 A. I know that he held that post prior to the war, and I truly don't

21 know what post he held during the war.

22 Q. I'm asking you these things in order to clarify your testimony, so

23 I would kindly ask you to answer carefully. You will probably agree with

24 me that Cedo Milicevic was a tourist agent and not a minister of tourism

25 in the government of the Bosanski Samac municipality.

Page 4926












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4927

1 A. No. He would introduce himself as a minister of tourism, and

2 something else. I forgot what. But he declared himself as a minister of

3 tourism.

4 Q. You mean minister of tourism of Republika Srpska?

5 A. I really don't know. I took it to be a minister of tourism in

6 Samac.

7 Q. But you, as an experienced expert, should know that a municipality

8 did not have ministries.

9 MR. WEINER: Objection. Objection.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

11 MR. WEINER: The question is argumentative. There's no evidence

12 she's an experienced expert. An experienced expert in what?

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And the witness had said that this person used

14 to introduce himself as a minister, so probably he used to introduce

15 himself in Samac.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Madam President, but the witness just started

17 with the explanation, and I'm sure that she knows what is the difference

18 between the ministry on the governmental republic level and on the

19 municipal level. And if you want, maybe she can give us the answer,

20 because it's -- she has personal knowledge about this distinction.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. Now, that is better, rather than "an

22 expert."

23 MR. PANTELIC: That was my ...

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you like me to answer?


Page 4928

1 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. Please tell the Court.

2 A. All of the laws, up until the 17th of April, were familiar to me.

3 I can't say all of them, but a lot of them were. As far as what was going

4 on during the war, I don't know. I cannot confirm whether he was a

5 minister indeed, but he introduced himself, Cedo Milicevic, as a minister

6 of tourism, and very frequently on the radio we could hear who held which

7 post. But since he declared himself as the minister of tourism, this

8 simply stuck in my mind, and I really never paid much attention to these

9 posts. And during this war of ours, some people held even five posts.

10 Q. Well, yes, but --

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic --

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: You mentioned that the organisation of the work

14 obligation concept was carried out by the Ministry of Defence of Republika

15 Srpska. My question is: Was there a law, a proclamation? How was this

16 produced in terms of the legality? And secondly, if there was such an

17 instrument, did it detail how persons were to be given a particular work

18 obligation?

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. There is a line of constitution,

20 laws, and decrees on the republican level, and then there are certain

21 instructions for each particular branch how it works, and our expert in

22 Defence case will provide all the necessary data. I don't think that this

23 witness could be familiar with these facts. But for your information,

24 that was the case.

25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: No. Thank you. I wasn't intending that you put

Page 4929

1 that to the witness. It's just that I think we have so much question and

2 answering on the work obligation that it would be useful for the Tribunal

3 to see the legislation, and -- well, as you say, that will be presented to

4 us later. Thank you.

5 MR. PANTELIC: You're welcome, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE SINGH: Just one question to clarify the questions you've

7 been asking, Mr. Pantelic.

8 Witness, do you think that, in hindsight, Cedo Milicevic was

9 exaggerating his own importance by calling himself a minister?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In view of his education

11 Mr. Cedo Milicevic had, it sounded a bit unusual to me. I don't know

12 exactly what his educational background was, but I know that he used to

13 drive a bus. And for that -- for such a person to be a minister of

14 tourism, well ...

15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, basically this particular episode is

16 not of any importance for this case. My question was, you know, directed

17 to the personal knowledge of this witness, and that was my question,

18 personal knowledge of this witness of the difference between the

19 republican level and municipal level. And in addition, my question was

20 whether we have, on a municipal level, ministries. Simple as that.

21 "Yes," "no," or "I don't know."

22 Q. [Interpretation] So please give me an answer. Are there

23 ministries at the municipal level? Yes, no, or you don't know?

24 A. There are ministries, but there is no minister of tourism in the

25 municipality, at least not in the former Yugoslavia.

Page 4930

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, with regard to your -- with regard to

3 Her Honour's, Judge William's, question, if you allow me just several

4 seconds to check with my colleagues. Maybe we have an English version of

5 this document in question.


7 MR. PANTELIC: Just bear with me, please.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Your Honours, during the testimony of

10 Mr. Sulejman Tihic, the B/C/S version of decree on organising and

11 implementing the work obligation for defence requirements was tendered.

12 We were -- yes, the number was D11/2 ter ID. Happily, we now have an

13 official translation, my colleague just informed me - this morning, I

14 believe, we got it - and we would be very happy, after the lunch break, to

15 provide this Trial Chamber with enough copies --


17 MR. PANTELIC: -- of this translation, of this decree. It's June

18 1992. Of course, our friends from Prosecution also got this translation.

19 Thank you so much.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.

21 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. I'm sorry. We had to deal with some procedural matters, madam.

23 Would you agree if I said that due to the great number of refugees

24 coming into Samac, the danger to the non-Serbian population in Samac was

25 increased due to this tension, when Serbian refugees were arriving with

Page 4931

1 their own problems, and this danger to Croats and Muslims in Samac was

2 increased?

3 A. No. We felt sorry for the refugees, and they had reason to feel

4 sorry for us -- although they had reason to be sorry for us, too. Believe

5 me, nobody who hasn't lost a home knows what it is to be a refugee. I am

6 equally sorry for Serbian refugees as for Muslim refugees. These things,

7 Serbian, Muslim, Croat ethnicity, that's a term that I don't use unless

8 prompted by you. It means nothing to me. A refugee belongs to a separate

9 nation, the nation of refugees.

10 Q. Do you remember that in the municipality, that is, the town of

11 Samac in its central area, there were some gatherings of Serbian refugees

12 who seemed to be hostile to the Muslims and Croats of Samac?

13 A. I don't remember anything like that happening while I was there.

14 In the town of Samac, I never saw a larger number of refugees. I just

15 heard that in the Omeragic house, refugees moved in, and in Saric's house,

16 there were some refugees. Those houses had been abandoned even before the

17 war and they were used to house refugees, but I never observed myself nor

18 did I hear from my fellow citizens that they had a conflict of any sort

19 with the refugees.

20 To this day, I live in the neighbourhood of Serbian people,

21 refugees, and my children play with their children. We understand each

22 other better than anyone else can understand us and nobody else is even

23 trying to understand us. So please leave it to us.

24 Q. So I understand there are still many Serbian refugees in Samac.

25 A. I don't know the number. I am not very interested in numbers, but

Page 4932

1 in my neighbourhood, there are two residential buildings next to mine

2 where there are still refugees, although they are going elsewhere every

3 day. Whether they're moving back to their homes or have received other

4 housing, I don't know. I didn't know the number then and I don't know it

5 now.

6 Q. You are an atheist, aren't you, madam?

7 A. Not anymore. I have now returned to my home, I'm no longer a

8 refugee.

9 Q. Maybe you misheard. I asked, "You are an atheist." You don't

10 believe in God, do you?

11 MR. WEINER: I object to that. Her belief in an supreme being or

12 deity is no interest to this Court, and her belief in God, it's not

13 relevant to these matters, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, and at the beginning of her testimony, she did

15 explain what her status is.

16 MR. PANTELIC: I absolutely agree with my dear colleague but

17 during his examination-in-chief, this witness is an atheist, so that is

18 just a confirmation of the question that he posed during

19 examination-in-chief. So I'm just limited to this area. I'm not

20 expanding issues. So my question was simple.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But on the other hand, you don't have to

22 repeat examination-in-chief.


24 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, you will agree if I say that atheists are

25 not choosey about what they eat, they eat everything.

Page 4933

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that relevant?

2 MR. PANTELIC: Madam President, it is just a small clarification,

3 nothing more, and I finish this with line.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. Is it relevant to the proceedings?

5 MR. PANTELIC: To some extent, yes, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: In what way?

7 MR. PANTELIC: Well, the part of the testimony of this witness was

8 related to the sort and the kind of food provided to her and to the

9 others, members of the Muslim community.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mm-hm, yes.

11 MR. PANTELIC: And this food, according to the testimony of this

12 witness, was not in accordance with the requirements and the standards of

13 these particular religion. She said that during examination-in-chief.

14 And one could conclude, after hearing this line of questioning, that

15 the -- I would say a form of violation of certain religious rights were on

16 the place, according to this line of questioning.

17 So although I am convinced that that wasn't the case in Samac, of

18 course, for the sake of the transcript and the proceedings and the

19 arguments, I have to explore a little bit of this thing and to clarify,

20 nothing more. That was the foundation of my -- this particular line of

21 questioning.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

23 MR. WEINER: I don't believe it's relevant. What we have here and

24 where my questions were is basically what ethnic group she was a member

25 of, and she indicated Bosniak. And I asked her religious group and she

Page 4934

1 said Muslim, but atheist and non-practising.

2 You have certain situations where people, whether they practise

3 religion, they're agnostic, they are atheist, they have no belief in a

4 supreme being or a deity, for cultural reasons they follow the culture of

5 the religion or the ethnic group.

6 It's very common in Judaism where you have, in the State of

7 Israel, a lot of non-practising Jews, but culturally they are Jewish. In

8 Bosnia, you had a lot of non-practising Muslims and they refer to

9 themselves as Bosniaks. Although they were not religious Muslims, they

10 follow the culture, the culture and history, and that's why she apparently

11 didn't eat it, because of historical and cultural, and it was just never

12 used in her family. But to get into her own religious beliefs and why,

13 whether or not she ate pork because of religious beliefs and to delve into

14 her religious beliefs, I don't feel that that's relevant here today.

15 MR. PANTELIC: I one hundred per cent agree with my dear friend,

16 but we are not speaking about religions here, we are speaking about the

17 nutritions, about standards, about conditions, not about religion.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: If your questions are going to deal with nutritional

19 needs of the people, amounts of food given to them, then that is fine.

20 MR. PANTELIC: A sort of food and relation with the -- with her

21 previous testimony and certain -- I would say personal approach to that

22 food. That was my line of questioning.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, go ahead.


25 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree with me, madam, that in wartime,

Page 4935

1 there are certain difficulties in organising normal life for the civilian

2 population; is that true?

3 A. Yes, but without infringing upon ...

4 Q. Please answer with just a "yes," "no," or "I don't know."

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me that in Samac after the war

7 broke out in April 1992, there were enormous difficulties in view of the

8 war all around the town in organising normal supply for the population;

9 yes, no, or I don't know?

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. Would you agree if I say that in this aggravated situation

12 concerning the supply, there is no great selection, no wide assortment of

13 foodstuffs available?

14 A. Could you repeat it because I can't -- I don't think I'll be able

15 to answer this with a yes or no.

16 Q. In Samac in year 1992, after the month of April, supply was not

17 regular, not normal?

18 A. But we are a wealthy area, a rich area, and we had enough food.

19 Q. What kind of food?

20 A. We had all the food in our own homes. We had our fields, cereals,

21 farms, cows, pigs. Samac is an extremely rich area and in those first

22 days, while we, the workers, were fed those thin bean soups or liver

23 paste, [redacted], people slaughtered calves and pigs, and I

24 can even name the person, [redacted].

25 If I had remained in Samac in 1993, 1994, or 1995, it would have

Page 4936

1 been normal for the supply to deteriorate because the stocks were used up

2 by that time. But my dear sir, I was taken away from my home which at

3 that time had enough stocks to keep me fed if I had stayed at home instead

4 of going out to work. I could have made a pita or a pie from the flour I

5 had. I had enough to eat.

6 And I'll say this again, I was born into a family which referred

7 to me from birth as undeclared. I don't know what they called me, whether

8 I was a Bosniak or a Croat. I don't observe, I'm not an observant Muslim,

9 observing Muslim, but I simply am not accustomed to eating many things. I

10 don't eat fish. I don't eat game, fowl. I don't eat many things by

11 choice.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, witness --

13 A. I don't eat pork.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Wait for questions from counsel.


16 Q. [Interpretation] So my question was very simple indeed. The army

17 needed food because it was involved in military operations in Samac; yes,

18 no, or you don't know?

19 A. Of course they needed food. We all did.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

21 MR. WEINER: She does not have the expertise to start talking

22 about the amount of food that the army needs and what they need versus the

23 population, and who made what decisions on what the army was going to be

24 getting versus the population. That's outside the scope of her testimony

25 and her knowledge.

Page 4937

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it was not my purpose to get this kind

3 of answer. My question was very simple. According to the -- to her

4 personal knowledge and according to her experience, because she is

5 well-educated woman, and in light of the fact of common knowledge whether

6 the army, in general terms during the war operation, meets nutrition and

7 this supplement [sic] from the reserves, simply as that, and she said

8 yes. So I don't have any other intention to explore this issue.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I think your question, since you

10 have explained the background, it's all right. You can proceed.


12 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree, madam, that in Zasavica which is

13 also a part of this rich area, in those abandoned houses where you were

14 later accommodated, there was a lot of food?

15 A. No, sir, the food had been taken away already.

16 Q. But you will agree with me that this gentleman, Ivica, whom you

17 had mentioned, had a large farm and there was a lot of food, enough not

18 only for Zasavica and its locals, but also for Samac; is that correct?

19 A. Which farm do you mean?

20 Q. I mean Mr. Ivica, from Zasavica, who had his own property there

21 and the cattle, and he fed his fellow villagers. That's who I'm talking

22 about.

23 A. Mr. Ivica, to whose property we were brought, and he was the one

24 who was supposed to house us in various homes, we didn't get any food from

25 him. We found a small quantity of flour in that house, and we agreed that

Page 4938

1 workers bring us some food from Samac when they come.

2 Q. You will agree with me that Zasavica was rich in fruit and

3 vegetables?

4 A. Yes, and that's what we ate.

5 Q. When the Prosecutor asked you, on the 27th of November, page 4652,

6 line 21 to 25, and a brief portion on page 4653 -- let me read it out to

7 you. He asked you whether you had seen any of the accused in Odzak, and

8 his question was: [In English] "Did you see some of the defendants in

9 Odzak?" And the answer was: "In Odzak, I saw two of the defendants, that

10 is, Mr. Miro Tadic and Mr. Simo Zaric." And then you said: "As for

11 Mr. Milan and Mr. Blagoje -- " then two dashes, " -- actually, Blagoje I

12 saw once in Odzak, and Mr. Milan Simic not once, or actually, twice.

13 Twice I saw the other gentleman in passing, but he was not giving us any

14 orders, no." That is the end of your answer.

15 [Interpretation] And then my learned friend from the Prosecution,

16 although this answer was completely unintelligible, asked you specifically

17 about Blagoje Simic. His question was:

18 [In English] "You said you saw him twice in Odzak. During what

19 month did you see him the first time?" And your answer was: "I think it

20 was the end of August. We were ordered to work. Well, it was a weekend

21 house, whatever. You would go from the MUP and then take a road for about

22 a kilometre to wash the pool there. There was a few of us women and there

23 were also two men, and also there was a plumber there, among others. We

24 cleaned the pool, washed it. There wasn't any water, so we had to bring

25 in water from elsewhere."

Page 4939

1 [Interpretation] Do you remember this answer?

2 A. Yes. But I tend to confuse the two, since both of them are Simic.

3 Q. Let me interrupt you. All I asked you was: Do you remember this

4 answer? And you said yes. That's enough.

5 Will you be so kind as to tell the Court: Who was it who was with

6 you on that occasion, if you can remember the names of the women, or

7 someone else?

8 A. There were always people I knew, and on that occasion it was Nada

9 Manenica and this girl from a mixed marriage, whom I had mentioned before,

10 and this Snjezana Lonac. I also mentioned her. There are many names

11 which sound alike.

12 Q. You gave a statement to the OTP on the 29th of August, 1998,

13 didn't you?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. In that statement you never mentioned Blagoje Simic, not with a

16 single word.

17 A. Let me tell you: Blagoje Simic meant nothing to me, and I didn't

18 observe him addressing any of us, except perhaps that young man who was

19 guarding us.

20 Q. And why not?

21 A. Well, he never listened to me. He never let me -- no one ever

22 listened to me. No one ever let me finish, say everything. This is the

23 first time that I'm being allowed to say all I want [as interpreted].

24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, could you just bear with me? There

25 is some intervention in the transcript.

Page 4940


2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. It's not really very clear, so let us clarify one point. You said

4 that Blagoje Simic meant nothing to you, and then you continued to

5 describe some events. And then you said, "He never listened to me till

6 the end." Who was it who didn't listen to you, Blagoje?

7 A. No. No. I will repeat. It's not that he meant nothing to me,

8 the esteemed gentleman Blagoje Simic. He was a doctor and he meant a lot

9 to me. But as far as I'm concerned, or anyone in my presence, I never saw

10 him address anyone with a word or an order. He never addressed us. He

11 just said to this young man, "Hurry up. The work is finished. Let's

12 go." And I am prone to say sometimes "Simo Blagojevic" instead of Blagoje

13 Simic." I never think of the relationship, the blood relationship between

14 them, although that they are relatives, the two of them.

15 Q. When the Prosecutor asked you, on page 4654, lines 13, 14, and

16 your answer is in lines 15 to 21, but let me turn to your first sentence:

17 [In English] "Now, you claim that you indicated that you saw

18 Blagoje Simic twice in Odzak. When did you see him again?" And your

19 answer was: "I saw him again, I think, a day or two later."

20 [Interpretation] Do you remember saying this?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. However, in the notes that we got from the OTP, you said that you

23 saw him ten days after the first meeting. And these notes are fresh,

24 recent. They were made here in The Hague.

25 A. I never put a number on it. I always say "several days later."

Page 4941

1 Whether it was two, three, four, or ten, I don't know. It must have been

2 mis-recorded or mistranslated.

3 Q. Will you please be so kind --

4 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues] ... usher, please.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Will you please be so kind to mark and draw a

6 location where you worked at the time, where the pool was located, also

7 neighbouring houses, if you remember them. So just make us a drawing.

8 A. Well, I'm really not used and I'm not good at drawing things.

9 Q. Well, you don't have to put in any details.

10 A. Well, I'm not really used to making any sketches, and that is not

11 the place where I normally resided, and I would not like to go into this.

12 I told you that I went into that area twice. On one occasion I washed the

13 pool, cleaned the pool, and on the second occasion I was cleaning,

14 gathering things in a house. I don't know Odzak very well. I never went

15 there, even before the war, and I know Odzak very little. I can tell you

16 where SUP is located, municipal building, and the health centre, because

17 this is where I mostly went to work. But if you were to take me to Odzak

18 now, and if it looks different than before, then I probably wouldn't be

19 able to point you to any important places there.

20 Q. Madam, this is a very serious criminal case.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. The witness has explained. She

22 cannot draw a sketch.

23 MR. PANTELIC: So you will not instruct the witness to make a

24 short sketch?


Page 4942

1 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: It's not necessary. She can answer questions. She

3 cannot draw a sketch.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Will you please be so kind and tell us what time

6 of the day it was when you saw Mr. Blagoje Simic for the first time around

7 that house.

8 A. On both occasions, it was in the morning hours.

9 Q. Could you tell us whether Blagoje Simic had a moustache on that

10 occasion?

11 A. I really didn't give him a good look. I -- you know, he gained

12 some weight now, and as to whether he had a moustache at that time, I

13 don't know. I don't know even if he had a moustache before the war.

14 Q. Did he have a beard on that occasion?

15 A. No, I don't think he did. But I can't tell you, because I don't

16 really give men a good look. Why would I do it? I was never --

17 Q. Well, madam, I simply asked you whether he had a beard. Let's not

18 go into details.

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. Do you know somebody called Novica Simic; yes or no?

21 A. No. I don't know any of the generals to this day. I simply heard

22 that they would come.

23 Q. From the moment you saw Mr. Blagoje Simic for the first time, and

24 until you left, can you please tell us how much time passed in the

25 meantime?

Page 4943

1 A. Very little time. I don't know whether we walked some hundred or

2 two hundred metres from the spot.

3 Q. But the other people that were with you that you named, did they

4 comment the presence of Blagoje Simic with you at the time?

5 A. Did they comment his presence? Well, all of us saw him there.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: We didn't get the translation.

7 A. One does not make comments on such an occasion. One does not make

8 comments when the guards are present. One only whispers.


10 Q. [Interpretation] Well, that's what I had in mind. You were

11 whispering to your friends.

12 A. I wasn't whispering. They whispered to me.

13 Q. And when you saw Blagoje Simic for the second time, which was a

14 few days later, you were in one of the neighbouring houses, weren't you?

15 A. Yes, I saw him in passing as we walked to that house. It wasn't

16 far away. We went there to collect something. A truck came in, and I

17 think that Pero drove the truck, and he came there to have us collect some

18 gutters and load it on to the truck, and we only saw him in passing.

19 Q. So you were in a house where you were gathering these gutters; yes

20 or no?

21 A. In that house, you mean? Well, we were in the yard gathering

22 metal sheet. Metal sheets were not in the house, they were outside in

23 those sheds or those outside buildings. I never entered the house. We

24 would normally just stay in the yard of the house. Every time we were

25 ordered to enter a house, I would always try to avoid that and to do side

Page 4944

1 jobs in order not to have to touch other people's things.

2 Q. Can you tell us how far is the yard where you collected those

3 objects from the spot where you saw Mr. Blagoje Simic passing by?

4 A. Well, I can't tell you exactly, perhaps some 100 metres, maybe 50

5 or 100. I really can't tell you exactly, but it was a short distance.

6 Q. So on that occasion, you saw him only as he was passing by. He

7 wasn't standing on any spot, he wasn't doing anything, he simply passed

8 by; yes or no?

9 A. No. I was the one to pass by and he was standing in front of that

10 facility. He was at the pool, sir. And on that occasion, they said that

11 he came to exercise and they said that he had been wounded. I didn't have

12 a chance to see whether he was wounded or not. I simply heard that he had

13 been wounded.

14 Q. Well, yes, he was wounded indeed.

15 A. Well, I'm telling you that I didn't see it. Perhaps it was a

16 visible wound, but when one is full of fear, then one tries not to look at

17 other people's wounds.

18 Q. Was the pool in front of the house or behind the house?

19 A. In front of the house.

20 Q. Can you tell us what the fence was like?

21 A. I really didn't look. At that moment, I couldn't recognise my own

22 fence. I was never interested in other people's fences.

23 Q. But today you said, on page 17, that you had an excellent memory

24 so I'm surprised by this.

25 A. No, no. If I'm interested in something, then I normally remember

Page 4945

1 that, but I don't consider a fence to be something of great importance.

2 Q. Did that house, was it a several storey building?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Can you tell us what colour the facade was?

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. Were there any plants or trees in front of the house?

7 A. I did not pay attention to that either. I don't even know whether

8 there were flowers there, let alone trees.

9 Q. Was there a garage in front of the house?

10 A. I didn't see that either.

11 Q. When you went to the territory of the BH Federation in November of

12 1992, did you remain in the territory of Domaljevac?

13 A. I never said so. Until my daughter sent visa for me, I wasn't

14 able to leave. My passport had expired so I had to wait for that to be

15 renewed, and after that, I went to [redacted].

16 Q. So when you were in Domaljevac on the territory of the BH

17 Federation in November of 1992, you remained there for ten days, didn't

18 you?

19 A. No, I remained in Orasje with my husband's family.

20 Q. Orasje is also located on the Muslim/Croat Federation territory,

21 isn't it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Orasje is some 10 kilometres to the east of Domaljevac, isn't it?

24 A. I don't know how many kilometres. What I was interested in is

25 that it's probably halfway between Brkco and Samac. That's what I was

Page 4946

1 interested in.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the point of these questions? Is that that

3 she was outside the territory controlled by Republika Srpska or that she

4 was in Croatia or what?

5 MR. PANTELIC: There is twofold of this question. First of all,

6 that this region belongs to the territory of the Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is

7 not Croatia, which we have in the other cases, and just to have an

8 impression about the location of this town because my next question will

9 practically explain it.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: So just simply put it to her in which territory was

11 that place where she had mentioned that she was staying instead of going

12 on these details. We are wasting a lot of time.


14 Q. [Interpretation] Did you give a statement in Orasje concerning the

15 experiences you had in Samac? Did you give a statement to any officials?

16 A. No, because nobody ever asked me, and they considered me in Orasje

17 a Serbian spy because of [redacted]. I wasn't

18 welcome there so I left shortly thereafter. I went to stay with my

19 daughter as soon as I took care of my passport and got the permission to

20 enter Croatia again.

21 Q. Please answer me with "yes," "no," or "I don't know," have you

22 given a statement to any officials in [redacted] concerning the events in

23 Bosnia?

24 A. No.

25 Q. When you stayed in Sarajevo with your husband, did you give a

Page 4947












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4948

1 statement to any official there?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Did you give your first statement to the OTP in 1998?

4 A. Yes, I believe that's correct. I think it was 1998, that is

5 possible.

6 Q. Did you give any other statements to the OTP after that?

7 A. No, until this time.

8 Q. And what do you mean "this time"?

9 A. Well, now, my testimony here now. Now that I'm here.

10 Q. Well, we are in the courtroom now. Did you talk to the Prosecutor

11 prior to coming to testify?

12 A. Well, now, this time when I came here, I gave a statement.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: You are aware, Mr. Pantelic, that there is the

14 process of reproofing the witnesses by the Prosecution.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but I just want to know what the way of

16 proofing witnesses was.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. You can ask your colleague, your

18 colleague in the Prosecution.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, I prefer to hear some details

20 from the witness because sometimes, hypothetically speaking maybe, it

21 wasn't in accordance with our practice. So that's simply a way of my

22 questioning.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, if you have anything that you think was

24 improper that was done, just put that to the witness. Instead of going

25 round and round and round, just put it to her.

Page 4949

1 MR. PANTELIC: My question was very, very, precise.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I would just like to say that in

3 the previous cross-examination by your colleague, Mr. Zecevic, we did have

4 -- I think you will recall, Mr. Zecevic, you were using the word

5 "statement" when you were really referring to what was in the transcript,

6 and I just remind you of that because there was that confusion this

7 morning, and maybe that's what we're getting back to with the witness now,

8 a confusion as to what's in the transcript and what is a statement.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] So you heard this is quite a simple matter. Did

11 you give a statement to the OTP here in The Hague together with your

12 husband?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Did you talk to the Prosecutor on your own while you were in The

15 Hague?

16 A. Yes, on my own.

17 Q. Can you please tell the Court whether your husband had ever been

18 sentenced in a criminal case in Bosnia and Herzegovina prior to 1992?

19 A. He had a traffic accident [redacted].

20 Q. Well, we're not interested in details.

21 A. That was the only case.

22 Q. Was your husband sentenced [redacted]

23 [redacted]?

24 A. No.

25 MR. PANTELIC: 89 was just -- just an intervention in the

Page 4950

1 transcript. I will repeat the question.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Was your husband --

3 MR. WEINER: I'd object, Your Honour. This is not a matter for

4 this person. This is a matter for the previous witness, assuming any of

5 it's even true.

6 MR. PANTELIC: May I have a word?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. The husband of this witness had

8 come.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Madam President, on the base of the approach of our

10 friend, so-called corroborative evidence, that was my idea. I just came

11 to the possession of this fact virtually after the testimony of her

12 husband. So practically and theoretically I wasn't in the situation to

13 pose this particular question to her husband. And we also well know -- we

14 already know your ruling about the approach of the OTP with regard to the

15 so-called corroborative witnesses and evidences in this particular case.

16 It was just prior to the testimony of this witness.

17 So I am perfectly -- I think maybe I am wrong that I am entitled

18 to obtain certain answer which I may use as a corroborative evidence in my

19 case. So that was the -- of course, I would be very happy if I would be

20 in situation to get this information during the testimony of her husband,

21 but unfortunately it wasn't that.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the testimony supposed to corroborate? To

23 corroborate what, any previous convictions, if any --

24 MR. PANTELIC: Credibility of witness.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: -- of the husband of this witness is intended to

Page 4951

1 corroborate what?

2 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. Credibility of this particular

3 witness, because I am speaking about the very specific crime. I'm not

4 speaking about traffic accident. I'm speaking about the forgery. So to

5 some extent, it might be of some importance in our evaluation of his

6 credibility, nothing more, nothing less.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Of which one's credibility, this witness in the box

8 now or the husband of the witness?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Of the husband of the witness, yes.

10 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, I'm trying to understand your

11 cross-examination. You see, this witness has hardly said anything about

12 your client, Mr. Blagoje. All that she said, she saw him once and once

13 again, and he did appear to be going for a swim. There's nothing wrong

14 with going for a swim.

15 Now, she has said nothing more about your client so I do not

16 understand this line of further cross-examination. I mean, are you asking

17 these questions on behalf of the other counsel? I mean, if you are, then

18 you should have armed them with that information. So I don't understand

19 what is the purpose of this line of questioning, because she has, as I

20 said, said very little about your client.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I would be very happy to give you the

22 answer.

23 JUDGE SINGH: I mean, I'm trying to understand this, because

24 you're going beyond the scope of the examination-in-chief.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. You are a hundred per

Page 4952

1 cent right. Nothing is -- I mean, this is not an element of the crime, to

2 be in the swimming pool and have a bathing, whatever the reason was. But,

3 Your Honour, you can understand my position. My client strictly

4 instructed me -- I was speaking with him, and he said, "I never was in

5 Odzak," Your Honour. "I never was in Odzak."

6 JUDGE SINGH: I know, but --

7 MR. PANTELIC: And that was the reason why I have to establish

8 everything, from --

9 JUDGE SINGH: But we have still --

10 MR. PANTELIC: From the one innocent issue, actually.

11 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, but we have still to hear that from

12 you. Put it to her. I mean, you know, 93 bis, it says you're supposed to

13 put your client's story to the witness to test her. So you have not put

14 that at all to her. That should be put first, unless you don't wish to

15 put that --

16 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, Your Honour, if I may say, here within

17 the jurisdiction of this Tribunal -- it's rather and slightly different in

18 some other cases. Because, for example, we have hearsay here, which is

19 well-based evidence.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. Can you just answer that

21 question --

22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I can.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: -- which Judge Singh has put to you.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I can.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: You didn't put that to this witness. That's your --

Page 4953

1 JUDGE SINGH: You have a particular rule. It's no different

2 from -- you have a particular rule there.

3 MR. PANTELIC: My approach, Your Honour is --

4 JUDGE SINGH: No. I just want to know now --

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.

6 JUDGE SINGH: -- do you wish to put this question to her? And

7 then we'll end this debate.

8 MR. PANTELIC: I'm perfectly happy to do that.

9 JUDGE SINGH: Then please do it.

10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. So madam, my client claims that he was never in Odzak under the

12 circumstances you described, so do you still wish to abide by what you

13 stated here?

14 A. Yes, I will abide by what I had said. Mr. Blagoje Simic, a

15 physician from Samac, was at the pool. He came, but he didn't swim on the

16 first day. And very shortly thereafter he ordered the gentleman who

17 guarded us, who was from Odzak, to go, and then this gentleman told us

18 that we were done with our work on that day. As we were leaving, and very

19 soon after that, a car came, and I wasn't interested in the car, but Nada

20 Manenica shouted and -- I mean, she took a look, and she probably knew

21 Odzak, frequented it, and she said, "Look at Tomic [phoen], Zejic

22 [phoen]," or some others. I didn't even see them. And the second time I

23 came to Odzak, I said that I had seen this gentleman by the pool, and now

24 you are prompting me to say that there were women with the gentlemen as

25 well. Whether they were workers or something else, I didn't recognise

Page 4954

1 them. And that wasn't just that once when I witnessed it. Other people

2 saw that, too.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Now the witness has repeated her evidence.

4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Could you please repeat your last sentence, because it wasn't

6 recorded. You said, "You will have a witness testifying to this as well."

7 A. Well, I don't know. Maybe you will call some witnesses and the

8 truth will eventually come out. However ...

9 Q. You said that there were some other people that could testify to

10 this.

11 A. I said that Nada Manenica was there. I also said that there was

12 that young girl there, Snjezana Lonac. You can ask them as well.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: This is enough, Mr. Pantelic?

14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: You've finished? How many more minutes? Because

16 you've had a lot of time.

17 MR. PANTELIC: I've finished. As I said, I was -- to finish my

18 cross-examination. That was my last question.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.

20 I wanted to find out how much time the Prosecution requires in

21 re-examination.

22 MR. WEINER: Less than five minutes. I could finish it in now --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.

25 MR. WEINER: I'm sorry. Less than five minutes. If you gave me

Page 4955

1 the option right now, I could finish it in just --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, maybe for the sake of the witness, because

3 she's been here too long. I ask the interpreters to bear with us.

4 MR. WEINER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

5 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:

6 Q. Madam, I would just like to clarify two matters, okay? There was

7 an issue raised concerning the private detective, and I just want to set

8 up a time line on a group of dates. [redacted],

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 A. [redacted].

12 Q. [redacted]

13 [redacted]?

14 A. [redacted].

15 Q. [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 A. I was informed in the morning, in the early morning hours of the

19 9th.

20 Q. Fine. Thank you. And later that day on the 9th, you met with

21 Simo Zaric to tell him of the information you received [redacted]

22 [redacted],

23 [redacted] is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. So if that meeting occurred on March 9th, when did you

Page 4956

1 learn, as best as you can recall, who the two perpetrators were [redacted]

2 [redacted]?

3 A. I learned in several instances. He found this out, and -- or he

4 was in the process of finding this out, and then he was telling me, "Well,

5 be patient." [redacted]--

6 Q. Yes. Approximately what month? What month or what week or date,

7 as best as you can recall, [redacted]?

8 A. Late February. I don't think it was March. It was late February.

9 Q. Okay. Thank you. Just a couple more questions, ma'am, on another

10 issue. The document that you saw today, that lease document that was

11 placed in front of you concerning the lease [redacted]

12 [redacted], had you ever seen that document

13 previous to today?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I see counsel on his feet.

15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document, this

16 contract, [redacted]

17 [redacted]. That's the only thing I wanted to

18 clarify.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: And according to you, it was concluded between who?

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It was concluded between other

21 parties. [redacted].

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the ID number, please.

23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Actually, before you do that, I think, to be

24 exact, from what we were told, the actual contract is between the public

25 enterprise Republika Srpska, as the lessor, [redacted]

Page 4957

1 [redacted].

2 MR. WEINER: Fine.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, Your Honours.


5 Q. [redacted]

6 [redacted], had you ever seen that document prior to

7 today?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number of the document, please --

9 MR. WEINER: I'm very sorry.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: -- for the record.

11 MR. WEINER: Document D25/2 ter ID.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

13 A. I have never seen it, and I would like to see other contracts as

14 well, [redacted].

15 MR. WEINER: Thank you very much. No further questions

16 Questioned by the Court:

17 JUDGE SINGH: Witness, do forgive me if I don't address you by

18 name, but I have just two short questions to ask you. You said during

19 your evidence that during the exchange, a person in charge told you that

20 the exchange would be due in a few days, and a little later you said you

21 kept on going from place to place for the exchange, "they" were telling

22 you. Now, "the person in charge" and "they," would you know who these

23 persons were? If you know their names, can you tell us, or their

24 designation at least?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was when we were in the buses,

Page 4958

1 standing there; is that what you mean? I didn't say that I went to

2 inquire when the exchange was going to be. Could you please clarify your

3 question? Where was this taking place, in fact?

4 JUDGE SINGH: Before you entered the buses, a couple of - I don't

5 know - months or days or weeks before. Were you told? How long before

6 the exchange did you know you were going to be exchanged?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, sir. We are not talking months

8 here. I applied, well, on the 1st, or perhaps 31st of October, in

9 Zasavica. I applied in Zasavica to be exchanged, because I had been

10 seriously abused, and the exchange took place on the 7th. I said that I

11 had not been informed that I would be exchanged by the person in charge of

12 informing people. I was not informed to get ready and go and be exchanged

13 on that date, despite the fact that I was in Zasavica on that day. This

14 man, Svetozar Zasovic - Zasovic is his last name, Sveto is his first

15 name - despite the fact that we are door-to-door neighbours in Samac, he

16 passed the house in which I was staying and went on to my friend and

17 colleague to tell her that I was going to be exchanged.

18 JUDGE SINGH: And one other little question: In 1992, what was a

19 dinar worth in terms of Deutschmarks? Would you know?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The prices were so unstable that

21 even if you had money, even if you had Deutschmarks, you would not

22 exchange them for dinars, so I can't tell you what the exchange rate was.

23 I really don't know.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Witness.

25 Mr. Lukic, you want to ask questions from the witness?

Page 4959

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. If I can supplement something

2 that Judge Singh said. I would like to clarify something with the

3 witness.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. From the answers from the Bench. Yes.

5 Further re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

6 Q. Just one question. This individual, Svetozar Vasovic, do you know

7 that he was employed at the local Red Cross in Samac?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And everybody who wanted to apply for the exchange had to do so at

10 the local Red Cross?

11 A. Yes. The representatives from the Red Cross came to Zasavica, and

12 I can provide details if you wish. Milorad, who used to work in

13 municipality -- I don't know his last name, but Milorad was there, and

14 Professor Zarko. And on that day, because I had a lot of work, I had

15 difficult days, I think that Mr. Velja [phoen] was there on that day when

16 I applied, and as I was coming back from applying there, I encountered

17 another problem, and then I finally left. Mr. Miroslav Tadic, while I

18 stayed in Zasavica, never came to Zasavica.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Thank you very much, Witness, for giving

20 evidence to the Trial Chamber. You are now free. You are released.

21 The usher can lead the witness out of the courtroom.

22 Before we rise, I want to inform the parties that the Judges are

23 visiting the cells within this building where the accused persons are

24 kept, and the Judges have invited one attorney from the Prosecution team

25 and one attorney for each defendant - just to make the group smaller,

Page 4960

1 because it would be too much if we are too many - and the legal officer.

2 The visit is a silent one. It is not part of the proceedings. We are

3 just going to view the cells, that is all. And the Trial Chamber is aware

4 that Mr. Simic may not be in the cells, because he had asked to be excused

5 earlier.

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All those who are going to accompany the Judges for

8 this visit must assemble inside this courtroom at 10 minutes to 3.00, 10

9 minutes before 1500 hours, inside this courtroom.

10 We shall rise. The proceedings will continue at 1530 hours.

11 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.10 p.m.















Page 4961

1 --- On resuming at 3.30 p.m.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, before we call the next witness, there are a

3 few matters we just wanted to clear because the Trial Chamber is aware

4 that even if we start with the witness now, we may not complete the

5 evidence, that is, including cross-examination. You will spill over into

6 the following week anyway.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: There's no doubt about that.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So we wanted to find out from the Defence what is

9 their stand on the documents from the Prosecution Variant A and B? The

10 Trial Chamber would like to find out what their stand is if they are

11 making any submissions at all.

12 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, we have inquired from the legal officer

13 exactly what it is you want from us, if you just want our position on

14 whether or not we are going to agree or stipulate that this witness

15 statement authenticates the document. That's very simple, we can give you

16 our position very simply on that. If you want us to go into a huge

17 drawn-out argument of all the reasons why we think it will be improper

18 further than that, we'll do that.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: It's your submission on it. You received the

20 documents from the Prosecution, so what are is your submissions on it?

21 Because the objection was recorded for all the Defence counsel.

22 MS. BAEN: Yes.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: So do you have any submissions to make having

24 received the documents that the Prosecution served?

25 MS. BAEN: Our position is very simply we maintain the objection

Page 4962

1 to the admissibility and the authenticity. We have inspected, all the

2 Defence counsel have inspected the one version or the one document which

3 has the 100 in the top corner. We have all inspected that, and our

4 position is that the Prosecution must bring a witness to authenticate this

5 document as -- I know there's been some confusion over these documents

6 because there were several different versions floating around, and it is

7 our understanding based on my lengthy conversation with Ms. Reidy that the

8 one document we're dealing with right now is the one that has the 100 in

9 it, okay?

10 So our position is that they haven't authenticated it. It's not

11 admissible at this point, so the Prosecution needs to bring the witness,

12 who will be subject to cross-examination for purposes of authenticity.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. They gave you the statement of the

14 witnesses, didn't they?

15 MS. BAEN: Yes, Bernard O'Donnell. Yes, ma'am. Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: So your position is that you would like to

17 cross-examine that witness.

18 MS. BAEN: Our position is that any document of this sort, they

19 have to bring a witness to sponsor it or show the source of it when

20 there's a question as to authenticity or reliability of the document. So

21 with respect to the one that's in this statement from Bernard O'Donnell,

22 he needs to come testify about the source, which is what Judge Singh had

23 mentioned. If they want to get these documents in, then have the witness

24 who actually got the document tell us where they got the document because

25 this statement doesn't even say where he got it.

Page 4963

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So your position is that the statement you were

2 given is not satisfactory.

3 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour. That's our simple objection, yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: So you would like this maker of the statement to be

5 brought in for cross-examination.

6 MS. BAEN: Certainly cross-examination but also -- well, yes. Our

7 position is they need to present this witness to say exactly where it

8 comes from but cross-examination, yes, that's fine.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Anything else? Is it your intention that after

10 cross-examination, which ever way the cross-examination goes, do you have

11 witnesses you intend to present just on this particular document?

12 MS. BAEN: We have no idea because we don't have the full

13 information from this witness. We have a summary here. We don't even

14 know in the full chain of custody, we don't even know who the witnesses

15 are. In his statement, Mr. O'Donnell says that he can talk to the Chamber

16 or tell the Chamber about the witnesses in the chain of custody but at

17 this point, we don't even know who they are.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm aware of that.

19 MS. BAEN: So my answer to your question, very simply, is we don't

20 know, Your Honour, if we are going to have witnesses or not because we

21 haven't heard the full testimony of this witness who supposedly is going

22 to authenticate this document.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Usually -- it depends on your instructions.

24 Usually you would have a position. Maybe you would have had information

25 or instructions from your clients about the document. If it's a question

Page 4964

1 of you not having anything and no instructions from your clients, no

2 evidence from anybody else about the document, all you want is to see that

3 the Prosecution produces these witnesses and then you cross-examine them.

4 MS. BAEN: That's our plan at this point. Our clients have said

5 they've never seen this document, they don't know where it's come from.

6 We have no information that it even came from Bosanski Samac. So right

7 now we don't have any witnesses at this point, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. And that's the position for all the

9 accused persons?

10 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour, it is.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: We can hear the Prosecution.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you. If Your Honours please. Ms. Baen

15 is quite correct in identifying the document ID3, I believe it is, as the

16 document in question, and the history that she's briefly given of her

17 negotiations with Ms. Reidy is essentially correct, as far as I'm aware.

18 The position of the Prosecution is: Given that there is now an

19 objection to the admissibility of that particular document, the

20 Prosecution will wish to call evidence on the issue of the admissibility

21 of the document. I envisage that that evidence would consist of two

22 principal sources. Other documents which refer to the impugned document,

23 the challenged document, other documents which refer to it, that

24 particular -- I'm not suggesting that particular document itself that is

25 currently before the Court, but the Variant -- the document known

Page 4965

1 generally as the Variant A and B documents. There are other documents

2 that authenticate it, that speak of it, that lend authenticity to it. The

3 second source of evidence would be oral evidence from Mr. O'Donnell, and

4 he can give evidence of the chain of custody, his seizure of the document

5 in Bosnia back in the late 1990s. And that's the basic position of the

6 Prosecution.

7 Furthermore, the Prosecution would want to lead evidence from

8 Mr. O'Donnell. We do not wish to be hamstrung, so to speak, by his

9 evidence being essentially extracted by the Defence so that they only

10 have the evidence that they're interested in. We have many features about

11 the evidence surrounding the seizure of the document and so on, and other

12 issues that Mr. O'Donnell can testify about and that would be relevant and

13 that would assist the Trial Chamber. So we would like to lead him, as

14 well as, of course, naturally, present him for cross-examination.


16 MR. DI FAZIO: So they're the two major sources of evidence:

17 documentation that refers to the impugned document, plus oral evidence.


19 MR. DI FAZIO: We have given a summary to the Defence. If there

20 are any queries that the Defence have regarding information that is

21 contained in that summary, then I call upon them to contact me or

22 Ms. Reidy and let us know what aspects they would like further

23 clarification about or further amplification, and I would ask that perhaps

24 they do so by the end of this year's sittings.


Page 4966

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I have made inquiries with Mr. O'Donnell. He will

2 be here in The Hague until the end of this year's sittings, as far as the

3 Court is concerned, and he will also be here in The Hague upon the

4 resumption of court sittings in January. So there will be no problem with

5 his availability.

6 That's the position of the Prosecution. Is there any other matter

7 that I can assist you with?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So as far as you're concerned, you have one

9 person to give oral evidence?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Then the other sources are documentary, as you have

12 said.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. There is a specific reason for that. If you

14 look at the transcript and go through the transcript, you will see that

15 the Defence have requested the issue of authenticity to concentrate on one

16 particular document, and the particular document is the Variant A and B

17 document with the number 100 written on it. I can take you to the points

18 in the transcript, if you wish, but I can assure the Chamber that I've

19 been through the evidence, and they've said that we should focus upon

20 that. For that reason, for that reason, the Prosecution has concentrated

21 on obtaining evidence of the authenticity of that particular document,

22 100. Now, it may be that Mr. ^ O'Donnell can speak of other documents

23 that are identical to that particular document but that have a different

24 number at the top.


Page 4967

1 MR. DI FAZIO: But I do point out that it's the admissibility of

2 that particular version with the number 100 that is the central issue, so

3 to speak, for this Chamber. But there could be other evidence obtained

4 from other witnesses dealing with other documents that might have been

5 seized on other occasions, but certainly the evidence of Mr. ^ O'Donnell

6 fulsomely and completely covers this Variant A and B document and might

7 also touch upon other examples seized in other cases. But he will also be

8 in a position to be able to inform the Chamber as to the comparison of

9 those other documents compared to this particular document here.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because that is the document you, the

11 Prosecution, are relying on.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right. So we'll to do some planning,

14 because you said this witness is maybe available up to the end of this

15 sitting.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. He's here until the end of this year's

17 sittings, as I understand.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Which is next week, Friday.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. He's here until then, and he's here

20 from -- I think it's the 14th.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: The beginning of --

22 MR. DI FAZIO: The 14, I think.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because we start on the 14th of January.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. So he's available then. If I may be

25 permitted to express a preference, my preference would be to deal with

Page 4968












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4969

1 this issue in January. I've spoken to the Defence, and I don't think that

2 they have any particular difficulty with that. I can't see any particular

3 forensic difficulty that will arise if we don't make a decision on its

4 admissibility until January. So for that reason, it would enable --

5 sorry. For this reason, rather, it would enable us to finish as much

6 evidence as we can this year and also make sure that we finish this next

7 witness, because of course we only have half days next week.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That was the concern of the Trial Chamber.

9 That's why we wanted to find out the position of the Defence, so that we

10 can programme our work much better, without interfering with witnesses who

11 may already be in The Hague, in their trial, for the trial.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: The long and short of it, therefore, is if the

13 Chamber wants us to call Mr. ^ O'Donnell and deal with the issue this

14 year, we can. However, the express preference of the Prosecution would

15 be, I suggest, more orderly and give us more time to marshal our arguments

16 and give the Defence more time to marshal their arguments if it were dealt

17 with at the beginning of next year.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen.

21 MS. BAEN: One more thing, Your Honour. I think it will save a

22 lot of time when we get involved in this hearing on the authentication of

23 this document if we all get on the same page. And I know I've been

24 confused about this document because there have been different versions

25 floating around, but I think we all have agreed now that we're talking

Page 4970

1 about one document, which is the one that has the "100" at the top.


3 MS. BAEN: Okay. Initially, what the Prosecution was doing with

4 Dr. Donia was there was a copy in front of him with a "96" on it that was

5 in front of the witness, and then the Trial Chamber had the one that had

6 the "100" on it. Okay. Someone said, "Well, they're the same document,"

7 and they're not the same document. If they were the same document, they

8 would have the same number. So therefore, when they're providing

9 documentary evidence to authenticate, during this hearing, this additional

10 information, it should be referring to the document that was taken from

11 Sarajevo, or whichever document Mr. O'Donnell took, because a document

12 that Dr. Donia finds in an archive somewhere which is a copy of a magazine

13 article that has some handwriting on it, although the contents may look

14 exactly the same as the contents of the document that had the "100" on it,

15 they are two different documents.

16 So I mean you could have two documents, two completely different

17 documents that have the same content, but they are not the same document.

18 So that's what's been confusing, I think, for all of us is they may have

19 been three different versions, but they're not three different versions;

20 they are three separate and distinct documents.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the main point with the Defence is

22 authenticity, who drew up that document.

23 MS. BAEN: Exactly.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Whose document is it.

25 MS. BAEN: Exactly. Exactly. Thank you.

Page 4971

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So it has to be the copy with 100 on it. They can

2 photocopy that and all that, so we stick to this one document with 100 on

3 it.

4 The Prosecution.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, firstly, in -- I respectfully suggest

6 this sort of argument should be confined to the occasion when we do

7 eventually come to deal with it finally.


9 MR. DI FAZIO: Let me briefly say, however, though this: The

10 Prosecution position is that all of the Variant A and B documents in the

11 possession of the OTP are essentially one and the same document. They

12 differ in the number that is placed at the top.


14 MR. DI FAZIO: That is the --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The position of the Prosecution.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: The position of the Prosecution.

17 If Mr. O'Donnell can give evidence that he saw or seized other

18 documents, other Variant A and B documents with different numbers at the

19 top, and if he can say that the contents of those particular documents

20 that he seized were -- was identical to that of Variant A and B with the

21 number 100 on it, that is powerful evidence, I suggest, as to the

22 authenticity of the document, as to a real document, and the Prosecution

23 will therefore not want to be confined to simply providing evidence of the

24 seizure of this document.

25 If Mr. O'Donnell found 50 other Variant A and B documents with 50

Page 4972

1 different numbers but otherwise identical in all other respects, that's

2 evidence that the Trial Chamber should hear, in the Prosecution's

3 submission. So from that point of view, I can advise the Chamber and the

4 Defence that that sort of evidence will be, in the Prosecution's

5 submission, relevant. Nonetheless, I submit that this is a matter that we

6 should address at the time that we come to fully discuss the admissibility

7 issue with the evidence.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: We are just trying to plan, and I do hope that both

9 parties will bear in mind the evidence of Dr. Donia when he discussed

10 where he got the document from and who were publishing the magazine from

11 which he obtained a copy. That is very important.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: There is, of course, the other exhibits that I

13 believe are before the Court, P3A and P3B, which I believe are newspaper

14 articles with a document in it which were provided to the Chamber at the

15 Chamber's request. They were the newspaper -- I think His Honour Judge

16 Singh called for that and it was eventually provided. My colleague,

17 Ms. Reidy, made inquiries, was able to produce it in court. But I don't

18 think that that touches upon the central issue of the admissibility of

19 ID3, the Variant A and B document with the number 100 written at the top.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

21 I want to ask the Prosecution how many witnesses are in The Hague

22 for these proceedings or on the way to The Hague for next week.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: At the moment, I believe that the next witness is

24 waiting outside to give evidence. I believe that another witness is --

25 another witness is coming on Monday and will be proofed and we would have

Page 4973

1 that extra witness to deal with at the end of next week.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Should we finish this next witness --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: So the process of bringing other witnesses ready for

5 Monday and onwards up to the 7th is already on course.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Then for planning purposes, the Trial

8 Chamber will decide as to when in January we will deal with this

9 particular problem with this document when you can call the other witness.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: May I respectfully suggest that we do it at the

11 beginning of the proceedings.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: In January.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: In January, unless we are partway through a

14 witness, in which case, finish that witness, I submit, and then go

15 straight into the issue of this document.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: You would rather have your witness come at the very

17 beginning of the proceedings in January.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: If he's part heard, and then immediately go into

19 this admissibility issue and that will give us the --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Planning time.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: -- two weeks in January in which to get ready for

22 this argument.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

24 The Defence, January would suit you for this particular witness

25 from the Prosecution, the beginning of the proceedings in January which is

Page 4974

1 about, I think, the 14th of January.

2 MS. BAEN: Is that fine with everybody?

3 Just one moment, Your Honours.

4 [Defence counsel confer]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen.

6 MS. BAEN: January is fine. There is another thing we want to

7 take up later about witness order, but we can talk to them privately.

8 That's fine.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Because I want to say it will mean that the

10 Prosecution will have to reorganise the line of witnesses so they may have

11 to give notice as we go.

12 MS. BAEN: That's fine. Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SINGH: If I might just raise a small point, Mr. di Fazio.

14 If you are going to, let's say, produce six of those documents, the

15 Variant A and B documents, and they have, say, numbers 106, 199, 96, 94,

16 whatever, I think please do indicate to the Defence how many of these you

17 are producing, and I suppose the Defence on their part will have to study

18 these documents and see that they are identical documents, save the

19 numbers, so we don't come back and debate on the content of the

20 documents. I think that will then make the problem a little easier. All

21 right? And then please make a comprehensive list so that there are no

22 more other documents referred to in the arguments then.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, I entirely agree, Your Honour, and

24 I'll endeavour to make absolutely sure that every single document is made

25 available to the Prosecution and that they have every chance to inspect

Page 4975

1 it.

2 JUDGE SINGH: I suppose the problem - I don't know if I might just

3 might give an illustration - may not be dissimilar to, say, a lithograph,

4 a work of art that some artist produces and he decides to lithograph 400

5 pieces for collectors, but every piece is numbered because every

6 lithograph piece has a value. So the artwork is probably the same if you

7 inspect all the 400 copies but if you are going to prove, say, this is a

8 work of art of so and so, the original has been destroyed, then you are

9 going ahead to say that all the copies are the same but, of course, the

10 Defence on the other hand is going to say look, this is -- well, suspect

11 it's not the original. So I think that's one analogy.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Of course the other issue, if Your Honours please,

13 is the laws of admissibility that apply in this particular Tribunal.


15 MR. DI FAZIO: The experience is that, you know, they might be

16 quite different from domestic jurisdictions and this particular document,

17 its admissibility might have all sorts of other problems in other

18 jurisdictions, but that's an issue that I think both the Prosecution and

19 the Defence must keep -- bear in mind, and we must look at the law of the

20 Tribunal on this particular issue as well. And I can -- I can assure the

21 Tribunal that the Prosecution will be armed on its arguments on the

22 general rule of admissibility of documents in this jurisdiction.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: In the Tribunal. Right.

24 JUDGE SINGH: If I'm correct, the last line of what I said,

25 "suspect it's not the original," "suspect it's not from the original."

Page 4976

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yeah, it's the transcript, yes. It's not from

2 the original, yeah. All right. So we will -- we agree that the

3 Prosecution witness to deal with problem will be the first witness on 14th

4 January.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Unless we are finishing a part-heard witness.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: If we are going to finish a part-heard heard witness

7 if we are going to have this misfortune, and then we'll go on to this

8 witness so the Defence can prepare their cross-examination and when we are

9 through with that, perhaps it will take us the whole week or whatever and

10 then we go back to the normal line of witnesses for the rest of the

11 proceedings.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

14 Any other matters.

15 MS. BAEN: One tiny more thing, because I want to make sure we get

16 on the same page again before the holidays because I'm afraid if we get in

17 this hearing and we're confused it's going to be another disaster. The

18 only thing we got in discovery, the these Variant A and B versions of

19 documents, we got three different, we received three different documents.

20 The 96 that Dr. Donia was talking about, the 100 version and then there's

21 another number. If now Mr. O'Donnell is going to come up with some more

22 copies that have some more numbers at the top, these are different

23 documents just as Judge Singh was pointing out. So I really wish we could

24 get this settled. If they're going to give us some new discovery if we

25 could get this settled before the break so if we need to bring up anything

Page 4977

1 on the record to you, Your Honour, we can do that because I'm afraid this

2 is just going to keep going on, it's going to be a lingering issue.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I don't think so because I think we have

4 discussed this matter enough for the Prosecution to be able to discuss

5 with the Defence on reasonable terms.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: We are not going to come here in January with fresh

7 documents and surprise the Defence.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I believe that the Prosecution are reasonable

9 people so the.

10 MS. BAEN: I do too.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: So the discussion is over. Any other matters?

12 Mr. Lukic?

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, one more thing. I would like to

14 avail myself of the opportunity to submit to the Court a translation I've

15 just got of a document D16/3, it's ID number. It's the decision of that

16 Supreme Court in Han Pijesak and I got another translation of a document

17 which has not even been identified by a number and it is a verdict or a

18 judgement that I wanted to present and couldn't from the court proceedings

19 in Orasje involving a journalist.

20 I already submitted these documents for -- to the Prosecution and

21 I now wanted to tender them. Since the testimony of Mr. Lukic is

22 complete, I don't know whether I have to wait for the Defence case to

23 tender this. You -- if you remember those videotapes that we watched.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: So I just want to be clear, how many documents do

25 you have? Not copies, documents, it's just one, the English version?

Page 4978

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The first document that we are

2 tendering [In English] 16/3 ID.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: So we are now receiving the English translation?

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It's the judgement of the supreme

5 military court in Han Pijesak, the Witness L whom we have heard recently.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the position of the Defence -- I mean the

7 Prosecution? Yes, the English version.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think that there will be a problem with

9 this particular document, if Your Honours please, but could I ask for a

10 little time to go back and review the transcript of [redacted].

11 It may have been that he accepted this document, I just can't recall off

12 the top of my head. If I go back through it, the transcript, and he

13 agrees that this is his judgement or has no contest with it, then I don't

14 envisage there will be a problem, but if I could just be given that

15 opportunity.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right. Any other document, Mr. Lukic.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The other document consists of three

18 documents and I would suggest if these documents are admitted that it be

19 marked A, B, and C because it relates to one and the same thing. I have

20 organised these documents in such a manner, using the judgement of the

21 court in Orasje acquitting journalist Mika Damjanovic, then the minutes or

22 the -- the minutes from the trial, the protocol of the trial, and the

23 newspaper article. Since it all concerns the same issue, I thought it

24 could be marked "A," "B," and "C."

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the name of the protected witness

Page 4979

1 redacted, please. The name, yes. All right.

2 When you said it relates to one and the same thing, is it part of

3 the proceedings against Witness L?

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No. This pertains to the Witness

5 Dragan Lukac, whom I asked certain questions during cross regarding his

6 credibility. And if you remember, we saw a videotape depicting a

7 discussion which took place in this studio about the trial which took

8 place in Orasje. So now I received the official transcript from that

9 trial. And at the time we did not have the identification number, since

10 there was no translation, so I only asked him questions pertaining to the

11 videotape.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: So you are saying there are three: There are "A,"

13 "B," and "C." So what is "A"?

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Document A is a judgement, document B

15 is a transcript from the trial, and Document C is a newspaper article. I

16 think that would be the best way to describe it.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: And they have the English versions?

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I have submitted both the

19 original and the translation, and I gave it to the Prosecution some 15

20 days ago.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no objection.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: To these three being admitted, yes.

23 Can we have the numbers, please.

24 THE REGISTRAR: I think I need to assign a new number to these

25 documents; right?

Page 4980

1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, new number.

2 THE REGISTRAR: So that will be D19/3 ter for B/C/S. Are these

3 three documents? I'm sorry, I got a little bit confused. Three documents

4 here; right? Okay. So D19/3, D19/3 ter.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: For which one? For "A"?

6 THE REGISTRAR: For the document dated 25th of February, 1999, "In

7 the name of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

8 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

9 MR. LUKIC: That's the judgement.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the judgement. All right.

11 THE REGISTRAR: And then it will be D20/3 for the English ruling.

12 It's a ruling, is it? And then D20/3 ter for B/C/S version. D21/3 for

13 "The journalist did not commit libel against the deputy minister." And

14 then D21/3 ter for B/C/S version.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to raise another

16 issue before arrival of the new witness. We have been informed that the

17 Prosecution had a meeting with Stevan Todorovic during our last recess,

18 and I talked to Mr. di Fazio this morning, and on behalf of all of Defence

19 counsel, I would like to ask that we, if possible, be provided -- as far

20 as the previous interviews of Mr. Todorovic are concerned, we received

21 transcript from those meetings and a videotape, so now we would like to

22 receive again either some kind of notes or transcript of the meeting which

23 took place during our last recess, because this is of great importance for

24 us, for our defence. We would like to know whether there are any new

25 facts which were brought forward by Mr. Todorovic. So this is the gist of

Page 4981

1 my request. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio. We also have to wait for the

3 interpretation. Yes.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. That request is quite proper. And they are

5 proofing notes created by myself, and I will need a brief opportunity to

6 review them and then hand them over. Also, I'm having them typed, which

7 is a lot better than giving my Defence colleagues my own handwritten

8 notes, which I don't think is what they want. But I can entertain and

9 deal with that request fairly easily, and I aim to do that by the end of

10 this year's sittings so that they can take the material away with them and

11 have it to study during the holidays. Thank you.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

13 Any other matter?

14 MS. BAEN: We received the translation, English translation, for

15 seven documents this afternoon also, Your Honour. I'd like to offer --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. All right. As long as you can call out

17 the numbers --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. As long as you call out the numbers for the

20 ones that they are corresponding with.

21 MS. BAEN: Absolutely, Your Honour. D11/2, D --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. That's D11/2 ter, then?

23 MS. BAEN: Yes. This is the one it corresponds with. Yes, Your

24 Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Yes.

Page 4982

1 MS. BAEN: D14/2 --


3 MS. BAEN: Ter.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Because what you're saying is all the documents that

5 we have which are in Serbo-Croat, you have now received the English

6 versions, the English translation?

7 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour. D15/2 ter, D16/2 ter, D17/2 ter,

8 D18/2 ter, and D19/2 ter.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution have received the English versions?

10 Have the Prosecution received the English translations?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Not that I'm aware of, if Your Honours please.

12 MS. BAEN: I'm sorry. I may have misunderstood Mr. Zecevic. I

13 thought you had received it. We got it today, but I'll fix that problem.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: It won't be a problem, if Your Honours please. I

15 can confer with my colleague after the Court sittings, and with my case

16 manager, we can ensure that we've received every document referred to in

17 the transcript here. Thank you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: And then you can inform the Chamber what your

19 position is on the various documents.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Because I'm not sure whether they were already

22 admitted or whether they're still ID.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.


25 MS. BAEN: Also, D11/2 ter is the document with respect to the

Page 4983

1 working obligation that we were dealing with on the last witness, just for

2 purposes of assisting the Trial Chamber. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: There should be seven pieces. Can we have the

4 formal numbering, please, for the English ones, and also indicate whether

5 the ter, the Serbo-Croat ones, were just ID.

6 THE REGISTRAR: The first one is D11/2 ter ID, and today we have

7 the English translation, so it's D11/2. D15/2 ter ID. Today we received

8 the English translation, D15/2. And D14/2 ter, also ID number, and we

9 received the English translation, D14/2 ID. D16/2 ter, ID number, and we

10 have the English translation, D16/2. D17/2 ter, ID number, English

11 translation, D17/2 ID. D18/2 ter, ID number, and we have the English,

12 D18/2. D19/2 ter ID. Now we have the English translation, D19/2 ID.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The Prosecution will again be given time

14 to look at these and the corresponding transcript pages and decide on what

15 their position is.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I'm grateful to the Chamber for that

17 opportunity. Thank you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. There being no other matters, the Trial

19 Chamber has one matter dealing with the sitting of the accused in Court

20 each day. We received a report yesterday about the discussions or

21 instructions - I'm not sure which one - which Mr. Pantelic gives the

22 security officers as to how the accused persons should sit in the

23 courtroom each day. So I wanted to find out from Mr. Pantelic whether he

24 has been speaking to the security officers about this.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. As far as I remember, I was of

Page 4984

1 the opinion, according to the instruction of this Trial Chamber at the

2 beginning of the trial, that the position of the defendants during the

3 examination of one witness should be the same during all these days of

4 examination. And having that fact in mind, which for me was absolutely

5 logic - because otherwise, nobody of us can take care about the position

6 if it will be swapped or changed every day - I raised that issue before

7 the responsible officer, and he said that he is in charge of the position

8 of the defendants, not Defence, nor the Registry. And then I was obliged,

9 although I gave all of my excuses to this Trial Chamber, I was obliged to

10 raise that issue and to seek -- to respectfully ask for the instructions

11 with that regard. And I suppose that finally we have the precise

12 situation with that respect, which means that for each next witness, the

13 position of the defendants should be changed.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Now, yesterday -- because we've heard the last

15 witness for a few days now, yesterday you talked to the security officer

16 about it, did you?

17 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, that was because the new duty officer was

18 not aware about the position of the Trial Chamber, so I just told him to

19 follow these instructions. Yes, that's correct. Yes, you're correct.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Now, the position is this: These

21 security officers have got their superior, from whom they receive

22 instructions on who sits where, all right? No Defence counsel has

23 authority to interfere with that, all right? Even if a Defence counsel

24 notices that the sitting is different, all you do is wait for the

25 proceedings to start and raise it with the Chamber. From now on, no

Page 4985

1 Defence counsel will talk to a security officer about the way the accused

2 persons should sit. That is their area of concern. If there is any

3 problem, any Defence counsel should raise it with the Trial Chamber and

4 not with a security officer.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The security officers do get instructions on a

7 daily basis, or whatever regular times they do, and they're the ones who

8 receive information about security. So if they make any changes of their

9 own accord, or at any time, at any stage, that must be respected.

10 The complaint of any Defence counsel should be directed to the

11 Trial Chamber.

12 MR. PANTELIC: I am absolutely aware of that, and that was case.

13 I addressed that issue to Ms. Registrar, and I didn't make any direct

14 conversation. And then Ms. Registrar told me where -- "Could you tell us

15 what is the situation with regard to the Trial Chamber's instructions?"

16 So I was very well aware of that, and then that was my idea, and I have my

17 colleagues around me that can confirm this situation --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

19 MR. PANTELIC: -- that I immediately addressed this issue to

20 Ms. Registrar. So that was the case. Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Next time, address the issue to the

22 Trial Chamber.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Wherever the accused sit, it's not a matter for any

25 Defence counsel; it's a matter for the security people.

Page 4986


2 JUDGE MUMBA: And let's stop this exchange about this problem.

3 The other point is: This Trial Chamber has given instructions,

4 which are standing instructions, that the witnesses must be seated in

5 Court before the Judges enter the courtroom, and these instructions must

6 be complied with. When the accused are brought into the courtroom, they

7 are placed in their place by the security officers. They are supposed to

8 know that they're in the courtroom. When the Defence counsels sit in the

9 courtroom, as well as the Prosecution counsel sit in the courtroom, they

10 know that they're in the courtroom and that before the Judges enter the

11 courtroom, the proceedings are not on. So nobody should speak to the

12 witness, and the witness -- the Prosecution, when they proof their

13 witnesses, they must always give these instructions.

14 This is not a free forum; this is a courtroom. It is very

15 important that we maintain high standards of professionalism, high

16 standards of civilisation, when we are with dealing with these

17 proceedings. When a witness comes in here, she is not on a free forum for

18 anybody to talk to: the Defence counsel, the accused, and anybody else in

19 Court.

20 Can we call the next witness?

21 MR. DI FAZIO: There is, if Your Honours please, the matter of the

22 protection orders --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that I'm seeking. May I make my submissions

25 now?

Page 4987

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. My submissions will be very brief. I'm

3 seeking facial distortion, a voice distortion, and the attribution of a

4 pseudonym. In making these submissions, can I rely on the -- to a large

5 extent on the motion that was provided and filed with the Chamber on the

6 14th of November this year and which related to the two previous witnesses

7 who have given evidence. By that, I mean the legal aspects of that

8 motion, the law that is discussed in that motion and the general factual

9 issue relating to the dangers of -- faced by witnesses in the -- in Bosnia

10 these days. All of those matters in that particular motion, that sort of

11 matter, I submit, are pertinent to the -- to this particular witness and

12 so I adopt those.

13 With respect to the factual matter, as far as this witness is

14 concerned, there are really two areas that are causing this witness

15 concern. He lives in a town in Bosnia outside of the Republika Srpska.

16 He has a job as a driver. He drives throughout the northern part

17 of Bosnia as a driver. He drives a small van, that's his job now. He, in

18 the course of carrying out his duties, he has to drive through portions of

19 the Republika Srpska and is worried that when he does that, if it is known

20 that he has provided evidence to the Tribunal, that he might be subject to

21 harassment and threats. His job takes him to Brkco, to Doboj and through,

22 on occasions, to Tuzla. That's the general issue that arises in respect

23 of his work.

24 Insofar as his residence is concerned, there are no concerns as to

25 where he is currently residing but he instructs me that that situation is

Page 4988

1 going to change, he hopes, in the not too distant future. He says that he

2 got his flat back in Bosanski Samac in May of this year, his original

3 flat, the flat he used to live in or apartment he used to live in back in

4 1992.

5 He says that he's been there, to Bosanski Samac, and that he's

6 cleaned his flat. He's visited it, and that he's prepared it for

7 renovation works. His plans are to go and live in that apartment with his

8 family. He wasn't able to tell me precisely when that happens, when he

9 will do that, but the renovation works he plans for the spring, so

10 presumably sometime the first quarter of next year, I suppose.

11 He instructs me that there have been no threats uttered to him so

12 far, just generally, not because of his status as a witness but just

13 generally in Bosanski Samac, but that he has had the windows to his

14 apartment broken. I asked him if that was a burglary, the result of a

15 burglary or something like that that might explain it, but he was unable

16 to say it was as a result of a burglary. There was nothing to steal, the

17 apartment was empty. He surmises that it was an attack based on ethnic

18 disharmony.

19 So because of those two concerns, he asks me to seek the orders

20 that I do from the Chamber. So in summary, that's the basis of the

21 application, two areas of danger that he's concerned about: his work

22 driving through the Republika Srpska and secondly, the future, his plans

23 to go back, renovate his apartment and move into it with his family, go

24 back to Bosanski Samac, in effect.

25 He's a man with quite a distinctive face. There will be no

Page 4989












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4990

1 mistaking him. Once seen, he's the sort of gentleman that anyone would be

2 able to remember, so that's the essence of the Prosecution's submission.

3 I remind the Chamber that in our motion, we pointed out that the Defence

4 would be in no way hamstrung or prejudiced or have their job made in any

5 respect more difficult if those orders were to be granted. They've had

6 full information about this particular witness, and for those reasons, I

7 submit that the other considerations not relating to the defendant, namely

8 the need for public justice and so on will not be -- and the need for the

9 Defence to be able to conduct their Defence effectively will not be

10 prejudiced if you make those orders. Those are my submissions.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Can we hear from the Defence what their

12 position is.

13 MS. BAEN: No objection from any of the Defence, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much. The protective measures are

15 granted as requested, facial distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym.

16 And what pseudonym is the Prosecution proposing?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Witness M. "M" for Mary.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So the witness will be referred to as

19 Witness M. So the witness may be brought into the courtroom.

20 MR. PANTELIC: In the meantime, Your Honour, now we have a changed

21 position, we have to change position of the defendants, if I may.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, they can change positions.

23 Who should sit where? They are waiting, and the security also are

24 waiting.

25 MR. PANTELIC: We agreed that that would be the task of the

Page 4991

1 registrar to arrange that, I mean. It was just a request from the Defence

2 as a principle but we are not going into detail.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Can they just rotate, please. If they can just

4 rotate.

5 MS. BAEN: Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can they just rotate. The security will be

7 responsible for that, just rotate them, that's all.

8 MS. BAEN: Your Honour.


10 MS. BAEN: While they're doing that, we just wanted to inquire who

11 the Prosecution was going to call next because we thought they were

12 bringing Esad Dagovic next week, but then Mr. di Fazio said they're

13 bringing a witness on Monday to proof, and it was our understanding

14 that --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Mr. di Fazio, who is the witness?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: I believe it is Mr. Dagovic.

17 MS. BAEN: So you're not going to proof him, he's just coming in

18 town then.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the problem of the Prosecution.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: It is, with respect.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Since we are using the pseudonym, can the name be

22 redacted.

23 MS. BAEN: No, no, we're talking about somebody different, Your

24 Honour. The witness that came several weeks ago. We're not talking about

25 the next witness.

Page 4992

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. I thought we are going to listen to Witness

2 M.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, we are.

4 I can assure the Chamber that I will provide my learned colleague

5 with all details of the witness this afternoon, if need be.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Is there a problem?

7 MR. PANTELIC: May I, Madam President? Obviously, it's

8 misunderstanding. Mr. Esad Dagovic was here during the

9 examination-in-chief, now he's going to be cross-examined. As a matter of

10 principle, we don't think that any contact between him and the Prosecutor

11 office should be allowed so that was my -- that was the issue my learned

12 colleague tried to explain, but I tried to narrow the issue and put it on

13 a simple way. Thank you.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: The way the issue was raised, it didn't alert me to

15 that. Of course we're not going to speak to the witness if he's giving --

16 if he's already giving evidence. I've been informed by one of the

17 investigators that he was coming to the Tribunal on Monday.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: For cross-examination.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: For, I assume, for cross-examination. I hadn't

20 realised at the time that the investigator told me that that was the

21 witness who was required to be back for cross-examination. There will be

22 no contact in any improper way with that witness. I provide that solemn

23 assurance, if that is what is troubling my colleague.

24 MS. BAEN: Nothing was troubling me. We just thought you were

25 bringing a different witness. I'm sorry for the confusion. No, we have

Page 4993

1 no problem.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness be brought, please.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Please make the solemn declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.

10 THE INTERPRETER: The witness did not have his microphone on.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: The microphone is on, Mr. Usher, because when he was

12 making his solemn declaration, his microphone was not on.

13 The usher hasn't got his microphone so maybe he doesn't get what

14 the Trial Chamber is trying to say.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the microphone was on, actually.

16 It's a remote control by the video.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay, all right. If the witness can move closer to

18 the microphone.

19 Yes, Mr. di Fazio.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Mr. Usher, may I ask you to hand this

21 piece of paper to the witness, please.

22 Examined by Mr. di Fazio:

23 Q. Witness, will you please look at this document and look at the

24 details on the right-hand side, and without mentioning it, your name, can

25 you tell us if on the right-hand side you see your name?

Page 4994

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Underneath that, do you see your current -- the town of your

3 current residence?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Underneath that is a date and I regret that it's -- the month is

6 in English, but I'll inform you that it's the month of March. Apart from

7 that, can you tell us if that is your date of birth?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Are there copies for the Judges?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, there are. Do you wish me to produce that

12 into evidence, Your Honour?

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because it's part of the record.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: I seek to produce it into evidence.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number and it will be under seal.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, the number is P44 under seal.


18 Q. Witness, in giving your evidence, would you please, as far as you

19 can remember, desist from mentioning your own name in court. Do you

20 understand?

21 A. I understand.

22 Q. Just relax, Witness. You are going to be here for a while so you

23 can draw your chair in and make yourself more comfortable and settle in.

24 Where were you born?

25 A. In Bosanski Samac.

Page 4995

1 Q. [redacted]

2 A. [redacted]

3 Q. What about on your mother's side? Where does her family come

4 from?

5 THE INTERPRETER: We can't hear the witness.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness isn't heard by the interpreters.


8 Q. Witness, just speak up a little more. Your voice has to be picked

9 up by the microphone and it makes it easier if you speak up a little more

10 so the interpreters can hear you and they can interpret what you say and

11 we can all hear what you say, which is very important, okay?

12 Now, my question was where on your mother's side does her family

13 come from?

14 A. [redacted].

15 Q. Do you have children?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How many children do you have?

18 A. [redacted].

19 Q. And can you give us their sex and their age, please?

20 A. [redacted]

21 [redacted].

22 Q. Where did you go to school and where were you educated?

23 A. [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 Q. Following your high school education, did you go on to do some

Page 4996

1 sort of extra training in a craft or trade?

2 A. I learned a craft and started working immediately after high

3 school.

4 Q. What is your trade by profession?

5 A. I am a plumber.

6 Q. After leaving school, what sort of work did you do?

7 A. I worked for a company as a plumber.

8 Q. Have you received experience as what I call a domestic plumber,

9 and that is plumbing in people's dwelling homes and also on an industrial

10 level, that is plumbing for factory installations, that sort of thing?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Does that mean yes to both, both types of experience?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you perform any military service while you lived in the former

15 Yugoslavia?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. And where did you -- where did you do that and in what years?

18 A. [redacted].

19 Q. And during your military service, where were you deployed, what

20 sort of military unit or activity did you engage in?

21 A. It's the so-called technical service, and I did my job as a

22 plumber.

23 Q. Was that throughout your military experience?

24 A. Yes. First, you had to go through infantry training, and then

25 after that, I started working as a plumber in the technical or engineering

Page 4997

1 service.

2 Q. After completing your military service, did you go back to

3 Bosanski Samac to live?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I want to ask you about your family situation in April of 1992.

6 Again, I remind you, don't use names of any of your family members. I

7 want to know how old your children were back in April of 1992.

8 A. [redacted]

9 [redacted].

10 Q. Without giving us the name of the establishment, if any, did your

11 wife work somewhere?

12 A. Yes, she did.

13 Q. What sort of trade or occupation was she engaged in?

14 A. [redacted]

15 Q. Can you tell the Chamber if you have ever been a member of a

16 political party?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What party, and when did you join it?

19 A. From year 1972, I was a member of the League of Communists, until

20 1985.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio, we are in open session, and we are

22 concerned about some of the descriptions of the family and the places of

23 work. Is there -- the next part of your examination-in-chief, do we need

24 to go into private session?

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I'm just about to get to a point where I will

Page 4998

1 be asking to go into private session, and I've, I thought, kept my

2 answers -- my questions and tried to make sure that the answers were

3 reasonably general up until this point. I don't think there's anything

4 that should cause any concern thus far, is there, Your Honours? I can't

5 see anything other than the description of trades by the witness that

6 could identify him, and I don't think that should be a matter of concern.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

8 JUDGE SINGH: The only trouble is sometimes the details can lead

9 to identification, excessive details, so I think perhaps just keep it to

10 the elements of the charge, and then --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Okay. We're certainly getting to a point now

12 where I will need private session, and it's important for the actual facts

13 of the case, so I think, to err on the side of safety, we should now go

14 into private session, please.


16 [Private session]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 4999













13 Page 4999 redacted private session.













Page 5000

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [Closed session]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 5001













13 Pages 5001 to 5009 redacted closed session.













Page 5009

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

23 at 5.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday

24 the 3rd day of December, 2001, at

25 9.30 a.m.