1 Monday, 9 December 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo

9 Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, Your

12 Honours.

13 WITNESS: BOZO NINKOVIC [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Examined by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]

16 Q. On Friday, we discussed a document. It was a receipt, if I'm not

17 mistaken. Now I would like to discuss some other matters with you, some

18 other documents. D6/4.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Did you say D6/4?

20 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, yes. It should be some kind of

21 receipt. On the name of Antic Ratif. Yes, yes, that's correct.

22 Q. [Interpretation] I don't know, Mr. Ninkovic, what your copy is

23 like but could you please try to have a look at it and see what it's all

24 about? Can you tell us something about this document? Actually, tell me

25 first, can you tell me the name?

1 A. Yes. Antic Ratif.

2 Q. Do you know that person?

3 A. No.

4 Q. What's this receipt all about?

5 A. Specifically, this receipt has to do with military materiel,

6 pistol, ammunition, 9 millimetres, 5.000 pieces. Then ammunition for an

7 automatic rifle, 7.62, and finally hand grenade, M-75. So all of this

8 comes from the arsenal of the Yugoslav People's Army, as for the origin.

9 Q. All right.

10 A. I see the quantities here, but it's not necessary for me to read

11 them out; is that right?

12 Q. No, no. There is no need to do that. So the date up there is

13 March, 1992, all right. Well that's not contested?

14 MR. PANTELIC: Usher could we now have exhibit --

15 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Could we have the document for a short while on

16 the ELMO in order to refresh one's mind? Okay, that's enough for me,

17 thank you.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have now Exhibit D20/4, please?

19 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please put it on the ELMO,

20 Mr. Ninkovic, and could you look at it from there so that the rest of us

21 could also follow it? Tell me, you've already commented upon a similar

22 receipt. Just tell me what is this 04 plus 1 and M160, these two

23 abbreviations?

24 A. These are clips for automatic rifles. They are packed as 4 plus

25 1. That is to say for automatic rifles, they are packed in 4 plus 1 clip

1 packages and then the bullets are M160.

2 Q. Do you know the person who allegedly received this?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. One more question: This number up here, 1397B, what does that

5 mean? Do you know?

6 A. That could be the number of the rifle concerned or something like

7 that.

8 Q. What do you know about this person, is this person from Samac, the

9 one who received this?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You don't know what ethnicity this person was?

12 A. I do know. A Muslim.

13 Q. Do you happen to know this person's party affiliation?

14 A. I think Party of Democratic Action.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have now Exhibit D25/4? What I'm

17 interested in, according to my specification, Exhibit D25/4 is a 12-pages

18 long document, but I see that it's only 3, but the fact is that first

19 three pages are ID, so maybe that's kind of -- in fact, according to the

20 specification that I have in front of me, is -- yeah. This is the rest of

21 the document, yes. Because we have to discuss this document in totality,

22 no matter whether the first three pages are remaining ID at this stage.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Take a look at this. Mr. Ninkovic, take a look

24 at it, the last three pages should be the first three actually according

25 to the real order.

1 MR. PANTELIC: [In English] Yes. Can I have a look, please? Yes.

2 Could we have the three remaining pages, please? That's correct, yes.

3 Now it should be complete like this.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Pantelic, please. The

5 interpreters cannot hear him.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, your mike.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, sorry. [Interpretation] Could you please put

8 this on the ELMO? [In English] Well, to be sure, Your Honour, because I

9 believe that some of these documents are under seal, some part of these

10 documents, which are not so sure here which one.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Is there any under seal? No.

12 MR. PANTELIC: No.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Except for attachment 1, 2, 3 which remained ID

14 the whole document is an exhibit and is not under seal. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's proceed with -- we waste so much time on this

18 getting started.

19 MR. PANTELIC:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, what would your comment be

21 with regard to this document? First of all, have you seen it before?

22 A. Yes. I saw it with Mr. Milosevic [As interpreted] the inspector,

23 federal inspector at the public security station in Samac. May I comments

24 upon this document?

25 Q. Yes.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just a second, please, here. It says federal

2 inspector, Mr. Milosevic. Line 23, and 24. We have some problems with

3 the transcript.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Line 23 and 24, he said actually Mr. Milos Savic,

6 not Mr. Milosevic. And he didn't say it was a federal inspector.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you just repeat that --

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly request the witness to

9 speak in a different way. It is very hard to discern what he is saying.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw this document with Mr. Milos

11 Savic, crime prevention inspector, who worked at the public security

12 station in Samac. When we had that document on Friday, the block scheme,

13 I gave my comment. I see here an elaboration in detail of this block

14 schematic, which fully develops the formation structure of the armed

15 formation of a paramilitary nature consisting of Muslims, under the

16 leadership of the Party of Democratic Action. So we have a detailed list

17 of lower level units, engineering, anti-sabotage, reconnaissance,

18 observation, and other units, and also a list of members of these lower

19 level units. So this is a classical list of members of a military

20 formation. This document constitutes an organisational formation

21 structure of a particular unit, and this can be seen from the actual

22 title.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. We have now Exhibit D26/4, I believe.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there is just a matter I

25 wish to raise.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Di Fazio, please.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: I thought I had it on. Ah, it's come on now, I

3 believe. Can the Chamber hear me?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you. Sorry. If Your Honours please,

6 the last three documents that we've had examination-in-chief on, have

7 revealed nothing to us that you couldn't discern from the face of the

8 document and particularly so in the last question. I am going to object

9 to any further examination-in-chief that is simply a recital of what is

10 plain and obvious from the face of the document. There is two reasons for

11 that. The first reason is that it's not relevant and it cannot assist you

12 what you can read from the document, or you can read from the document and

13 draw your own conclusions. The second reason is, if Your Honours please,

14 that I had unfortunately made a mistake in thinking that we were going to

15 be sitting until Wednesday. I thought it was for some reason it was my

16 mistake that we were sitting until Wednesday, the 11th. I'm informed that

17 in fact we only have a half day tomorrow.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, I'd like to be able to finish and I'm sure the

20 Chamber would like to see me finish my cross-examination of this witness.

21 If we are going to spend a good part of the morning going through

22 documents and reading out what's on the face of them, time is being wasted

23 and my cross-examination opportunities are going to be eroded and eroded

24 significantly. So I suggest that Mr. Pantelic not lead further evidence

25 on documents if it's only going to be telling us, restating what you can

1 read from the document itself. If there is a special insight, I've got no

2 problem at all, and welcome the witness' evidence.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, first of all, this is the Defence

4 case. The position of the Defence is that we have here in fact only one

5 witness, I'm speaking of the Defence of Blagoje Simic, who can, with his

6 professional background, tell us in fact the nature -- explain us the

7 nature of these various documents. I cannot have comments on these

8 documents from a member of executive board or a physician or some other

9 person. So this is absolutely suitable from the point of view of the

10 Defence, that this witness could give us a comment. On the other hand,

11 this witness is a fact witness because he is a citizen of Samac and he

12 knows certain persons who appear to be on various documents, including the

13 last one and all other previous ones. And also, he can also give us

14 certain, I would say, personal point of personal knowledge of the

15 background of certain events in Samac which might be relevant for this

16 case. And secondly -- or thirdly, Your Honour, the Defence gave to this

17 Trial Chamber an estimated time of various witnesses. For this particular

18 witness, our estimation was around ten hours. I don't believe, and I

19 really, to be honest, Your Honour, it's not a matter for the Defence to

20 speed up things for the interests of the Prosecution. The Prosecution

21 could be very relaxed, they have enough time, they will have enough time

22 to give their cross-examinations, whether today or tomorrow or the day

23 after tomorrow I mean in the next session. Let me remind you,

24 respectfully remind you, Your Honour --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, can you -- no, no, no, can you listen?

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: You have the right to go on with your Defence as you

3 have planned it, but the Trial Chamber will direct you when you're going

4 wrong and the point Mr. Di Fazio made of simply reciting what is on the

5 document, that is not necessary because when the document is admitted as

6 an exhibit, the contents are on record. So avoid that and lead your

7 witness to evidence which you afford a defence to your client, not just

8 describing events if he was not there, then it doesn't help.

9 MR. PANTELIC: I will take care about that, Your Honour, thank

10 you.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: And even if the time, as you say, was estimated, the

12 Trial Chamber can cut it down once we notice that you are simply wasting

13 it.

14 MR. PANTELIC: I will stick on that, Your Honour, thank you.

15 Okay, could we have now Exhibit D26/4, please?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I make a comment in relation to

17 the previous matters we discussed? In terms of the link between the

18 document that was the block schematic and this particular document?

19 MR. PANTELIC:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, yes, you can go ahead. Excuse me, let's

21 just clarify one thing, the block schematic is the document that you

22 commented

23 upon on Friday; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 A. These are two closely interlinked planning documents that are

2 customary in military planning. The first document is simpler and it's

3 easier do have an overview from it, whereas the second one is an

4 elaboration, which includes the manning of that unit with specific

5 personnel. When such a document is compiled, there are all the necessary

6 prerequisites for it to become executed. Now, what does that mean? That

7 means that that unit, that military unit, in this case it's a paramilitary

8 unit, is prepared to carry out the task that is ordered to do, because it

9 has a fully developed structure, internal structure, and it has a system

10 of command. Without such a structure, there can be no command over

11 units. So along with the mobilisation document that we saw on Friday,

12 this is a fully completed structure of units of paramilitary nature in

13 Samac, consisting of Muslims. So we have weapons, we have a unit, we have

14 a mobilisation plan, and the only remaining thing is to put a task before

15 them.

16 Q. Please take a look at the document in front of you?

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one is that now?

18 MR. PANTELIC: This is D26/4, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Once you've had a look at it, would you please

21 place it on the ELMO? Page 2 of this document, actually. And when you

22 compare it to page 3, I would be interested in hearing what you conclude

23 on the basis of that. First of all, tell me, have you seen this document?

24 A. Yes. I've seen this document.

25 Q. All right. We see names we know here, Sulejman Tihic, Alija

1 Fitozovic, et cetera, but from an operational point of view, when you look

2 at the previous page, I would be interested in hearing your comment: How

3 can the President of the SDA be commander of a unit? Is that customary

4 practice? So what did this actually look like in practice, in doctrine,

5 too?

6 A. If we are talking about doctrine and commanding the troops, the

7 customary solution is that the head of state is Commander-in-Chief, and

8 that he issues all orders to the general staff of the army. That is the

9 customary solution. Any interference of political parties constitutes an

10 attack on the existing order of a country in the most flagrant terms.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Mr. Ninkovic, the translation is

12 using the word "doctrine." I presume from your comment that you mean the

13 usual theory, when you say "doctrine." Is that correct?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. We can put it that way, that

15 it's theory. But we can talk about the application of this theory in

16 actual pieces of legislation, in laws, especially the law on defence and

17 the law on army. This is an obligation. This is the system of command

18 and control.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Pantelic, please. The

20 interpreters cannot hear him at all.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, your microphone is off. Can you

22 repeat what you're saying.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, correct.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Please look at page 3, Mr. Ninkovic and tell us

25 which persons do you know from this particular schematic?

1 A. I personally know Mr. Sulejman Tihic. He was president of the

2 Party of Democratic Action, as he is today. Alija Fitozovic went to

3 school with me. I know him from school. But he was older than me. He

4 was the most exposed member of the Muslim units in their organisation.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic, again, translation.

6 Mr. Fitozovic was, "The most exposed member of the Muslim units." That's

7 line 24. Could we have an explanation on what that means from Mr.

8 Ninkovic, please?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not use that word. I said the

10 most exposed.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: No. Exactly, but what do you mean by "the most

12 exposed member"?

13 MR. PANTELIC:

14 Q. In what sense? Could you explain that?

15 A. I did not utter that word. I am talking about [Microphone not

16 activated] who had the most influence in setting up these units. I

17 exclude Mr. Tihic. That is to say, a person who was in charge of

18 organising paramilitary units in Samac.

19 Q. Do you still know the names? Do you know the names below?

20 A. I know the messengers: Kurtic Galib; Vukovic Ahmet; Hadzialijagic

21 Suad; not all of them, but I know some of them.

22 Q. Where are they from?

23 A. Samac.

24 Q. Now tell me, please, what we see here below, how do you interpret

25 this word "park" what does it mean?

1 A. It is the call-up point.

2 Q. And where is it?

3 A. It's in Samac. I mean the call-up point is the place where people

4 gather, where called-up unit members gather. That is, they meet there and

5 then they go out to perform their tasks. This is where the number of

6 those who had responded, who have responded to the call-up is checked and

7 then this unit is used.

8 Q. Now we have a number of documents, which the Defence intends to

9 tender.

10 MR. PANTELIC: In fact the Trial Chamber can find it on -- the

11 first document under the internal number R-1. So this is the letter

12 signed by commander, Mr. Obradovic, from -- I don't know. It's kind of

13 commander, military unit, letter signed to TO of Bosanski Samac. The date

14 is -- should be April, 1991.

15 Q. Will you please put it on the ELMO so that everybody will see it?

16 This is obviously 1991. I can see the date and everything, but can you

17 comment on this document?

18 A. Yes. I'm familiar with this document. That is, I saw it in the

19 office where I worked. I'm also familiar with the undersigned, with the

20 commander, so this is the execution of the order of the Presidency of the

21 SFRY, ordering to disband all units which are not integrated in the armed

22 forces of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is, which

23 orders to hand over these -- their weapons and transfer them to the

24 barracks in Derventa. I know that that was done in several municipalities

25 of the region, in Bosanski Brod, Odzak, Samac, Orasje, Modrica, Gradacac.

1 There was a depot in Derventa for these weapons and this is that barracks

2 which is mentioned here, in Derventa. I also know that this was done.

3 MR. PANTELIC: I would like to tender this document into evidence.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection, if Your Honours, please. However,

5 that is not to be seen as any acceptance of authenticity or anything like

6 that on the part of the Prosecution.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Can we have the number?

8 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D121/1 and D121/1 ter for the

9 B/C/S. Thank you.

10 MR. PANTELIC: The next document is R9. It's an order dated 6 of

11 May, 1992, signed by the -- Mr. Odobasic, coordinator of 1st Derventa

12 Brigade, I believe.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Tell us, Mr. Ninkovic, what is this document, as

14 to its form?

15 A. Concretely, it is an order.

16 Q. But is it in line with the usual form of orders?

17 A. Yes, absolutely.

18 Q. In the upper corner, it says which armed formation this is. Have

19 you heard of it?

20 A. This is a document of the Republic of Croatia. As far as I know,

21 these are the armed formations of the Republic of Croatia, which were on

22 the front in Bosanska Posavina.

23 Q. I mean did you see this document before?

24 A. I saw it when I was preparing with you.

25 MR. PANTELIC: I would like to tender these documents into

1 evidence.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If Your Honours please, I object to that.

3 There is absolutely no evidence to indicate the relevance of this document

4 to these proceedings. If Mr. Pantelic can elicit some evidence from the

5 witness showing why we are looking at this document, what the purpose of

6 it is, how it helps him, what point in the Defence it goes to, then

7 perhaps I might withdraw my objection, but at the moment, it's an

8 incomprehensible military document from Croatia. How is it relevant to

9 us? If we had that explanation, I might withdraw my objection, but at the

10 moment I can't understand the point and the purpose of this document.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I have explain it.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

13 MR. PANTELIC: First of all, it is obvious that the document was

14 issued by the Croatian army with headquarters in Slavonski Brod which is

15 the territory of Croatia. However, it was sent to 1st Bosnian Brod

16 Brigade, which is a brigade under the command of commander Mr. Bilic,

17 which is in fact HVO Brigade in Bosnia, not in Croatia. And furthermore,

18 under the point number 1, we could find name Sijekovac, which we have

19 quite extensively discussed, that place where the massacre against Serbs

20 were committed by the elements of HVO and Croatian army. This document

21 is -- from the point of view of the Defence, this document will be

22 discussed with the other military witness which will come, I believe,

23 during the -- Mr. Zaric case. I don't have any problem now to have it

24 by -- under the ID, but the relevance to our case is that Defence would

25 like to show that the broader context of the conflict in Samac area, Odzak

1 area, was initiated by the members of a foreign army, which in this case

2 is Croatian army in connection with the elements of the HVO army in

3 Croatian community Bosanska Posavina, as well as with the elements of

4 their Crisis Staff in Samac, HDZ. So totality we think that this document

5 is of great importance for our case.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, it will be admitted. What

7 matters is how much weight the Trial Chamber will afford it.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

9 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D122/1 and D122/1 ter. Thank

10 you.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Next document that I would like to discuss with

12 this witness is our internal number is R10. This is the conclusion dated

13 June the 1st, 1992, in Odzak, signed by HVO council president, Mr. Begic.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, if it's easier for you to see, then

15 you can look on your right-hand side, at the document, not go via screen.

16 First, are you familiar with the institution indicated in the upper left

17 corner of the document?

18 A. If you mean the Croat Defence Council, then yes.

19 Q. Tell me, could you -- as a matter of fact, comment on this

20 conclusion?

21 A. The Croat Defence Council took over the legislation in the

22 military matters from the Republic of Croatia. This means that the system

23 of command in the HVO was compatible with the same system in the Republic

24 of Croatia.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Could we have a number for this

1 exhibit, please?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibits D123/1 and D123/1 ter for the

4 B/C/S. Thank you.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Next document is R11. This is kind of letter dated

6 5th of June, 1992, sent by the coordinator of veterinarian station, to the

7 Crisis Staff of Bosanski Samac municipality.

8 Q. [Interpretation] This document is dated the 5th of June, as we can

9 see. At that time, were you not directly at that place, isn't it? That

10 is you were not the head of the department?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. But regardless, tell me, is this the usual document sent by

13 companies requesting people for the labour obligation?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Could we have a number for this

16 document, please?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have no objection to the

18 admission.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can make a statement.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: You can make your comment.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps while that's being attended to, I just

23 wonder which company it was that called up these workers? It seems to me

24 that it's -- unless it's the veterinarian station is said to be a company.

25 Am I understanding that evidence in that way? Am I correct in

1 understanding this evidence in that way?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the witness could explain.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Clarify, thank you.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The veterinary station is an

5 institution which works, and whose chief task is to treat animals in the

6 municipality of Samac. If it is to be able to do that, it needs a number

7 of professionals. That is veterinary doctors, veterinary assistants and

8 other paraveterinary personnel. Without that personnel, the veterinary

9 station cannot do its job. And therefore, the director and the

10 coordinator of that station in Samac asks for -- requests to be sent

11 persons who are on the list. At that time, there was a particular problem

12 involving a large number of heads of cattle, a lot of livestock. There

13 was nobody to look after this livestock and that is an additional reason

14 for making this request.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps, Your Honours, might like to know why it

16 was sent to the, as I read the document, why it was sent to the Crisis

17 Staff and not the Ministry of Defence, who is handing out work tasks.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, is that for this -- the witness wouldn't be

19 able to explain that.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Because he's not the originator.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: If these people are performing work obligation of

23 some sort, maybe that that's what they are doing, then the witness has

24 given extensive evidence about how that was organised by the Ministry of

25 Defence. This seems to me to be going to the Crisis Staff and so

1 therefore the Chamber might be interested to know why is it that the

2 Crisis Staff is involving itself directly in the obligation --

3 MR. PANTELIC: That's a matter for the cross-examination.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and not the Ministry of Defence.

5 MR. PANTELIC: I do believe.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

7 MR. PANTELIC: I believe it's a matter for cross-examination to

8 clarify.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, I'll withdraw my objection.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Otherwise we are losing the sense of the

11 examination-in-chief. Yes. So do we have a number for this document, the

12 previous one? Ah, yes, it's okay.

13 THE REGISTRAR: It will be exhibits D124/1 and D124/1 ter, thank

14 you.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Very good, thank you. Could we have now our

16 internal number, document under R12 dated 5th of June, 1992, sent by the

17 director, manager of company Tekstilac to executive board, Serbian

18 municipality.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Ninkovic, look at this. Take a look.

20 It is a two page document. Perhaps we shall be able to help our learned

21 friend with this document?

22 A. As we can see the date is the same as on the previous document, is

23 isn't it?

24 A. Yes, that's right, 5th of June, 1992.

25 Q. And this document, R12, is its number, and it is addressed to the

1 executive board. Now, how do you explain it that the other document was

2 sent on the same day by two different companies, one to the executive

3 board and the other one to the staff?

4 A. Sorry, I think that the coordinator of the veterinary station was

5 not sufficiently well informed about the matters concerning the economy

6 and labour, and he therefore addressed his letter to the wrong address.

7 This one is sent to the right address, that is the executive committee of

8 the municipality of Samac and it is the manager's request to engage a

9 number of workers pursuant to labour obligation, as you can see this is a

10 request based on qualification in the first place; that is, they are

11 textile workers of different profiles. We see here in the list workers

12 coming from all three working groups, so the chief reason behind this is

13 to have high quality labour so that they could perform the jobs facing

14 that company. So this is the usual document and the procedure which

15 existed.

16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Ninkovic, in the translation, page

17 19, line 1, it says "that the list workers come from all three working

18 groups." Is that what in fact you said.

19 MR. PANTELIC: No, I heard -- that was just my intention to

20 clarify the transcript. He said absolutely different thing.

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay.

22 MR. PANTELIC:

23 Q. [Interpretation] You mentioned that all these workers came from

24 three groups. What group did you have in mind?

25 A. Ethnic communities. That is Muslims, Serbs and Croats. The

1 director was motivated by the need to have adequate labour and he

2 formulated his request on the basis of the required qualifications,

3 skills, that he needed, and that is how these names on the list came to be

4 on it.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have an exhibit number for this document,

6 Your Honour? Madam Registrar, I'm sorry.

7 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibits D125/1 and D125/1 ter, thank

8 you.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Next document that I would like to discuss with

10 this witness is our internal number R13. This is the decree published in

11 Official Gazette number 9, on 13th of June, 1992. It's a decree on the

12 disposition of all material resources for the needs of defence.

13 Q. [Interpretation] This document is self-explanatory. However, what

14 I'd like to know is get some comments from you. Tell me, when your

15 department of the Ministry of Defence, that is the municipal department,

16 isn't it, in Samac, did you --

17 MR. PANTELIC: Pose certain number of questions. You can sit.

18 Q. [Interpretation] So in the course of your work, did you and your

19 associates come across this government decree?

20 A. Yes, we did.

21 Q. But briefly, and only professionally, will you please explain to

22 us what was the purpose behind, what was the intention behind, this decree

23 and how did it -- how was it enforced in Samac?

24 A. In my testimony so far, I've pointed out that physical and legal

25 entities are also under the obligation to make contributions for the

1 defence. So this position is elaborated on here and the document was

2 issued by the government on the basis of the authority that the government

3 had. So physical and legal persons are duty-bound to, when so requested

4 by the Ministry of Defence, provide some material resource which is on the

5 list to meet the needs of the army. Now, how did this work? Well, an

6 army unit applies to the Ministry of Defence requesting that an asset be

7 requisitioned for that unit, say a tractor. On the basis of the official

8 records in the Ministry of Defence department, and it exists, in the

9 following manner, or every registered tractor in the public security

10 station, that is in the police station, is also entered in the records of

11 the Ministry of Defence on a special card. Then the Ministry of -- the

12 department of the Ministry of Defence receives this request for -- to

13 requisition this. They analyse the tractor records, that is check whether

14 there is such a tractor as is being applied for, and then the department

15 calls the owner of that tractor and tells him to place his tractor at the

16 army's disposal. He is issued then with a document which is called the

17 disposition on the requisitioning and the law and the decree are indicated

18 there, that is the specific article, paragraph and so on and so forth.

19 The document is issued in three copies, one goes to the owner, one to the

20 unit, and one stays in the archives of the department of the Ministry of

21 Defence. This -- the unit is also issued with a form of a military

22 driving licence called the -- the abbreviation of which is PMS-10 where

23 the technical data for the tractor are entered, that is the chassis

24 number, the make, the year of manufacture and so on and so forth. And

25 then this resource is placed at the disposal of the army as long as it may

1 need it. So this is the procedure applied when material resources are

2 requisitioned.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please switch on his

4 microphone.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: You have no microphone on.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

7 Q. [Interpretation] In Article 1, Mr. Ninkovic, in Article 1 in this

8 decree I see a circle of people -- sorry, a circle of entities,

9 beneficiaries of these resources and among other things, it says here that

10 citizens are also under the same obligation and institutions and companies

11 and other legal persons, and they say for the state administration,

12 economy, and non-production activities. Right. We understand this

13 category and army and everything, that is army-related, but what did this

14 specifically mean? Who could be other beneficiaries in wartime?

15 A. In addition to the army a request to requisition a particular

16 material resource, could also be made by the police, civil defence

17 structures, companies, administrative agencies, say the Municipal Assembly

18 of Samac or one of its departments, that is the cadastre or say, the

19 revenue department, or, for instance, a health centre or hospital, a

20 school. In other words, any legal person which can justify its need to be

21 given a requisition material resource.

22 Q. You were talking about the agricultural machinery. That is what

23 I'm interested in, but not in item 1. Item 1 of the same article includes

24 passenger vehicles of all types, in Samac, were there any such instances

25 when private vehicles were -- passenger vehicles were requisitioned?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did this embrace all citizens of Samac regardless of their

3 ethnicity or was there any difference?

4 A. All citizens of the municipality of Samac who owned the material

5 resources indicated in the decree.

6 Q. Very well. But under 21, this decree says that it also applies to

7 livestock, as the -- it is an agricultural area and that livestock is

8 pretty important. Will you tell me something about that? Were there

9 some -- was there any implementation of this decree taking place?

10 A. Yes. One could requisition draft animals, horses as a rule, for

11 the army or some other structures, but mostly were motor vehicles which

12 could not pass, that is, where there were no possible roads.

13 Q. Fine. Thank you. I'd like to hear your comment about this

14 paragraph. I believe it is paragraph 3 of the article. "Below item 24,

15 it says that apart from the resources in paragraph 1 of the decree, the

16 citizens are also bound to hand over their weapons." Will you please

17 explain it to me?

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be on the ELMO because

19 the interpreters have not been given any copies of these documents.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat the item. I

21 didn't find it.

22 MR. PANTELIC:

23 Q. Below item 24, can you see that?

24 A. Yes, I found it.

25 Q. The citizens are also bound to hand over their weapons. How was

1 this enforced? What was the purpose of it?

2 A. Well, you see the public security station, the Ministry of the

3 Interior, in peace time, keeps the record of owners of weapons, that is

4 pistols, hunting rifles, carbines and other weapons as permitted by law.

5 If a citizen has a weapon of this kind, and there is a need for it, then

6 he is duty-bound to hand it over. However, the department of Ministry of

7 Defence did not conduct that procedure. That is hunting, personal and so

8 on.

9 Q. Very well. Tell me, on page 2 of this decree, the way in which

10 resources are taken, et cetera, is elaborated upon. Were there any

11 records kept of these resources that were requisitioned?

12 A. Yes, allow me to explain. In a military unit, there is a service

13 which is called the personnel service. That is where records are kept on

14 the personnel of the unit concerned and also records about resources that

15 were mobilised, requisitioned, that is to say, vehicles, tractors,

16 livestock, horses, vessels, perhaps, et cetera. Also, there are records

17 at the Department of Defence about the requisitioned and mobilised

18 resources.

19 Q. I assume --

20 MR. PANTELIC: I can deal with this document with the witness.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to say something else

22 here. It is well known in other legal systems as well that there is this

23 legal provision for giving material resources for defence needs. I'm

24 going to quote an example from recent history. When Argentina attack the

25 Falkland Islands then --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: We don't need that history.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Witness, this is a criminal trial and there are

4 specific charges against the accused persons and the Defence have to

5 answer those specific charges. So there is no need to give any evidence

6 touching other countries, touching history.

7 MR. PANTELIC:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, as for using these resources, the

9 owners were compensated for that, weren't they?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Tell me, was this compensation paid to the actual owners of the

12 property requisitioned? Tell us how was this done, because after all, if

13 somebody takes somebody's car, what are the rights of the owner of that

14 car in terms of compensation and how was this regulated in practice?

15 Actually, we are talking about Samac, just Samac.

16 A. The owner of the car concerned has the right to compensation. He

17 has the right to indemnification as well if there was any damage incurred

18 during the use of that particular property, in this case a car. If the

19 resource concerned was requisitioned for the army, then it was the army or

20 rather the Republika Srpska that was duty-bound to meet that obligation.

21 However, if the particular material resource was requisitioned for the use

22 of a particular company, of the municipality, of the medical centre, the

23 hospital, et cetera, then it is the said institution that is duty-bound to

24 indemnify the person for the damage incurred on the resource concerned.

25 Q. Damage is one thing and compensation for regular use is another

1 thing. I assume that you are referring to indemnification and to

2 compensation as things that have to be paid by the user of the particular

3 resource; right?

4 A. Yes, yes.

5 Q. In Samac, was this procedure observed? I'm talking about 1992 and

6 1993. Do you know anything about the situation today, from the point of

7 view of these processes, et cetera?

8 A. At that time, as far as I know, there weren't any resources for

9 paying such damages. So this remained as war damages that the government

10 of Republika Srpska is supposed to pay for. After the war, there were

11 many proceedings going on in this respect. The government also had

12 sessions devoted to this because the percentage of war damage is very high

13 and there are court proceedings that had been instituted too. It was

14 published in the Official Gazette and I'm aware of this, because this is a

15 public publication, that legal and physical persons won their particular

16 cases before courts of law. And that the Court of law, according to its

17 judgement, practically automatically takes the amount concerned from the

18 bank account of the Ministry of Defence and the amount is the one that

19 corresponds to that mentioned in the decision of the relevant court. So

20 this also referred to the budget of Republika Srpska.

21 Q. Article 14 of this decree, Mr. Ninkovic, speaks about the

22 deadlines for making these payments, and if not -- I mean when you gave

23 this explanation now did you actually bear in mind Article 14?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Article 9 talks about the use of housing property and other

1 buildings for defence needs. Were there such cases as well? We were

2 talking about moveable property so far, and we know that buildings and the

3 like are immovable property. Was that also the case in Samac?

4 A. You see, in the territory of the municipality of Samac, at the

5 front line which was on the north and the south, there were quite a few

6 units of the Army of Republika Srpska. I'm just going to mention a few of

7 them so that you can get more insight as far as the number of personnel

8 was concerned, and also the needs for engaging housing property for these

9 purposes. On the southern front line, there was the Sana Brigade [As

10 interpreted] and other big brigades of several thousand persons, then

11 parts of the 2nd Posavina Brigade and --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: The transcript isn't accurate. I believe it's

14 line 24, on page 26, first Brigade, if I remember correctly, was Prijedor

15 Brigade and I don't see this in the transcript. Then after this Brigade,

16 he was talking about Sanska Brigade. And this is not what I see here in

17 the transcript. Line 24 and 25 on page 26.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, we really don't have to go into all

21 these details. If I understood you correctly, there were a lot of troops

22 there. How many soldiers of Republika Srpska were in that zone, put it

23 that way?

24 A. Between 15.000 and 20.000 soldiers. So these units addressed

25 themselves to the defence department in the territory of the municipality

1 so that they would mobilise housing facilities in the territory of the

2 municipality for their purposes, so these are apartment buildings, family

3 houses, parts of company buildings, et cetera, and that is what we did as

4 part of regular procedure. And a very large number of such facilities

5 were mobilised, especially outside Samac, in the field, rather within the

6 villages in the zone of the front line, for putting up the headquarters of

7 various units and also units attached to the staff for soldiers

8 themselves, et cetera.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Ninkovic, concerning the apartment

10 buildings and family houses, were these vacant properties and if they were

11 not vacant properties, what happened to the families who were living in

12 those apartments and houses?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the most part, we mobilised --

14 well, if we are talking about the mobilisation of houses, we mobilised --

15 we mobilised houses, mostly those that belonged to Serbs because these

16 villages in the zone along the front line, for the most part, belonged to

17 people who were abroad or perhaps if they were at home, then the area

18 would be used in the following way: For example, if there were two

19 facilities within a single court yard, then one would be used for the

20 needs of the military and the other one would be used for putting up the

21 family that lives there any way.

22 MR. PANTELIC:

23 Q. [Interpretation] One more explanation, Mr. Ninkovic. When you

24 referred to the number of 15 to 20.000 soldiers, in which period was this?

25 Can you give us a more specific period?

1 A. I said that the department of the Ministry of Defence --

2 Q. Just give me the time.

3 A. If we talk about the work of the department of the Ministry of

4 Defence, we are talking about the end of 1992 and during the war. That is

5 to say the entire course of the war.

6 Q. In Article 8 of this decree, it says that the tariff shall be

7 stipulated by the Ministry of Finance. This is the tariff that is

8 compensation for the use of such property. Did you apply this tariff as

9 prescribed by the Ministry of Finance or did you in the municipality of

10 Samac have any special tariffs for compensating for the use of such

11 resources?

12 A. This was not within the province of work of the department of

13 Ministry of Defence. This had to do with the Ministry of Finance and I

14 did not have any contact with this, nor did I have any experience with

15 this kind of thing in my work.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Madam Registrar, could we have a number for this

17 exhibit, please?

18 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibits D126/1 and D126/1 ter for the

19 B/C/S. Thank you.

20 MR. PANTELIC: The next document that I would like to discuss with

21 this witness is our internal number is R18. Well, it's in fact, I believe

22 it's Prosecution document -- I mean not by origin, they delivered us.

23 It's ERN number 00841532. This is an order dated 19th of July, 1992,

24 order signed by the General Momir Talic, regarding the introduction of

25 military administration in municipality of Odzak.

1 Q. [Interpretation] Take a look at this document, Mr. Ninkovic, and

2 tell me the following. First of all, are you aware of this document?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Ms. Usher, please I will discuss this document for

5 some time, so you can take your seat. Thank you.

6 Q. [Interpretation] So Mr. Ninkovic, tell us about the circumstances,

7 when and how did you find out about this document, and what was done in

8 accordance with this document? Well, there, that would be the explanation

9 we require.

10 A. Towards the end of July, 1992. Colonel Gojko Vujinovic came, from

11 the commander of the 1st Krajina Corps, and he held a brief meeting with

12 the representatives of the municipality of Samac. As far as I can

13 remember, it was at the heating plant; that is the locality where the

14 meeting was held. He briefly familiarised the persons present with this

15 order and the reason why he came was that he requested from the leadership

16 of the municipality of Samac to help restore the public utilities in

17 Samac, that is to say, water works, the power supply, and other vital

18 services.

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, one second I have to intervene at

20 this moment, because it's here on the page 30, line 8, he said "To restore

21 the public utilities in Odzak." That's what he said because there was --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I was wondering why it should be Samac.

23 Actually. Can we have a correction?

24 MR. PANTELIC:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Let us just clarify this. When you said that

1 these public utilities should be reconstructed, what municipality did you

2 mean?

3 A. I shall repeat. Colonel Gojko Vujinovic came to visit the

4 leadership of the municipality of Samac and he asked the leadership for

5 the municipality of Samac to help Odzak in revitalising the vital public

6 utilities, that is to say, the water supply system, the power supply

7 system, the sewage system, and other services that are indispensable for

8 the life of civilians.

9 Q. Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, who was head of this military

10 administration?

11 A. Do you mean who was the person in person who was head of the

12 military administration?

13 Q. Yes, I'm asking you who the commander was.

14 A. I think there were two persons that rotated. I know Colonel

15 Radomir Simic. I just don't know whether he was the first or the second

16 one.

17 Q. Very well. This area of responsibility, we are talking about the

18 municipality of Odzak, is within which military unit, higher level unit?

19 A. It was under the command of the 1st Krajina Corps, Tactical Group

20 1, I think.

21 Q. Tell me, furthermore, here in this order, reference is made to

22 booty. What is that? What did the commander of the 1st Krajina Corps

23 mean when they mentioned booty? Under item 3 it says --

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour please, I object to that question, I

25 object strenuously. That is asking this witness for his interpretation of

1 the meaning of the word in a document when it's plain for us to read the

2 word. We know what booty is. We know what the spoils of war are. They

3 are very clear expressions in anybody's language. Now, unless this

4 witness has a particular insight into what the author of the document,

5 Momir Talic, had in mind when the document was created, unless he can

6 directly give you clear, unequivocal evidence, that shows that there was a

7 special meaning to be attached to that particular expression or use of the

8 word, then I object to his interpretation of the meaning of the word in

9 this particular document. It's not evidence that you should hear.

10 MR. PANTELIC:

11 Q. [Interpretation] What is your personal knowledge, Mr. Ninkovic, in

12 relation to the procedure regarding booty, the spoils of war, collecting

13 that? You are an expert and you were there in the field. What can you

14 tell us about that in the territory of Odzak? How was this

15 operationalised, this part of the order relating to booty, the spoils of

16 war? What do you know about that?

17 A. I cannot present many details regarding this. I just know that

18 there were persons, there were military personnel in the command of

19 Tactical Group 1 that were in charge of this and that were engaged in such

20 matters. Milan Dukljanin was commander of Tactical Group 1. I personally

21 knew him.

22 Q. Furthermore, I'm interested in the following: Item 6, how did the

23 process of settling the territory of the municipality of Odzak function or

24 rather, what persons, of which ethnicity, populated that area? What do

25 you know about that?

1 A. It should be said that a fierce battle was waged there between the

2 formations of the Army of Republika Srpska and the Croat Defence Council.

3 That is to say, that this was front line fighting in that battle, in that

4 military battle, the Serb army pushed back the Croatian Defence Council.

5 As far as I know, the Croatian Defence Council previously evacuated its

6 own civilian population of Croat ethnicity. So that territory was --

7 actually part of the territory of the municipality was not populated.

8 Serbs who were in prison and in detention in Odzak, I mentioned Strolit,

9 the metallurgy plant in Odzak, they were taken to the front line, to

10 Bosanski Brod and Slavonski Brod to detention facilities there. So after

11 this fighting that took place in that part of the municipality of Odzak, I

12 am referring to that part of the territory, so in that part of the

13 territory, not the entire population was there.

14 Q. All right. This was a very short and clear question: Were any

15 Serbs expelled from the territory of the municipality of Odzak and who

16 were temporarily staying in Samac?

17 A. Yes, absolutely.

18 Q. And now I'm asking you what happened to these people when military

19 administration was introduced and when this civilian life was being

20 organised? What happened to people who originally came from the

21 municipality of Odzak and then came to the municipality of Samac?

22 Explain this to us.

23 A. They started coming back slowly, to the area of the municipality

24 of Odzak, and conditions were supposed to be created for their return

25 there, that is to say, drinking water, electricity. Then houses should

1 have been repaired, as much as possible, that is to say, elementary

2 conditions for civilian life.

3 Q. And the process of return of Serb refugees from the territory of

4 the municipality of Odzak, was that an ongoing process in 1992 and 1993?

5 That is to say, people going from Samac to Odzak, was this an ongoing

6 process of these families moving back?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did all these people remain there until the present day? Where

9 are these people?

10 A. This process was very slow. In the area of the municipality of

11 Odzak, nowadays, there are hardly any Serbs left. I'm going to say

12 specifically about my village, Donja Dubica, where there were 212 houses

13 with 880 inhabitants. Now, there are only 8 or 9 inhabitants who

14 returned. The rest are in Australia, America, et cetera. Partly in Samac

15 and Modrica, too.

16 Q. Why? Why did people not return to their homes? What's the

17 reason? Why didn't they stay on there, why didn't they go on living

18 there?

19 A. Because Serb property there was totally destroyed. Houses were

20 razed to the ground, especially Trnjak, Dubica and Novi Grad.

21 Q. And which entity is Odzak now?

22 A. The Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just if I may assist the

24 Chamber, I've listened to what the witness has said and I think I

25 understand his position, what he's saying, but what's not clear to me from

1 the last passage of evidence, is whether his position is that Article 6 of

2 D127/1 is expressly directed towards Serbs who were living -- who had been

3 living in Odzak, went to Bosanski Samac and then went back and resettled

4 in Odzak.

5 There is nothing in there, of course, that expressly selects them

6 as a class of people, but if the position of the witness is, Article 6 is

7 talking about the displaced Serbs from Odzak, then I think he should make

8 his position clear for your assistance.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, can that be clarified?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I don't believe that we have exhibit

11 number for this document, that's one thing. Another thing, it's 11.00.

12 It's time for our break. Maybe we could deal with that after the break.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: No, let me clear this. Which one did you refer to?

14 You did mention D127/1.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, I think the document has been marked

16 prematurely by my case manager. It hasn't yet gone into evidence. When

17 it does, this document will then be D127. My question simply is: Article

18 6 of this document, which will be an exhibit, does it refer -- is it

19 talking about Odzak Serbs? That's what I think we should know.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: We shall take our break and continue the proceedings

21 at 11.30.

22 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. You continue.

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

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, before the recess, an issue was

2 opened regarding item 6 of this order. I would like to hear your response

3 as to who did the military command administration permit the settling of

4 the territory during the period this administration existed?

5 A. Yes. The command of the military administration in Odzak approved

6 this to all civilians who expressed the wish to that effect and who wanted

7 to go back to the territory of the Odzak municipality.

8 Q. Did this apply to specific ethnic communities or was there any

9 other system that was applied in that respect?

10 A. This applied to all ethnic communities, and in the territory of

11 the municipalities of Samac and partly Modrica, there were Croats and

12 Muslim refugees as well, apart from Serbs, who expressed a wish to return

13 to Odzak.

14 Q. In the last item of this order, we see that the authorities of

15 Modrica, Doboj and Bosanski Samac were supposed to be informed thereon.

16 Are these bordering municipalities of Odzak?

17 A. Yes. They are the neighbouring municipalities of the municipality

18 of Odzak.

19 Q. Tell me, please, the civilian authorities in Samac, what kind of

20 attitude did they adopt towards Odzak, the military administration in

21 Odzak? Did the civilian authorities have the power to issue orders to the

22 administration in Odzak?

23 A. No. Absolutely not.

24 Q. What were the obligations of the civilian authorities in Samac?

25 A. On the basis of this agreement that had been reached, on the

1 occasion of the visit of Colonel Vujnovic, who was Commander Talic's

2 assistant for civilian affairs within the command of the 1st Krajina

3 Corps, the leadership of the Samac municipality expressed their readiness

4 to assist in the revitalisation of public utilities and other public

5 companies which were necessary in order to create circumstances for the

6 return of civilians. In this respect, the sewage system, the power and

7 water supply system, the PTT company, the veterinarian station, and the

8 health centre, I believe, had certain obligations in that respect,

9 pertaining to their relevant area of responsibility.

10 Q. Will you please explain to us what obligations did members of the

11 civilian structure have when a decision had to be implemented? Was an

12 approval of the military administration necessary? Could you explain to

13 us how this worked?

14 A. In order to be able to move to the territory which was under the

15 control of the military administration, one had to have a laissez-passer,

16 a kind of movement permit. Once I didn't have such a permit and my

17 identity was checked at the checkpoint and I was taken to the command of

18 the military police where the issue was cleared up and I was finally

19 released, but this is just to tell you that it was not possible to do

20 anything without the approval and the knowledge of the command of the

21 Odzak military administration.

22 Q. Were there any contacts between the representatives of the

23 Republika Srpska government and the military administration? Could you

24 elucidate this issue for us a little bit, please?

25 A. Yes. I think that the government of Mr. Lukic, that is the second

1 government, the first one was presided by Mr. Jeric, and then sometime in

2 the spring of 1993, the national assembly voted a new government of the

3 Serbian Republic of BH, whose president was Mr. Vladimir Lukic. Now, his

4 government, and I think it was on the proposal of the Defence Minister,

5 examined the case of Odzak, the case of the military administration in

6 Odzak, which did not exactly have a firm base in law. This government

7 therefore, appointed a four-member commission. A lady from the Ministry

8 of Justice was the President of this commission and she was joined by

9 three men. I knew personally Vlado Vukovic from the Defence Ministry.

10 Then there was a gentleman from the Ministry of Agriculture and Water

11 Works and another gentleman from the Ministry of Energetics and Industry.

12 They were sent to the Odzak municipality with the task of examining the

13 facts concerning the military administration and to find out how it

14 functioned. Since the ministry department is a republic organ, a republic

15 body, and since I knew this gentleman, Mr. Vukovic, they came to see me so

16 that I could take them to Odzak. I was, after all, a local resident. I

17 was familiar with the area. And they thought that I was the right person

18 to take them there. Therefore, we visited the area together and we wanted

19 to see the commander of the military administration, Mr. Radomir Simic,

20 who that day was not in his office. There were some lower ranking

21 officers there, with whom we had a conversation, and then the commission

22 in question visited some companies and some institutions and they noted

23 that there were cases of dismantling of facilities of various companies.

24 The gentleman from the Ministry of Industry made some notes and after this

25 visit, we went back to Samac on the same day, and the lady from the

1 Ministry of Justice used my telephone and called the president of the

2 government from my office, Mr. Lukic. She explained to him what she had

3 seen in Odzak. I was present during that telephone conversation.

4 Mr. Lukic, the President of the government, after this conversation, said

5 to the lady that she should wait there, at the telephone, because there

6 was a fax there as well, that he was going to issue a written order. Half

7 an hour later, approximately, a written order indeed arrived. I

8 personally saw it, and I read it. It specified that as of today, that is

9 the date this order was issued, from the territory of the municipality of

10 Odzak, no material resources could be taken away. This was in June, 1993,

11 though I cannot tell you the exact date, but it must have been in June.

12 The commission spent the night in Samac and then on the following

13 day, we went to the command of the Odzak military administration, where we

14 found the commander, Mr. Radomir Simic, who had come from Doboj. He had

15 been in Doboj before that, for reasons of his military capacity. The

16 President of this commission explained to him the reasons of her visit and

17 she also told him what she had seen was going on on the territory of the

18 Odzak municipality. She also told him that she had talked to Mr. Vladimir

19 Lukic, the president of the government, and she showed him this written

20 document and its contents. Colonel Radomir Simic took note of that and a

21 few minutes later, a man appeared at the door, who carried a piece of

22 paper which seemed to be a list of some sorts, and he asked Mr. Simic, "Is

23 this all okay? Has this been agreed upon?" It seems that this was a list

24 containing a number of artifacts, a number of material resources, and Mr.

25 Simic said, "Yes, it's okay." He probably meant that this is in

1 accordance with some sort of previous agreement and that these material

2 resources could be taken away, could be seized. But this lady who was the

3 president of the commission and who was from the Ministry of Justice

4 protested, and then Colonel Simic quite laconically said: "Well, yes, but

5 only if I approve of it. It's possible with my approval." He said

6 something to that effect. I was there, I listened to this conversation so

7 I was aware of the details involved in this case.

8 Q. What kind of conclusion were you able to reach, because after all

9 you were present there all the time?

10 A. Well, it was a flagrant violation of an order issued by the

11 president of the government.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Madam Registrar, could we have a number for this

13 document, for this order of military administration?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can we have a number?

15 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibits D127/1 and D127/1 ter for the

16 B/C/S. Thank you.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Now I would like to discuss with this witness

18 Exhibit D102/1, please.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, tell us, please, this decree

20 consists of two pages and it was published in issue number 12 of the

21 Official Gazette. In practical terms, how did it function?

22 A. I am aware of this instruction published in the Official Gazette

23 of Republika Srpska. However, as regards this instruction of the

24 department of the Ministry of Defence and me as the head of this

25 department, we did not have any specific task, any specific functions in

1 terms of implementation of this document.

2 Q. Do you know which body, which particular organ, was more closely

3 involved in the implementation of this instruction?

4 A. Are you referring to the Samac municipality?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. The Secretariat for Agriculture.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. There is one --

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, we need to do some clarification of

9 the transcript.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: It wasn't said actually the Secretariat for

12 Agriculture. Maybe the witness could repeat his answer.

13 MR. PANTELIC:

14 Q. [Interpretation] The transcript says the Secretariat for

15 Agriculture. Which one did you mention?

16 A. I mentioned the municipal Secretariat for Economy, not

17 Agriculture.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Could we have now our document under the

19 number R38? This is a handwritten document, no date, no author.

20 Q. [Interpretation] The document consists of three pages. Take a

21 look at them, please. Tell me, first of all, whether you have seen this

22 document at all?

23 A. Yes. I have. I saw it together with a number of other documents

24 in relation which I mentioned Mr. Savic, Mr. Milos Savic.

25 Q. What did you hear in connection with this document?

1 A. Mr. Savic, who was involved with the police in the process -- in

2 processing of persons who were found in possession of legal -- illegal

3 documents, involving weapons, showed me a number of documents and he said

4 that there were proceedings going on, police proceedings, that is, an

5 investigation going on, in respect of several such offenders.

6 Q. Have a look at page 3, the underlined portion of the text, which

7 you will find in the middle of the page, where it says that it is

8 necessary to organise hunters with their personal weapons during the

9 initial stage. Was it customary for hunters to be a component part of a

10 military organisation?

11 A. No.

12 Q. The last passage on page 3, how do you interpret this? What does

13 it mean, the establishment of "our" party documentation?

14 A. The law on the military does not recognise party formations, any

15 party affiliations. They only recognise the category of military

16 conscripts. So here the issue is -- concerns the establishment of a

17 military unit consisting of people who were members of a specific

18 political party.

19 Q. Have a look at page 2, somewhere in the middle of the page. There

20 is another portion of underlined text which begins with the words, "In

21 that sense." When you read -- analysed previously other documents, when

22 examined them, in light of that, can you explain to us what this means,

23 that individuals for sabotage activity should be trained? How do you

24 understand this?

25 A. With your permission, I should like to say that this document

1 preceded the documents that we have already discussed here. Block

2 schematic documents, where mention is made of the municipal staff and

3 other units and then the document which we discussed at the beginning of

4 the hearing today, which specifies in detail the military structure of

5 this unit, together with lower ranking units, the reconnaissance platoon,

6 the signals platoon, an observation platoon and so on and so forth. Now,

7 if you're asking me about the meaning of this portion of the text, I can

8 tell you that it was necessary to train personnel for sabotage activity,

9 that is the planting of explosive devices, liquidation of persons and so

10 on and so forth. Everything that is part of the usual activity of a

11 sabotage unit.

12 Q. Did you ever learn who the author of the document was, which body,

13 which organisation, or which individual, if you know?

14 A. This document is linked to Alija Fitozovic.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I would ask you to

16 disregard that evidence unless some sort of proper foundation for the

17 authorship of the document is made. "Linked to Alija Fitozovic" doesn't

18 mean anything much. Furthermore, the witness hasn't really established

19 how he recognises this document or the history of this document or indeed

20 anything that gives you any clue as to its authenticity. He said

21 something about it being linked or -- to Milos Savic, I think. We don't

22 know where he saw it, when he saw it, under what circumstances he saw it

23 or anything else that will assist you to make any sort of judgement about

24 its authenticity. That should be dealt with if Mr. Pantelic proposes to

25 tender the document into evidence, and furthermore, Mr. Pantelic -- he may

1 well go on to do this, I don't know, but he shouldn't leave the evidence

2 at -- where it merely says that the document is linked to Alija Fitozovic.

3 Further explanation of that is needed as well. It might be my fault

4 because I stood up at that point, but I think at this stage, further

5 authenticity or explanation of the origins of this document is required

6 for you to make any use of this evidence.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Well, first of all, Your Honour, this witness

8 clearly explained that his personal knowledge with regard to this document

9 came from the information of the police inspector, Mr. Milos Savic, who

10 told him that the certain ongoing investigations are conducted at that

11 time against certain people, certain persons. So he said that. You can

12 find it in transcript.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that has been said, yes.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Just a couple of minutes ago. Secondly, this

15 witness just testified that a link between Mr. Alija Fitozovic and this

16 document were also mentioned at that particular time, when he spoke with

17 the police officer, Mr. Savic. So I don't know what else -- of course we

18 are very mindful, Your Honour, in order to absolutely establish the

19 relevance, since Mr. Alija Fitozovic, before this honourable Trial Chamber

20 testified here and he actually said that certain documents he made by

21 himself were his signatures and his handwritings, then probably Defence

22 will check this part of transcript and then in certain moment handwriting

23 expert will give his professional opinion with regard to the document

24 already confirmed by Mr. Alija Fitozovic before this Trial Chamber, and

25 this particular document. So up to now, I don't see what else I can

1 explore or ask from this witness with regard to this particular document.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that means that -- that's all the witness

3 knows. He can't give us any further evidence as to the connection of this

4 document to anybody, in fact, so it cannot be admitted into evidence.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Ah, he personally said -- well, Your Honour, we

6 could always discuss about the part who the author was, maybe we could

7 have at this stage just marked as ID so that --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can mark it for identification purposes

9 only.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic. I just wonder,

12 Mr. Ninkovic, when you saw these pages with Mr. Savic, did you see only

13 pages 50 and the two pages that follow, or did you see the whole document?

14 Because the first page is marked 50, which seems to imply there were 49

15 pages and maybe a title page in front of it. Or were there just the three

16 pages that we have in front of us and the 50 means nothing?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- the way I understood it, this

18 was not a part of the document, so the number 50 doesn't actually mean

19 anything.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the identification number, please?

22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will be D128/1 ID and

23 D128/1 ter ID. Thank you.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Now, I would like to discuss the document

25 D008, Defence document dated 16 of July, 1992. This is a list of fire

1 brigade, pay list for June, 1992. Just very briefly. And also in order

2 to speed up things, if you allow me, maybe we could have D012 because it's

3 payroll for month of July so we could deal with that easy.

4 Q. [No translation]

5 A. [No translation]

6 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not getting any interpretation.

7 MR. PANTELIC: I will repeat my question.

8 Q. [No translation]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: We are still not getting translation. I'm wondering

10 what's up.

11 THE INTERPRETER: There is a problem with the sound, Judge Mumba.

12 We are not hearing anything here.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: There seems to be a problem. The interpreters say

14 they can't hear anything.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear people speaking from this

16 microphone?

17 THE INTERPRETER: Now I can hear, yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the sound is back now, can you repeat the

19 question?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Just put the other document on

21 the side because they are quite similar.

22 Q. [Interpretation] So my question to you, Mr. Ninkovic, was these

23 are simple documents. One was is the June payroll and the other for July

24 of that same year, 1992. What I would like to know is whether people who

25 were members of the fireman unit in Samac, were they also under the labour

1 obligation?

2 A. Yes. They were under the labour obligation. The firemen unit is

3 of particular importance. It is a vital service in the sense of the

4 protection of citizens and their property from fires. So we cared deeply

5 about this service in the municipality of Samac and I personally, as the

6 head of the department, these men on the list were organised in shifts

7 round the clock, and they always went out to help regardless of the time

8 of day and circumstances under which the intervention was required. I can

9 tell you that this list includes members of all three ethnic groups. Here

10 under number 1, we have Slobodan Milovanovic --

11 Q. You don't have to go into all that detail.

12 A. Right. He is an engineer, highly skilled, for this kind of work.

13 Then we have two Croats under 2 and 8. And another Serb under 10. And

14 all the others, that is the majority, are Muslims.

15 Q. Tell us, were these people in Samac for the duration of the war?

16 A. Yes, absolutely, of course.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, could we please have a number, these two

18 numbers for these two documents?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can we have the numbers, please?

20 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I thought that one of the

21 documents just being presented now -- I apologise. There has been a

22 mix-up with the Prosecution. It's my fault, sorry.

23 MR. PANTELIC: First is pay list for fire brigade for month of

24 June, 1992, and the second is for month of July.

25 THE REGISTRAR: They will be Exhibits D129/1 and D129/1 ter for

1 the B/C/S and D130/1 and D130/1 ter. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we be specific as to which month is which

3 number?

4 THE REGISTRAR: The list of firefighters for the month of June,

5 1992 is D129/1 and ter, and the list of workers in the fire company that

6 worked in July is D130/1 and ter. Thank you.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Could we have now our internal number

8 document with internal number D0013, please? This is a letter sent to the

9 ministry section, Defence Ministry section, Samac, sent by the Secretariat

10 for Housing, dated 16 of September, 1992.

11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, since this is addressed to your

12 department in the ministry, just a brief explanation. I see that the

13 Secretary of the Secretariat, Mr. Blagojevic, is asking for some persons

14 who have already been assigned to various army units. Is this the common

15 procedure, the one that you explained before?

16 A. It is. I am familiar with this document and this is the common

17 procedure which I spoke about repeatedly during the trial.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have a number for this document, please?

19 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D131/1 and ter, thank you.

20 MR. PANTELIC: And next documents that I would like to discuss

21 with this witness are D0015 and D0016. These are two records made by a

22 water and sewage company, Bosanski Samac, dated 24 of September, 1992,

23 regarding the event related to the aerial bombing of water works.

24 Q. [Interpretation] See the dates are the same except that the record

25 of the damage is different. What do you know about it? I don't really

1 know whether you can tell us anything about the document, whether you are

2 familiar with it but if not, can you tell us -- do you know anything about

3 the incident mentioned in this record?

4 A. Yes. I am aware of this incident. I personally visited the site

5 of the attack after the planes had flown over, after the plane had flown

6 over. It had arrived from the direction of Croatia and flew over the

7 mouth of the Bosna into the Sava River, which is northwest, if you look at

8 the position of Samac. It attacked the town with explosive devices.

9 Several civilian structures were damaged, but the particular target of the

10 attack was the water mains, that is where water is used, the chief

11 reservoir, the chief place from which water is distributed through the

12 mains all over the town, and considerable material damage was inflicted on

13 that structure. What was difficult to redress is the chlorinating

14 installations were damaged; that is, water which comes from the ground are

15 replete with bacteria, and therefore, you have to treat the water. It is

16 well-known technology used to protect the population from the bacteria in

17 the water. So water is chlorinated and the town did not have any water

18 for a while, for several days, and it was impossible to chlorinate water

19 for an even longer period of time, I'd say for as much as ten days, and

20 there were cases of dysentery. That is, people came to the health centre

21 to seek help due to the intake of polluted water.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have numbers for these documents, please,

23 exhibit numbers?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I take a neutral position

25 on the admission of this document. I raise once again for the purpose --

1 for your assistance, whether or not you want this document to go into

2 evidence. I simply can't see the relevance of it to any issue at all.

3 There has never been any challenge that there was a war, that things were

4 damaged, there were fighters and bombs coming from Croatia, so one is left

5 scratching one's head to figure out the relevance of this.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps the relevance could be the conditions

7 under which the prisoners were kept, they had no water to bathe.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Especially regarding the whole population, Your

9 Honour. It is not just usual document. Our attention was -- Defence

10 attention was with regard to the quality of water regarding of all

11 population of Samac. So on the one side we would like to show how -- what

12 are the efforts of the public company were to reinstall the -- and the

13 permanent attacks on Samac contrary to the international humanitarian law,

14 from the Croatian part of course and consequences on the whole population

15 regardless of their ethnic background in Samac during this period of time

16 and certain events.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: As I said I remain neutral in the matter. If it's

19 any assistance to Mr. Pantelic, the Prosecution is not adopting a position

20 that there was no war and conditions were bad. If that's of assistance.

21 MR. PANTELIC: There are fair wars and unfair wars.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the numbers, please?

23 THE REGISTRAR: The record listing a number of 8 damages in the

24 first paragraph shall be Exhibit D132/1 and ter.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry to interrupt you, maybe we can

1 differentiate them by saying the one discussing damage to motor vehicles

2 and then the other one is dealing with water works.

3 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

4 THE REGISTRAR: That is fine. The one dealing with motor vehicles

5 will be D132/1 and ter, and the second document will be Exhibit D133/1 and

6 ter. Thank you.

7 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated] Yes, sorry. The next

8 document, it's our internal number D0021. These are various decisions on

9 assignment to work obligation, mostly more of the -- let me check. Dated

10 practically all of them are dated 28th of January, 1993. Yes, for the

11 company Master.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Briefly only, Mr. Ninkovic, you've already

13 testified about the mechanism used by a certain company, institution, or

14 military unit to request through some administrative agency, through the

15 department of the Ministry of Defence, certain persons to work for it.

16 Now, look at these -- look at these. Let's go quickly through this. I

17 shall ask you briefly. First document, surname Mitrovic, what ethnicity

18 is he?

19 A. A Serb.

20 Q. The next one, Milos Miljic. What is his ethnic origin?

21 A. A Serb.

22 Q. Then Pero Pejic?

23 A. Serb.

24 Q. Nikola Pupcevic is next?

25 A. Serb.

1 Q. Next, Mitar Popovic?

2 A. Serb.

3 Q. Next, Milivoje Stevanovic?

4 A. Serb.

5 Q. The next person, Edina Hadziabdic?

6 A. Muslim woman.

7 Q. And what was her role there?

8 A. She was the head of the accounting department. It is second in

9 the ranking order to the manager.

10 Q. Next, Tomislav Zarak?

11 A. Croat.

12 Q. Next, Nedjo Vujanovic [Realtime transcript read in error

13 "Mujanovic"]?

14 A. Serb.

15 Q. Next, Vaso Tanasic?

16 A. Serb.

17 Q. Dragolub Stefanovic?

18 A. Serb.

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Microphone not activated]

20 JUDGE MUMBA: I can't hear you, Mr. Lazarevic. Your microphone

21 was not on.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, maybe Mr. Pantelic could go a little

23 bit slower because really receiving some strange names here in the

24 transcript. Line 25 on page 50 I think it will be -- somebody Mujanovic,

25 Serb, has no meaning for us.

1 MR. PANTELIC: I believe that it will be rectified after the

2 checking of the tape.

3 Q. [Interpretation] We reached Dragolub Stefanovic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. He is a coordinator. What did this mean?

6 A. Director.

7 Q. Naser Seljakovic?

8 A. Muslim.

9 Q. Next, Zlatko Smajic?

10 A. Muslim.

11 Q. The next person is Zilha Muresevic?

12 A. Muslim woman.

13 Q. Right. In any event, these decisions were issued practically,

14 this was the obligation which bound all the inhabitants regardless of

15 their ethnic origin, is it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Since we are discussing the subject, did -- your wife was also

18 under labour obligation?

19 A. Yes. My wife was in Hranaprodukt. She was with commercial

20 department. My father worked at Master, the that company we are talking

21 about now. He was engaged in security matters. He was born in 1935.

22 Q. Was he a janitor or what?

23 A. Yes, that's right. And my mother was representative on the agent

24 for civil defence. She was born in 1937. I don't have a brother. And my

25 wife's father, my wife's brother, their relatives, were either in the army

1 or under labour obligation. I can give you their names, if necessary. And

2 if that is important.

3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Ninkovic with respect to the family members

4 you mentioned, the jobs they were doing as part of the war work

5 obligation, were those jobs the same jobs that they were doing before

6 April 17th, 1992?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were such cases too, but there

8 were those who were assigned to new jobs.

9 MR. PANTELIC:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Did you understand the question asked by Her

11 Honour Judge Williams well? She asked you about members of your family,

12 not the population in general. Did you get that?

13 A. I will explain it one by one. My wife was studying agriculture in

14 Osijek at the moment when the war broke out, and she then had to flee

15 Osijek. She returned home. She was reading her third year, and she was

16 put under labour obligation in Hranaprodukt.

17 Q. So let's move on slightly quicker. She did not hold that job

18 prior to April 1992?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Did your father hold the same job prior to April, 1992?

21 A. No, but my mother, yes, she was assigned to the civil defence

22 before the war.

23 Q. Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

25 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D134/1 and D134/1 ter for the

1 B/C/S. Thank you.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Is Your Honour -- Your Honours, is that the whole

3 bundle?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one?

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: These assignments, assignments on work obligation,

7 is that the whole bundle?

8 MR. PANTELIC: Well, if --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because they are --

10 MR. DI FAZIO: They are individual documents and individual names.

11 I'm not -- I'm just curious to know how we are going to arrange it, that's

12 all. I've not got any complaint about that. But I wonder if the Chamber

13 would prefer to give it subgroupings like --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Like A, B, C, D?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, something like that. It's unlikely to arise,

16 but at some stage in the future, it might be important to know which

17 particular document we are referring to in this exhibit.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe it will be much clearer if we have A, B,

19 C, D, according to the pages, according to the names of the particular

20 assignees. For instance, according to the bundle that I have, the first

21 one is Jovan Mitrovic.

22 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: If we can have that as A?

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: The second one is Milos Miljic. Is that correct?

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: B. Pero Pejic.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: C. Nikola Pupcevic, D. Mitar Popovic, E. Milivoje

5 Stefanovic, F.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I have to -- the next one is again Milivoje

8 Stevanovic. Maybe it's a mistake. It will be at the same number. Yeah.

9 It was a mistake, okay. The next one is Edina Hadziabdic.

10 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: That will be what?

12 MR. PANTELIC: That would be G, I think.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: G, yes. Tomislav Zarak, H. Nedjo Vujanovic, I.

14 Vaso Tanasic --

15 MR. PANTELIC: J?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, J. Dragolub Stefanovic, K. Naser Seljakovic,

17 L. Zlatko Smajic, M. And Zilha Muresevic, M.

18 MR. PANTELIC: M.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, we'll move on.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And our next document is D0023. This is a

21 decision on assigning housing premises dated 28th of February, 1993.

22 Q. [Interpretation] This is a pretty poor copy, but I hope you will

23 recognise it. Is it your signature in the right-hand corner?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I see the preamble says that it deals with decrees and other

1 regulations, isn't it? So tell us, briefly, only, is this also a

2 disposition which has to do with the decree on the requisition of

3 immovable -- of moveable property for the -- for the Defence?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And here we are dealing with a specific institution and this is

6 education, isn't it?

7 A. Yes, the elementary school in Samac had been put on fire in the

8 early days of the war and thus no instruction could take place there. The

9 principal, the school's principal, analysed the problem and together with

10 the relevant secretariat, that is the secretariat for education, in the

11 assembly of the municipality of Samac, they decided to ask the ministry to

12 take for these purposes the building indicated in this document, as it was

13 thought that instruction could be provided in it even though this is not a

14 building which can provide all the necessary conditions. But on the

15 ground floor of this building, there was a tavern which could be

16 refurbished more or less and make it into a makeshift classroom.

17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D135/1 and ter. Thank you.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Next document is D0024, please. This is some --

19 it's a letter signed by this witness, dated 29th of October, 1993, sent to

20 the Secretariat, municipal Secretariat for Housing.

21 Q. [Interpretation] This is another document which you signed. Tell

22 us what is this about?

23 A. Yes. This is a document that I signed. We can say that it means

24 care for property. The young lady mentioned in the text, Dragica

25 Skuljevic was with the military medical service, of the 3rd Battalion in

1 Orlovac. Whilst there she was using a school flat. Then she was posted

2 to a different unit, part of the 2nd Bosanska Brigade, so this flat was

3 vacated. And this is a letter which informs the school principal and the

4 municipal authority responsible for housing to take care of that

5 particular apartment.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have a number, please, for this document?

7 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D136/1 and ter for the B/C/S.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And now I would like to discuss document

10 RH35. It's a letter dated 25th of September, 1992, sent by secretary --

11 municipal Secretariat for Economy to the person who is coordinator for the

12 work units, working units. It's an order, actually.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, on the left-hand side, it

14 says, "Sent to the Ministry of Defence in Bosanski Samac." This is

15 handwritten. Tell me, what is this all about?

16 A. I am familiar with this document. I got it from the Secretariat

17 for Economy. This is a government agency that saw how many people were

18 necessary for which particular job. In this case they requested from the

19 coordinator of the work unit to increase the number of persons who would,

20 from time to time, carry out certain work assignments. It is also

21 requested that in cooperation with the body that I headed, we should see

22 whether there are any people who are able-bodied and who have no

23 obligations although the war was still on.

24 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D137/1 and ter for the B/C/S.

25 Thank you.

1 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Mr. Pantelic, how come that the stamps on the

2 original letter and the translation are quite different?

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE LINDHOLM: What's the stamp in the translation?

5 MR. PANTELIC: The stamp in translation is actually a certificate,

6 it's like a notary public who certifies that the translation is true and

7 accurate so they are not related.

8 JUDGE LINDHOLM: To each other?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.

10 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay, thank you.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just one matter --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Your microphone.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Can you hear me now? I'm sorry. Just a very minor

14 matter. The document says at the top, "SAP, Semberija and Mijovica." I

15 assume that's a mistake and that should be SAO so that we are all clear

16 about that.

17 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct. It's maybe an error in typing,

18 yes. Thank you. I'm grateful for your assistance.

19 Next document is RH37, please.

20 Q. [Interpretation] This is yet another document from your

21 department. You signed it. What is this all about? What was the point

22 of this letter?

23 A. Yes. This is a document that I signed. This is a letter to the

24 administration for public revenue. This agency had to pass a decree on

25 job descriptions for the number of persons employed in that agency, also

1 stating the specific jobs involved and the qualifications required for

2 each and every job. Without this document, I, as head of the department,

3 could not accept to have people assigned there. It can be seen from this

4 document that I gave them a deadline for adopting such a document, and it

5 is only after that that I accepted requests for persons to be assigned to

6 work at the public revenue agency. So this was in keeping with the law

7 and this was the way it should be done, through official channels.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. PANTELIC: A number for this document?

10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. It will be Exhibit D138/1 and D138/1 ter for

11 the B/C/S. Thank you.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Well, now we have, in fact, two documents. The

13 first is RH40 and the second is RH41. In fact, this is practically a

14 cover from the book of General Martin Spegelj, titled Reminiscences of a

15 Soldier. And the second document is an extract, a map, from the --

16 depicted from this book, and it's related to the military and political

17 situation in Croatia from December, 1991, until the -- January, 1992.

18 Q. [Interpretation] I'm interested in the following. Please look at

19 the map in the corner. First of all, tell me, did you read this book?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Tell me, this map, this map here on the other page, I would like

22 to hear your comment regarding this particular little arrow.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner?

24 MR. WEINER: We are trying to find the map.

25 MR. PANTELIC: It's RH41.

1 MR. WEINER: Thank you, sorry.

2 MR. PANTELIC:

3 Q. [Interpretation] I'm interested in the following, bearing in mind

4 your knowledge from the field of military matters. This little arrow,

5 number 8, what does it actually denote? I must say that regrettably, due

6 to the quality of the copy, in the legend this number 8 cannot be seen,

7 because if I remember correctly, in the original in the book, it is in

8 red. Perhaps that's why it didn't come out in this photocopy, but we are

9 going to try to provide the Trial Chamber will colour copies of this map.

10 Regrettably, it's only now that I notice this. But you please tell me,

11 Mr. Ninkovic, if you know, of course, how do you interpret this arrow with

12 number 8 on it, on this map? What is your personal and professional

13 knowledge in this regard?

14 A. This arrow is the planned thrust of the attack of the Army of the

15 Republic of Croatia against Bosnia-Herzegovina, along the line between

16 Slavonski Brod and Bosanski Brod, and then further on towards the south.

17 This is a strategic plan. And now I'll tell you why. Those who are

18 familiar with the geography of Bosnia-Herzegovina know the following:

19 Bosanski Brod, Doboj, Zenica, Sarajevo, Mostar, the Adriatic Sea, that is

20 a strategic direction, all of that, where the main roads and railroads

21 are, the main communications. Then also the valleys of the Bosna and

22 Neretva rivers. That is where the main potentials are, that is to say

23 urban areas, industry, et cetera. This strategic line, direction, divides

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina into two parts, which is to say that whoever takes that

25 line will dominate, strategically and militarily, over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1 I know personally that only in a small part, along this -- only

2 along a small line along this part, Podnovlje is a place 20 kilometres

3 away from Doboj, and then all the way to Doboj, only that part was under

4 the control of the Army of Republika Srpska. And the rest, that is to say

5 all the way from the Sava River to the Adriatic Sea was under the control

6 of the Croat forces, that is to say of the regular Croatian Army, the

7 Croatian Defence Council, and the Muslim Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

8 Q. Just a question in conclusion: The territory of the municipality

9 of Samac, was that within this planned, strategic direction of the attack

10 of the Croatian Army?

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have exhibit numbers for these two

14 document, please?

15 THE REGISTRAR: The cover from the book will be Exhibit D139/1 and

16 ter for the B/C/S. And the extract of the map from the book will be

17 Exhibit D140/1 and ter for the B/C/S. Thank you.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have now a document under [Microphone not

19 activated] --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone, Mr. Pantelic.

22 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Could we now have document under

23 our internal number RB9? This is a request signed by this witness,

24 Mr. Ninkovic, dated 6th of December, 1992.

25 Q. [Interpretation] I see that it is you who signed this letter,

1 Mr. Ninkovic; is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Let us just clarify something. It's not quite clear. On -- it

4 says here that this is sent to the executive board of Samac and military

5 code 7445. Are these one address or two?

6 A. No, no. Two different addresses. The executive committee is --

7 council is the government of Samac, whereas military post code 7445 is the

8 public name of a military unit. A military unit has its military name and

9 this other name. So this is the 2nd Posavina Brigade.

10 Q. So this is practically addressed to two addresses?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And who were copies provided to? That's what it says on the

13 document itself and that only confirms your thesis, doesn't it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Tell me now --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Please remember to pause. The interpreters are

17 under pressure.

18 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to the interpreters.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, what was the pretext, or

20 rather, what was the reason why this letter was sent?

21 A. You see, human resources are of particular importance in war, and

22 the rational use of human resources is a precondition for successful

23 warfare. The Ministry of Defence assigned the personnel available within

24 the military. They were assigned to work duty and to other structures.

25 Human potentials, resources, are spent during the war. That is to say

1 people get killed, are wounded, but also some flee from the area involved.

2 So every structure required more personnel in order to successfully carry

3 out all its assignments. Specifically, the military asked for more

4 military conscripts, for having more military conscripts, mobilised, and

5 the executive council, the civilian authorities, requested more people for

6 work obligation so that they could manufacture material goods that are

7 indeed spent to a great extent in the war. So there was tension between

8 the two. The ministry was between, so to speak, the military and the

9 civilian structures. It was very difficult to satisfy everyone, because

10 there weren't enough personnel.

11 So the motive, why I wrote this letter, was for the executive

12 council to see whether all job descriptions were justified, whether indeed

13 so many personnel were required in companies and institutions, and perhaps

14 whether some military conscripts who were given work obligation could be

15 replaced by women, that is to say personnel who are not military

16 conscripts, whereas those who are military conscripts and who are doing

17 their work obligation could be assigned to the military.

18 Q. Very well. Let's just try to be as efficient as possible. The

19 last sentence that says, "Bringing citizens in by the military police,"

20 could you please comment upon that particular sentence? What was the

21 reason? What led your Ministry of Defence to react to this case of the

22 military police bringing in certain citizens?

23 A. Specifically, this was the order issued by the commander of the

24 military unit, for the military police to go to a company and to arrest

25 military conscripts and send them to the front line, which is illegal, of

1 course. I, as an official of the Ministry of Defence, opposed this

2 because this is an attack against the system.

3 Q. If I understood you correctly, work obligation also is a type of

4 war assignment. So --

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 Q. You explained that before.

7 A. Yes. And the commander of the military unit does not have the

8 right to change anybody's war assignment. He is not in a position to do

9 so.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have a number, please, for this document?

11 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D141/1 and ter. Thank you.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Now we could discuss all three remaining documents,

13 RB12, RB13 and RB14. In fact, these are three decisions of the work

14 obligation dated, first one is 11 of February, second one also 11 of

15 February, and third one is 18 of May, 1993.

16 Q. [Interpretation] So this is what we discussed earlier on, right?

17 These are also the forms that you explained. The first two documents for

18 Mr. Drago Sego, who was a cashier, and the other one for Huseinagic Majda,

19 she was a financial bookkeeper, in the middle of these forms, it says that

20 the Ministry of Defence agrees, that they give their approval. So I

21 imagine that that is one of the forms that these departments took?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What I'm interested in is the following: The third document,

24 dated the 18th of May, 1993, it has a different type of form. Can you

25 explain briefly what the reason for that was?

1 A. If you look at the preamble of the first two documents, and then

2 if you look at the third one, you can see that the regulations involved

3 were changed, but the regulations pertained to the same area. The other

4 regulation also said that it was only the head of the department that can

5 sign a decision to assign a person to work obligation.

6 Q. I understand. Thank you.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have numbers for these three documents?

8 THE REGISTRAR: The three decisions, in the order in which they

9 were given, they will be Exhibits D142/1 and ter, D143/1 and ter, and

10 D144/1 and ter. Thank you.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Just one more question. Mr. Drago Sego, he is

13 ethnically what?

14 A. He's a Croat.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I just -- just so that we don't get confused later

18 on, I understand there was -- the documents were given their numbers

19 according to the order in which they were introduced. There is a bit of

20 confusion on our part as to the order in which they were confused (sic).

21 We just want to be clear which one is which. So if we could just clarify

22 that?

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I will clarify that. First exhibit is

24 D142/1. It's with the name of Sego, Drago.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MR. PANTELIC:

2 Q. [Interpretation] What is his ethnic background?

3 A. Drago Sego is an ethnic Croat. He lives in Samac now.

4 Q. Did he live in Samac during the war as well?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Second document is 143/1, name Huseinagic Majda.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you.

9 MR. PANTELIC:

10 Q. [Interpretation] This lady, what is her ethnic background?

11 A. Muslim.

12 Q. Is she still in Samac?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The third document, [In English] 144/1, the name of Hajric Amir,

15 [Interpretation] what is his ethnic background?

16 A. Muslim.

17 Q. Do you know whether he still lives in Samac or do you not know?

18 A. I don't know him personally.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Now I would like to discuss some Prosecution

20 exhibits with this witness. Could we have Exhibit P3, please?

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, please take a look at this

22 document. Have you seen this document before?

23 A. No. I saw it only while undergoing preparations with you.

24 Q. Before we discussed this, before this case, did you -- had you

25 ever seen this document before that?

1 A. No, never.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Ms. Usher, thank you.

3 Could we now have Exhibit P18, please?

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, could you please put this on the

5 ELMO so that the other participants in these proceedings can see this?

6 Please take a look at the other sheets of paper as well.

7 My question is the following. On the bottom of the left-hand --

8 on the left, is the date of the 10th of March. That is quite clear to

9 everyone, isn't it? The 10th of March, 1992, in Donji Hasic. Did you

10 personally have any knowledge about the activities related to the

11 procurement of weapons, collecting funds for these purposes, before April,

12 1992, in the territory of the municipality of Samac? And if so, what was

13 your knowledge in this respect?

14 A. Yes. In my office there was a man called Ivica Ivkic, who also

15 worked there. He was a MP in the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He

16 was a MP from the Croat Defence Council. I was a member of the Liberal

17 Party. We talked about the situation on the eve of the war. He mentioned

18 to me that within the Croatian Defence Union -- Croatian -- the HDZ, that

19 money was being collected for procuring weapons.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Could we now have exhibit --

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, is that evidence somehow

22 linked to this document? If it is, perhaps the witness had better take --

23 explain that to us or perhaps Mr. Pantelic could ask the witness how it's

24 related to this document. The document is shown, then the witness gives

25 evidence about general arming of the Croat population. Now, the document

1 must have been shown for a reason and if the witness has got something

2 further that he can add about this document, this exhibit, then of course

3 I have no objection. But what's occurring is the document is placed in

4 front of the witness and then he talks about general arming as if there is

5 a connection between the two. So if there is a connection, let's hear it.

6 He may know something about what happened or may know something about the

7 people or this episode or something about the document. But the way it

8 comes out, it's as if the witness is talking about this particular

9 document and you look again and it seems that it's just general talk and

10 that's what I am concerned to avoid.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. Well, I will clarify that.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, since this is the local

14 commune of Donji Hasici, did you have any knowledge about this? It was my

15 understanding that you were speaking about the municipality of Bosanski

16 Samac before April, 1992, but specifically did you have any personal

17 knowledge about the local communes in the territory of Bosanski Samac

18 before April, 1992, in which there were certain activities that you

19 referred to, those related to arming and, if you could give us some names

20 and how you found out about this, what your sources were?

21 A. Mr. Ivica Ivkic lived in Hrvatska Tisina. Hasic, Gornji and Donji

22 Hasic are in the immediate neighbourhood. He protested against some

23 Croats who were employed abroad and who did not want to give their

24 contributions for procuring weapons, and he pointed out that there were

25 others who did give money for that, and they had a cashier there and money

1 was collected for these purposes.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, is it time for our break now?

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will continue the proceedings in the

4 afternoon at 14.30 hours in this courtroom.

5 MR. PANTELIC: In this courtroom.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Because we were informed that we were going to

8 withdraw -- okay. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.01 p.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 --- On resuming at 2.31 p.m.

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

3 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. [Interpretation] We have finished with these documents. Let us

5 discuss something in connection with this working unit and some exhibits

6 of the Prosecution, P37. You see this document here. You have already

7 spoken about similar issues. Have you seen this document already? Can

8 you comment on it, please?

9 A. Yes. This is a payroll for the members of the work obligation

10 unit, but what I should perhaps add by way of clarification is the

11 following: That the number of days and the months, April, May, June, July

12 and August, five times 30, 150, minus 20, because not all of the April is

13 included, then we can speak about the total of 130 days, as we can see,

14 none of these people had 130 active days, days of service. It means that

15 the remainder of the time they were at home and doing their usual work,

16 which confirms the fact that the decree was implemented in such a way that

17 these works were of a temporary nature. These people were called whenever

18 there was work to do. The difference in the total number of days depends

19 on individual qualifications of these people and what kind of needs were

20 involved.

21 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues] ... P38.

22 JUDGE LINDHOLM: If you would excuse me, I would intervene and ask

23 whether this list we had on the screen just some seconds ago, was it as to

24 ethnicity, a mixed list? So there were Serbs, Muslims and Croats? Can

25 the witness ask -- answer the question?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe he should be shown the list again.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think they are Muslims.

3 MR. PANTELIC:

4 Q. One additional question, please. How do you explain the word

5 "additional" payroll? What does this word "additional" mean? Do you

6 have any knowledge as to the reasons why it was added to the title?

7 A. It means maybe additional amount of money, maybe they were given

8 some more money.

9 Q. Do you have any information whether this work unit in Samac in

10 1992 between April and August, did it consist of only 11 people or was it

11 larger?

12 A. During this period of time I was not involved in this type of

13 work. I have already explained this in my testimony but I believe that it

14 was larger.

15 Q. In this context, and in view of what you just said, that it was

16 probably larger than this, how would you explain the word dodatan, that is

17 additional, if you know?

18 A. Well, maybe it was the additional sum of money that was given to

19 them. Maybe they had already received a certain amount of money and then

20 they were given some more.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --

22 MR. PANTELIC: It's not probably that important, thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: It may be important. That's twice the witness has

25 speculated that additional means extra money, supplementary in the English

1 translation. I would ask that you ignore that evidence unless

2 Mr. Pantelic can lead this witness to something more concrete,

3 establishing that it's -- means more money. Because --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it does show from his answers that he doesn't

5 know.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: He doesn't know, no. I perhaps just highlight that

7 point, then.

8 JUDGE LINDHOLM: I have an additional question. Is this

9 perhaps -- this is some kind of speculation from my side -- a formal

10 document, or do you have any evidence of that -- that this money was

11 really paid to these persons, in one form or another?

12 MR. PANTELIC:

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, you have heard the question of His

14 Honour Judge Lindholm. Who was in charge to ensure the payment for the

15 people engaged in the work obligation unit? This is just one aspect of

16 the problem. This concerns only this work unit.

17 A. Those who requested engagement of work obligation units for their

18 needs were required to pay these people. If it was the executive council,

19 then they would supposed to pay for it. Here in the signature I see that

20 this is the President of the executive council. It was so it was

21 preferably the executive council which initially requested the engagement

22 of these people, so they must have paid them.

23 Q. As far as public companies in the municipality are concerned, how

24 was the money insured? From what sources I'm not referring to individuals

25 but public companies such as water works, public utility companies, power

1 distribution companies and so on and so forth.

2 A. These are the municipal or public companies, and institutions, and

3 the money is provided from the municipal budget, and there are relevant

4 decisions for that.

5 Q. So practically speaking if I understand you correctly, it was the

6 municipality that had to ensure the resources necessary for the work

7 obligation for the public companies in the territory of the Samac

8 municipality?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Could we have now please, Exhibit P38? It's

11 already -- yes, thank you.

12 Q. [Interpretation] We have spoken several times about the people who

13 were either killed or wounded. Since this document was created on the

14 17th of November, 1992, it comes from the President of the executive

15 council, as far as I can see, what can you tell us about it? You have

16 already mentioned fatalities and casualties. Do you know how their

17 families were compensated and do you know the circumstances under which

18 the individuals on this list --

19 MR. DI FAZIO: The phrasing of that question is unfortunate. It

20 assumes and is a clear and unequivocal signal to this witness that there

21 was compensation paid to these people. It's just -- the assumption is

22 clear. Do you know how compensation was paid to the families. We don't

23 know that that occurred at all. That has to be established first.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but I'm referring to the document by itself,

25 my dear friend. You see in the left, bottom-hand corner there is some, I

1 would say, information with regard to the payment of the family member.

2 So we have that on the list. And I'm going to discuss that, what does it

3 mean with this witness.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: That's fine. I've got no problem with that. I'm

5 happy for the witness to be led to the notations on the dot. I'm not

6 trying to stop that. Mr. Pantelic is perfectly within his rights to do

7 that, but his question presupposed the existence of compensation. That's

8 what I read in the transcript and that's what I'm concerned about. I

9 don't want the witness being -- that notion being put into his mouth by

10 Mr. Pantelic. That's all I'm concerned about.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, I think the intervention is

12 clear.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Let's find out what the witness's personal

14 knowledge is about it.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, tell me first of all whether you

16 are aware of the fact that these people were killed. Is this the number

17 that you spoke about? Was the number perhaps higher, the number of the

18 killed and the wounded? We addressed the issue a few days ago.

19 A. I heard about these fatalities, about the people that were killed.

20 It's difficult for me to say whether these are the individuals who were

21 killed, but some of the persons on the list were known to me. I heard

22 about their death subsequently, later on. I cannot tell you exactly what

23 the circumstances of their death were. This can be described only by eye

24 witnesses, the people who happened to be in the vicinity of those who got

25 killed. If we are talking about the killing or wounded of certain

1 persons, then adequate records should be found, with the military

2 administration. If these people were killed while carrying out duties for

3 the needs, for the military, then appropriate records should be found with

4 the military.

5 I don't think that it is contested that this payment was indeed

6 made. The issue was discussed several times, on several occasions, at the

7 executive council and I'm sure that a document to that -- in that -- to

8 that effect should be found somewhere in the files of the finance

9 department.

10 Q. So why was this payroll made? It's clear that this is a payroll.

11 Do you have any personal knowledge about the reasons for drafting this

12 payroll?

13 A. Well, it would have been pointless to have a payroll done if no

14 payments were to be made.

15 Q. Is this your personal knowledge?

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: The point, witness, is that you don't know whether

18 any payment was actually made.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I mean I cannot provide any

20 documents to support this -- the fact.

21 MR. PANTELIC:

22 Q. [Interpretation] You mentioned the fact that you knew that a

23 number of people were conducting proceedings against Republika Srpska for

24 damages. Do you remember who these individuals are? Who are the people

25 who are conducting these proceedings for compensation?

1 A. The Court?

2 Q. No. I'm interested in the name. Who is the Prosecutor?

3 A. I'm afraid I don't quite understand you.

4 Q. A moment ago you told us that you knew a person who was involved

5 in such proceedings against the state. Do you remember -- do you happen

6 to remember his name?

7 A. Yes. Goran Kljajic. He used to work at the memorial centre in

8 Samac. He's a Croat.

9 Q. And he was the one who took the state to court for compensation

10 because he -- he had been wounded?

11 A. Yes, against the -- against Republika Srpska.

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic, I'm a little bit

13 confused. The gentleman that Mr. Ninkovic mentions takes the state to

14 court for compensation because he was has been wounded. Was this man

15 doing work obligation at the time and if so, what type of work obligation?

16 Because this morning, we heard about people going to court for

17 compensation with respect to property and so on and so forth, but maybe we

18 could just have a bit more clarity on this particular point.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that proceedings are being

21 conducted before a court, a court of law, but I am not familiar with the

22 circumstances of his wounding.

23 MR. PANTELIC:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Let us try to clarify. Goran Kljajic was wounded

25 during the war, was he not?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: This is mightily leading. It's being handed on a

3 plate to the witness.

4 MR. PANTELIC: I'm trying to summarise, Your Honour, the statement

5 of this witness, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: It's clear he has said that.

7 MR. PANTELIC: He said that Goran Kljajic is a Croat and he was

8 wounded.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And he has said he was not familiar with the

10 circumstances of his wounding.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Another question.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Do you have any knowledge whether he was a member

13 of a work unit or was he involved in some other work obligation?

14 A. I am familiar with the fact that he was wounded. That's one

15 thing. But as I told you, I don't know the circumstances of his wounding.

16 What else did you say?

17 Q. Was he a member of a work unit?

18 A. Yes, he was.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Could we have, please, Exhibit P39?

20 Q. [Interpretation] On this payroll, we see a certain number of

21 persons who were in charge of where various types of work for work

22 brigades. These nine individuals here, they were employees of which

23 particular service, which secretariat?

24 A. This service was in charge of the work obligation units.

25 Q. But they were part of which institution? Who paid the salaries?

1 A. They were independent, but the salaries were provided by the

2 executive council.

3 Q. Were these individuals also employees of the Defence Ministry?

4 A. No, they were not.

5 Q. Can you tell us who the coordinator was? Because here we see that

6 there were some officers in charge, but we do not see who their supervisor

7 was.

8 A. Dzevad Celic.

9 Q. What is his ethnic background?

10 A. He's a Muslim.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Usher. Could we have now

12 Exhibit P49, please?

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, have you ever seen this document?

14 Did you see it at the time it was created in 1992 or 1993?

15 A. No. I did not.

16 Q. Since it covers the area that you addressed in your testimony this

17 morning, what comment could you give it? What professional comment you

18 can give to this particular document?

19 A. In the last paragraph, we read the following sentence -- I mean a

20 sentence that deals with the issue of compensation, and the damages to be

21 paid at the end of the war. So it contains provisions pertaining to the

22 material obligation, pertaining to the financial obligation. However, I

23 don't think this is the signature of the person -- I mean it's not

24 illegible -- a legible signature, and I don't think it is the signature of

25 Dr. Blagoje Simic, whose signature I know.

1 Q. Tell me whether this was the usual form of such orders at the time

2 you established your department, the Defence Ministry department, and

3 which body had the authority to issue this type of order?

4 A. This type of document could be created by the National Defence

5 Ministry or the Secretariat for National Defence, but in view of the date,

6 the 27th of June, this was a transitional period when the National Defence

7 Secretariat had ceased to work and the military -- and the department of

8 the Ministry of Defence was not yet created. I think Milivojevic [As

9 interpreted] was relieved of his duty on the 13th or 14th of June and I

10 was appointed the chief of the department on the 16th of July, so this was

11 a transitional period and they were not able to conduct this type of work

12 at the time.

13 Q. The record needs to be corrected on page 79 line 3. You mentioned

14 Mr. Milos Bogdanovic and not Mr. Milivojevic?

15 A. Yes, I said Milos Bogdanovic.

16 Q. Just to set the record straight.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just to assist

18 Mr. Pantelic, it seems that he hasn't got an answer to part of his

19 question. He asked the witness whether this document was the usual form

20 of such orders and the witness went on to provide an explanation, but as

21 far as I can see, did not tell us whether this was the usual form for such

22 requisitions or call it whatever you will and it's important for the

23 Prosecution to know that.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can the witness answer that part of the

25 question, please?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two documents were in use, two

2 documents that were accurate. One was called "decision on mobilisation."

3 It was an administrative type of document whereby it was possible to

4 requisition certain material. And there was another type of form that

5 could also be used, which, during the former SFRY, had been printed, and

6 it provided for the possibility of the commander of the relevant military

7 unit to requisition specified property when necessary. When the organ of

8 administration was not accessible, depending on how far they were located,

9 how far from the town, then in that case, he was the one who could issue

10 the mobilisation call-up, which consisted of three parts, the disposition

11 and the delivery form, the delivery note. But this document has, elements

12 of a decision. However, a more appropriate term would be a decision and

13 not an order.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have now Exhibit P65.

15 THE INTERPRETER: If the counsel would switch on his microphone?

16 MR. PANTELIC: It's ID. Is it ID? No.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: It is a Prosecution document.

18 THE REGISTRAR: It is an exhibit, Mr. Pantelic. Thank you.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Checking here. Yes. Could we -- could the exhibit

20 be shown to the witness? Yes.

21 Q. [Interpretation] This is very -- this is a document which is

22 barely legible but try, if you can, tell us what it is about. If you

23 can't...

24 A. The document is barely legible and the second sentence I simply

25 can't make it out.

1 Q. Do you recall it, as this is the municipal Secretariat for

2 National Defence and I see the seal so it must be the time prior to

3 mid-April, that is before the conflict broke out in Samac, so I thought

4 because since you worked in the Secretariat that perhaps you might have

5 some recollection of this. If not, then never mind.

6 A. I think this is an application that part of the Sitex company, I

7 mean the premises, be requisitioned or placed at the disposal of the

8 Yugoslav People's Army. And it is a properly formed, worded document.

9 Although there should be something else too if this was carried through.

10 Q. That is what I was going to ask you. Did the authorities in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, prior to mid-April, 1992, I mean the authorities

12 responsible for the defence, did they apply the same methodology as we

13 could see in that decree on the use of the moveable property during the

14 war that we discussed earlier?

15 A. Well, the layout is identical in the former SFRY and the new law,

16 the new defence law of the Republika Srpska, and all the laws which

17 derived from it, except that the new law has been cleaned up of the

18 clutter and is smaller and it does not include certain things that existed

19 in the former defence law of SFRY.

20 THE INTERPRETER: We are sorry but the counsel was speaking over

21 the witness and we could not hear the question.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, please remember to wait for the

24 witness to complete his answer.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. My question was the following. I do

1 apologise to the interpreters.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, my question is not in. These matters

3 concerning the use of real estate by the army, if need be, was this

4 principle also applied in the other Bosnia-Herzegovinian entity?

5 A. You mean the technology, the mobilisation, what you are talking

6 about.

7 Q. What you have just been explaining to us?

8 A. Yes. The procedure is the same. The laws were the same. I mean

9 those which were in effect in the Serb entity and the Croat-Muslim entity.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have now Exhibit P67, please?

11 Q. [Interpretation] In the light of the date, which this document

12 bears, and that is the 13th of April, 1992, tell me, since at that time

13 you were in the municipal Secretariat for National Defence, so will you

14 please explain to us what is the town command? What kind of institution

15 is it?

16 A. Law does not know that term. Town command is a term which was not

17 specified by law. So this is a new notion as a notion. And the rest I

18 can comment.

19 Q. No. Wait, I'll ask you a question. On the 13th of April, 1992,

20 was there such a thing as town command in Samac?

21 A. The only lawful armed formation was the Yugoslav People's Army,

22 and it did not embrace such an institution, such an agency.

23 Q. Please, will you clear a certain situation up for me? I

24 understand what the municipal staff of the Territorial Defence is, but I

25 understand that the town command, I don't know, some town command, will

1 you please read it, and then comment on what kind of knowledge do you have

2 about this situation, that is described in this document -- in this

3 letter.

4 A. I can see that it means that the paramilitary body, which calls

5 itself the town command, voices its readiness to -- that the

6 paramilitary-- to place paramilitary formations under the control of the

7 municipal TO staff. At the same time, the municipal TO staff had no

8 jurisdiction over the armed forces. The Territorial Defence made an

9 integral part of the armed forces. There was this integral system made of

10 the Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial Defence. Therefore,

11 this -- the addressee here is wrong; that is, it comes from a body which

12 does not exist by statute.

13 Q. Now look down at the seal. Is it common for political parties to

14 play a role in matters of this nature?

15 A. I have already testified repeatedly about this. This is a clear,

16 most blatant incursion of political parties in the defence system. The

17 law is familiar with this and this is liable for Prosecution, that is, the

18 police and courts and everybody else. That is, charges may be brought

19 against whoever sets up a paramilitary body and arms people unlawfully.

20 MR. PANTELIC: I wonder whether my colleague, Mr. Di Fazio,

21 because your mike was on so maybe -- I thought maybe you had some --

22 MR. DI FAZIO: I was going to raise a matter but I declined to do

23 so. I'll raise it in cross-examination, I think.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have Exhibit P75, please?

25 Q. [Interpretation] Two, two pages, this document has two pages.

1 Now, have a look at them and tell us what you know about this document, if

2 that is, you know anything about it?

3 A. I know nothing special about this document.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you. Could we have Exhibit P76,

5 please?

6 Q. [Interpretation] And what do you know about this document?

7 A. Yes. I'm privy to its contents. You see the JNA used the

8 ordinary olive-green/grey uniforms and this was the time of June when in

9 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in that part of the Balkans, we have

10 very lush vegetation. So that camouflage uniforms are much better, as

11 they are less conspicuous; that is, the soldier wearing them is less

12 conspicuous. And because of that, an army unit asked the civilian

13 authorities in the Samac municipality to ask the local company called

14 Tekstilac to make for them those camouflage, those disrupted pattern

15 uniforms.

16 Q. [No translation]

17 A. They are all citizens and conscripts from the Samac municipality.

18 Q. I'll just repeat the question. So members of this special purpose

19 battalion, where did they come from? What is their origin? What is their

20 provenance?

21 A. They are citizens of Samac, and the municipality of Samac, and

22 those who were subject to conscription, and they were called up.

23 Q. Can you remember, if you know, how strong was that unit?

24 A. Yes. Well, it varied between 150 and 250, 260 members, and this

25 term, "Special" is inadequate because that unit had some mobile missions

1 to perform. That is, if it happened that in some section of the front,

2 the Serb defences were under threat, then this special, that is mobile,

3 battalion, would go to help out, to avoid any problem.

4 Q. Tell me, do you know who commanded that unit?

5 A. Milan Josic.

6 Q. Where does he come from?

7 A. From Obudovac, municipality of Samac.

8 Q. Yes, I was just go about to ask you whether this is in the

9 municipality of Samac.

10 A. Yes. Yes, it is.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Ms. Usher. Could we have now Exhibit

12 D55/1, please?

13 Q. [Interpretation] This document is self-explanatory. It's a

14 payroll, of course, and we won't really dwell on it. Tell me, under

15 number -- I think it's number -- could it be 11? Is that your name?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. Will you explain it for us, since it's May, 1992, can you tell me

18 what was the role that you had on the Crisis Staff?

19 A. I was not a member of the Crisis Staff. I was with the public

20 relations, with the information service, set up for the civilian

21 authorities in the municipality of Samac. My superior was Simeon Simic.

22 He was the head of this public relations service and I worked by and large

23 as a journalist, that is I performed journalistic jobs.

24 Q. Can you tell us when was it that you held that job and performed

25 these activities?

1 A. Well, let's see. Sometime between the 20th, 21st, 22nd, some --

2 from then, the 21st, 22nd, April, and practically until I was appointed

3 the head of the department on the 16th of July.

4 Q. And tell me, can you please tell us in more detail --

5 MR. PANTELIC: I'm finished with this document.

6 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic, before we finish with

7 this document, Mr. Ninkovic, if, as you say, you were not a member of the

8 Crisis Staff, on line 14, I'm just wondering if that was the case, what

9 were you doing on a payroll entitled Crisis Staff of the municipality of

10 Bosanski Samac? And are, as you say, number 11 on the list, "Information,

11 pay scale number 3, coefficient 1.45, and an amount of dinars, quite a big

12 sum, but we know there was inflation. I'm just wondering if you weren't a

13 member of the Crisis Staff, why were you number 11 on this list?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: In addition, before your answer, your superior, who

15 you say was your superior, Mr. Simeon Simic, was a member of the Crisis

16 Staff.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's no problem to explain

18 this. This is a letter of the technical secretary in the Crisis Staff

19 service. He must have put it there in a certain order, in a particular

20 sequence, but I was not a member of the Crisis Staff and my job was to

21 provide information and why he put me there, I do not know. Mr. Mitrovic

22 was -- is, incidentally, a man who never had a day of work, of seniority,

23 behind him, and took this job practically from the school desk, even

24 though I think that this job necessitates experience and knowledge of

25 state administration. And as far as I know, he frequently provided rather

1 slipshod definitions of names and notions and so on and so forth. So this

2 is merely a reflection of his ignorance of the system. And this money,

3 this is a pitiful amount, it's just a pittance, really.

4 MR. PANTELIC:

5 Q. Let us try to clear this up. Please focus, Mr. Ninkovic. Look at

6 the amount. It says 412.460 dinars. Just a moment, just a moment, easy

7 does it. Don't tell me anything, but add up roughly this whole amount and

8 tell us, from Blagoje Simic down, and tell us what will be the sum --

9 don't explain anything to me, just add it up.

10 A. Under those ordinal number? 11.

11 Q. Easy, easy. Tell me, behind your name --

12 MR. DI FAZIO: So we can get through quickly, if those figures add

13 up to 412.000, let's her hear it and let's get through it quickly rather

14 than put the witness through some sort of arithmetic exercise.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Just roughly because obviously he's bit little

16 confused.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, please does it mean that you

18 received 412.000 and others received 40?

19 A. Well this is the sum. I don't know why you're asking me that.

20 Q. But why is it next to your name? What is the reason behind it?

21 A. Well, I guess an ignoramus, somebody who doesn't know how to add

22 up things or whatever.

23 Q. Was that your pay that month?

24 A. That --

25 Q. In May, 1992?

1 A. No, it wasn't.

2 Q. Thank you. There are a certain number of persons here who were

3 involved in security, cooks and so on and so forth. Now, and which

4 category do you belong in, if you compare these coefficients that you find

5 in column 4? Look at it, it will be easier for you to look to your right.

6 Now, according to that coefficient, what could you be in this body? You

7 already said that you were a civil servant and that were you responsible

8 for public relations?

9 A. Well, you can see the difference. I have 1.45. Mr. Simic has

10 1.8.

11 Q. Yes, we can see that. Mr. Ninkovic, take it easy. Which means

12 that you worked as what in this body?

13 A. Journalistic jobs.

14 Q. And who was your boss?

15 A. Simeon Simic.

16 Q. Thank you. Will you please describe to us the period from April,

17 1992, until your appointment, as you told us, whether it was June or July,

18 1992, what was -- will you describe to the Court what it is that you did?

19 A. Well, my job involved information. That was to report from the

20 territory of the municipality of Samac, for some news houses. I was

21 especially in contact with Tanug which is the largest agency in

22 Yugoslavia, a political newspaper and the Vecernje novosti, the newspaper.

23 I also maintained contact with certain media houses which requested

24 information about things -- about developments in that area. Then I

25 was -- I also had the opportunity to receive journalists coming to the

1 territory of the municipality of Samac, whether from the world at large or

2 from Yugoslavia, to take them to some location, so that they can see it,

3 to write their stories, so these are conventional jobs. I also was

4 involved into TV stories, together with Mr. Simic, for the Belgrade

5 Television. These stories were broadcast via satellite in Belgrade

6 Television programmes, and I was the narrator, I helped to put together

7 the text and I also was involved as a cameraman because our service wasn't

8 all that developed; that is, we didn't have all the cameramen and editors

9 and everything else. As I was an amateur cameraman; that is, I had a

10 camera so I could take some footage. So these were my tasks, and sometime

11 toward the end of April, we issued several bulletins on ordinary paper,

12 A4, daily, about 100 copies per day and we distributed it among the

13 population so that they could know at least some basic things about what

14 was going on.

15 Q. Very well. Tell me what did you do in May, 1992, in your field of

16 activity? But first, what was the situation with the Serbs in Odzak?

17 A. Well, you see, those were critical days for the civilian

18 authorities in Samac, since a major -- major pressure was being brought by

19 the families from Odzak, that is, those who had found refuge in the

20 municipality of Samac and then relatives, relations of Serbs incarcerated

21 in Odzak. They were coming from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, where they

22 were migrant workers and they were bringing pressure on the authorities in

23 the municipality of Samac to help those people. Concretely, my father was

24 in prison. My mother was in isolation. And I was very worried about

25 them.

1 Q. Tell me concretely what was done? What steps did the Crisis Staff

2 take in May to solve the problem?

3 A. As far as I know, the Crisis Staff sent a series of letters to

4 various addressees with a view to helping, even though I don't think that

5 those letters served much purpose, because the Crisis Staff did not

6 really -- wasn't really vested with any serious power, with any proper

7 authority, to resolve the problem. I know that, for instance, a letter

8 was sent to the federal executive council. I mean the Federal Secretariat

9 for National Defence, and perhaps to some other addresses.

10 Q. And were you personally involved in some activities relative to

11 the attempts to get Serbs incarcerated in Odzak released?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Describe it to us.

14 A. Well, it was more or less like this: We did not know exactly how

15 many people were incarcerated there. So we are talking about Serbs from

16 localities of Novi Grad, Nova Dubica, Trnjak and some others from Odzak

17 and from other villages too. Since in order to get some basic information

18 and try to intercede through the Red Cross to come by some more precise

19 information, the Crisis Staff designated Mr. Miroslav Tadic, Simo Zaric

20 and me to try to put together lists of those people, and since we come

21 from those places, that is, Mr. Tadic is from Novi Grad, I'm from Dubica

22 and Mr. Tadic [As interpreted] is from Trnjak, I, for instance, compiled

23 this list on the basis of records and with the help of the -- of the

24 family members of those Serbs who came from Dubica --

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Says Mr. Tadic is from Trnjak. On line 18, page

1 90.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: It should read Mr. Zaric, that's what he said, and

4 it's obvious.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the correction, then?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 MR. PANTELIC:

8 Q. Could you just repeat this?

9 A. This work group that was of a temporary nature, consisted of

10 Mr. Tadic, Miroslav Tadic, who is from Novi Grad. Myself, and Mr. Zaric,

11 who is from Trnjak, and I am from Donja Dubica. The task of this group

12 was to try to compile a list of persons who were in prison, detention,

13 isolation, in Odzak. Specifically, I was the one who compiled this list

14 for Donja Dubica, primarily with the assistance of members of families

15 that were in Samac, and their families were in Odzak. When these lists

16 were compiled, as far as I know, Mr. Tadic handed them over to the Red

17 Cross, and in this way, the purpose for this working group had ended.

18 Q. Were there any contacts with the other side, with the Odzak side,

19 the Croats?

20 A. I didn't have any contacts, but I think that Mr. Tadic and

21 Mr. Zaric had contact through radio links. That was the only means of

22 communication. And this was at the centre for reporting and monitoring.

23 There were some contacts. And in part, I attended one of these contacts.

24 When I entered the centre where the radio transmitters were, that is where

25 Kosta Simic was. Kosta Simic was one of the employees who worked there.

1 I knew him he was a colleague from work. Mr. Simo Zaric was on the radio

2 with some person from Odzak and there was yet another person whom I did

3 not know.

4 There was a fierce verbal duel going on. The person on the other

5 side, from Odzak, was making a lot of noise, swearing and saying, when the

6 HVO would come and take Samac, that they would hang Simo Zaric. I'll be

7 vulgar, but I'll say what this person said, "Hang him by the balls."

8 Q. Tell me, what do you know about the final resolution of the

9 problem of the Serbs in Odzak in the course of May or June? What can you

10 say about that?

11 A. I think it was the International Red Cross that made efforts in

12 that area. Then there was an exchange at the Bosna River, near Zasavica

13 in the month of May. I think it was the end of May. I cannot say what

14 the exact date was. The other exchange was in Lipovac. That is on the

15 border between Croatia and Serbia. This was on the 4th of July. This was

16 when my father got out of prison. So my father was exchanged in that

17 group.

18 Q. All right. Tell me, when was this operation finally over, if I

19 can put it that way, this exchange or rather the pulling out of the Serbs

20 from Odzak? It was in July, you put it that way. That's when it was all

21 over, wasn't it?

22 A. Well, you see, later, I was engaged in my own line of work as head

23 of the department and I did not devote enough attention to that particular

24 matter, but I think that there were authorities that had contacts with

25 regard to those particular matters.

1 Q. What is your personal knowledge regarding the following? Where

2 were Serbs who came from Odzak in that period temporarily accommodated?

3 A. In Serb houses for the most part, in Samac, Kruskovo Polje,

4 Pisari, Skaric and so on. Specifically, I lived at my sister's in Skaric

5 and that's where my mother and my father also came.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, we have some inconsistencies here in

7 the transcript. Line 17 and 19 on page 92, it looks like two answers and

8 I believe that Mr. Pantelic should look at it and try to clarify it. It

9 seems that something is confused here. Maybe line 17, 18 and 19. So I

10 believe that line 17 should go under the question posed.

11 MR. PANTELIC: I will clarify that. There is an inconsistency

12 with the questions and answers in the transcript. I will clarify that.

13 Q. [Interpretation] I asked you the following: To the best of your

14 knowledge -- now this is my question. When did this process end, of

15 pulling the Serbs out of Odzak, if I can put it that way? When were they

16 coming to the territory of Samac?

17 A. You mean the overall process?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. Oh, it took about two or three years, I think.

20 Q. Very well. Next question: You gave that answer regarding the

21 accommodation, where they were staying. Do you know about the Crisis

22 Staff and the executive council, what their activities were in relation to

23 resolving the problem of putting these people up at the villages that you

24 mentioned?

25 A. As far as I know, with regard to these particular matters, the

1 Crisis Staff did have some sessions. The refugees had to be taken care

2 of. This is a very sensitive humanitarian issue. Work was done in this

3 regard, and I think there was a document dedicated to this, which asks for

4 taking refugees in Serb areas for conducting the necessary preparations

5 for taking care of them properly there.

6 Q. You mentioned the rationalisation of space in Serb villages. What

7 do you mean by that?

8 A. When I say that, I mean that if there was a household, if there

9 was one house, then that house should take in one or two persons into one

10 room and then this -- these people would have access to the bathroom, to

11 the kitchen, et cetera. That's what I meant.

12 Q. Very well. Tell me now, this activity in the Crisis Staff, first

13 of all, the night between the 16th and 17th of April, 1992, we know that

14 clashes broke out in Samac. Tell me, where were you on the 17th of April,

15 1992? And could you explain this to us a bit? What did you do, what for,

16 et cetera?

17 A. On the 16th, I went to Belgrade on official business, and I came

18 back in the evening, say around 8.00 in the evening. I came to the

19 secretariat. There was a person at the communications centre who was on

20 duty, and they were on the same floor where the secretariat was. Then

21 Ilija Lukic was there, who was on duty. I found out from him that the

22 bridge could not be crossed, the bridge on the Bosna River. That is to

23 say, that there was no traffic, that all traffic had been stopped. On the

24 side of Prud, there was a problem. That's where the problem was. So I

25 could not go home to Dubica, to Donja Dubica. I went to my sister's at

1 Skarici, this is a settlement five kilometres away from Samac. From

2 there, I telephoned my parents, I explained to them what was going on.

3 They were very concerned. They had some information that on the other

4 side of the Sava River in the region of Jarug, that is to say, a Croat

5 village in the Republic of Croatia, that is to say, on the left bank of

6 the Sava River, they had information that members of the National Guards

7 Corps were coming across. Of course, I was afraid for my parents because

8 I could not see them any more. We only had the telephone to communicate,

9 and the situation was getting increasingly complicated. That night, I was

10 at my sister's. In the morning, when I was awakened, my -- by my sister's

11 mother-in-law, if I can put it that way, she's the person who woke me up,

12 explosions were heard, then gunfire. So there was a skirmish, there was

13 fighting, and the sound was coming from the town of Samac.

14 Q. What is your role when you were in the Secretariat for National

15 Defence, when there are such extraordinary circumstances? Where are you

16 supposed to be? Where is your wartime assignment? Where is your post?

17 A. At that time, I was a clerk in charge of civilian defence matters.

18 Milos Bogdanovic was head of this particular authority. He lives in

19 Skarici, by the way, that is to say, the same place where my sister's

20 house is. And my obligation was to report when the situation is right.

21 Q. Did you talk to your superiors?

22 A. I went to see my superior, I went there by car. I went to his

23 house. I did not find him on the 17th. It is only in the evening that we

24 managed to see each other. He told me what happened in Samac, namely,

25 that there was a clash in which the paramilitary formations, together with

1 the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia tried to enter town to take

2 town, and that the Yugoslav People's Army, with the assistance of members

3 of the MUP who were ethnic Serbs, that they thwarted this aggressive

4 activity of the formations that I mentioned. So the JNA had under its

5 control the key positions in town.

6 Q. Tell me, did you go to town?

7 A. On the 17th? No.

8 Q. When did you go to town?

9 A. That evening, when he told me about what was going on, he told me

10 that Ilija Lukic got killed, the person I talked to when I came back from

11 Belgrade, when I came to the Secretariat. He told me that that man got

12 killed that night, and that his family should be helped, that they should

13 get help in terms of burying the man.

14 Q. And what was his job? What was Ilija Lukic's job?

15 A. Ilija Lukic was an employee at the centre for reporting and

16 monitoring. The name of his particular position is operations officer, so

17 they changed every eight hours. They had eight hour shifts.

18 Q. What did you find out? How was this man killed?

19 A. I later on found out that his daughter in the early morning hours,

20 I don't know exactly when, in the morning, she phoned him and was afraid

21 because she heard shooting near her own house. He started going home on

22 foot. He could not hear very well. He was a bit hard of hearing. So on

23 his way home, he was killed. He was killed by a bullet.

24 Q. When was your colleague buried?

25 A. Well, on the 18th, we made an effort. I and the late Milos

1 Bogdanovic, who also got killed later, we made efforts in this respect,

2 and he was transported on the 18th in the afternoon to Milosvac and I

3 think he was buried on the 19th.

4 Q. Tell me, during this first period of time, could you please

5 describe your activities during those first few weeks starting mid-April,

6 1992?

7 A. Well, on the 18th, I went to town. By then, it was already

8 possible to enter town, although there were many armed men and it was not

9 quite safe to walk around town, wasn't safe yet. Weapons were being taken

10 from persons who possessed them illegally.

11 Q. How was this activity going on?

12 A. Well, I encountered a vehicle, a car, in town, and it had a loud

13 speaker calling upon citizens to hand in weapons that they had.

14 Q. And on whose behalf was this activity carried out?

15 A. I think it was the police.

16 Q. And when did you join the organisation of civilian life organising

17 the situation? Because after all, it was an emergency, wasn't it? What

18 can you say about that?

19 A. After helping the family of Ilija Lukic organise his funeral, I

20 was told that I should report to Mr. Simeon Simic. Mr. Simeon Simic and

21 Milos Bogdanovic agreed that I would be useful on these information

22 assignments, because it was assessed in those circles that I would be

23 useful in such a job.

24 Q. All right. Tell me, during these first few weeks, was the

25 population informed to the effect that they had to wear white arm bands?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Tell me further --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, perhaps before Mr. Pantelic

4 progresses further, it's just a little bit of confusion, I think, in what

5 the witness has said. Perhaps Mr. Pantelic can assist the Chamber and

6 clarify. The witness said he went to town on the 18th and then he is

7 asked when he joined the organisation of civilian life. And he says that

8 he did that after helping bury Ilija Lukic. Now, he buried Ilija Lukic on

9 the 19th. So I'm just not clear on when he got this assignment to

10 participate in the organisation of civilian life. And it's important for

11 us to know whether it was on the 18th or the 19th, because of other

12 matters. At least there is some confusion in the Prosecution's mind about

13 his position on that and I would be grateful if Mr. Pantelic could clarify

14 that with the witness.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the witness has understood your

16 intervention.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, because I don't see that I used this term

18 organisation of civilian life.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I had concerns about that too.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe it's a matter of translation. My question

21 was related to the civilian institutions. I mean in municipal level.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I also had my concern when I read that

23 because it wasn't very clear, so if we could clarify that, if Your Honours

24 please, and secondly, when he got his assignment? Was it the 18th or was

25 it the 19th?

1 MR. PANTELIC:

2 Q. [Interpretation] You have heard my colleague, the Prosecutor.

3 Tell me first, what are these structures at municipal level that were

4 involved in organising or rather resolving the problems faced by the

5 civilian population? Could you mention them?

6 A. May I just repeat this? I think I said this quite clearly.

7 Mr. Milos Bogdanovic, who was officially still my superior, said to me

8 that when he spoke to Simeon Simic, they agreed that I should be engaged

9 in information tasks. I said that. I repeat that.

10 Q. Very well.

11 A. Could you please repeat your question?

12 Q. Yes. I want to ask you which structures at municipal level were

13 in charge, because there was a state of emergency, the war had started.

14 Who were all the structures involved at municipal level in resolving

15 problems of the civilian population?

16 A. Well, this is a very broad question. In a way, everybody who held

17 a certain post had the duty of establishing contact and trying to organise

18 civilian life. This is the beginning of the war. And that in itself is a

19 state of emergency. And it created commotion. Again, the institutions

20 had to be brought into some kind of order so that they could function.

21 Q. Where were meetings held -- where were persons who were engaged in

22 such --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution's query, the date when the witness

24 went back to work in these institutions, was it the 18th or the 19th?

25 MR. PANTELIC:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. When were you directly involved in these

2 institutions?

3 A. I think it was the 20th. I said that, the 20th. Not the 18th.

4 It was on the 20th that I started to work.

5 Q. Where did you start working on the 20th?

6 A. Well, you see, the only place where people belonging to civilian

7 life were gathered, I mean from the civilian authorities, was the

8 agricultural combine, PIK Samac, that is.

9 Q. When?

10 A. Well, perhaps a few days, five, six, seven days. I can't say.

11 That place was not safe because a tank from the Republic of Croatia

12 constantly kept targeting the silo, and that is the tallest building in

13 town.

14 Q. And afterwards?

15 A. At Uniglas. That is a company a bit further away.

16 Q. For how long was it there?

17 A. Let me say for 15 days.

18 Q. After that, where was the seat?

19 A. At the heating plant.

20 Q. How often did you attend meetings of the Crisis Staff?

21 A. I did not attend meetings of the Crisis Staff because I was not a

22 member of the Crisis Staff but there was a telephone and it was at the

23 communications centre too. There was a telephone there as well. So I was

24 there and my job could not be done without having a telephone.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio?

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm just trying to follow this evidence and be as

2 clear in my mind as I can. I'm not understanding this and I'm sure the

3 witness could explain to us. He says that he started work on the 20th.

4 He says that he went to Uniglas. He says the heating plant thereafter.

5 What was his job there? What was he doing? Because he hasn't yet

6 explained that. If he had an assignment or a post, then in order for to

7 you understand this evidence, you should know what it was. And it's that

8 that is not clear when I read it, the transcript. So we know where he was

9 but we don't know what he was doing. And that's what I think --

10 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe it's an issue for you to explore in

11 cross-examination. There is a problem here in transcript. It's at page

12 100, line 13. His answer was at Uniglas. And then that's the first part

13 of his answer and the second part is that is a company a bit further away.

14 So this combination answer and question was actually the answer. And now

15 my next question after that was, "For how long was it there?" And then he

16 says 15 days. So there is just for the record, I would like to say that

17 his complete answer was including page -- on page 100 and including line

18 13 and 14.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand all that. I've got no problem with

20 that. I've read that. But what was he doing in that period of time?

21 Where he was working can't be any use to you unless you know what he was

22 doing, what his job was.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness should answer that. He has heard the

24 question.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: That's what I'm -- that's all I'm seeking

1 clarification on. And it's compounded further, the mystery deepens

2 because then Mr. Pantelic asked how many meetings of the Crisis Staff did

3 you attend and so one is left with the impression that he was on the

4 Crisis Staff so I've been waiting for clarification on those sorts of

5 issues so I think that --

6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Did you attend sessions of the Crisis Staff?

8 A. No, and I said that.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but what were you doing? That is the question

10 the Prosecution is posing.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, if you want to report for a

12 news agency, you have to be able to obtain the information from those who

13 have the information. If the journalist wishes to inform, then he goes to

14 where the information can be found, together with the position. I

15 couldn't go to the Crisis Staff.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ... What were you

17 doing? Were you moving from institution to institution, collecting

18 information? What were you doing? Just explain that.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a journalist.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: And so, what were you doing on a day to day basis?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that we started in late April

22 to issue a paper, a bulletin, actually, which was printed in a rather

23 primitive way because we did not have adequate equipment. It arrived only

24 later on. And this was a full-time job. I was busy all day long. I had

25 to write the bulletin, have it printed, and then further disseminate it in

1 the surrounding villages and I went around by car. It took me a whole day

2 to do that. I also had to contact with the journalists who came to the

3 area, to try and provide them with the necessary information, and I also

4 reported on the situation in the area pursuant to a request by the Tanug

5 news agency. And I said I was also involved in the preparation of TV

6 programmes, and in those days, it was only myself and Mr. Simeon Simic.

7 We had to play all these roles. We were cameramen, we wrote the texts,

8 were reporting from the field. We had to go to Belgrade, which was 200

9 kilometres away, and then go back to the office and do all the rest of the

10 work. And it was a very demanding job, you know.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Sorry, I was waiting for the translation before

12 asking my question. This bulletin that you mention that you started in

13 late April, was this a bulletin which was, shall we say, was it an

14 independent bulletin or newspaper, or was it a bulletin, newspaper, that

15 was directed by the Crisis Staff?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I guess you couldn't call it a

17 Crisis Staff bulletin. It is true that it featured news in brief on what

18 was going on at the time, but it doesn't mean that anyone from the Crisis

19 Staff told us to write or not to write something. No. That never

20 happened. The editor was Mr. Simeon Simic.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm afraid we have to stop here so that we discuss

22 some procedural matters and we shall continue tomorrow at 9.00. Tomorrow

23 we are starting at 9.00. And I'd like the witness to be led out of the

24 courtroom, please.

25 [The witness stands down]

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I would like us to discuss a few things which

2 concern the reorganisation of the Defence case. First of all, there are

3 some motions by the Defence and I wanted to find out from the

4 Prosecution -- I'm sure they've received them. The first one is regarding

5 Mr. Miroslav Tadic's request for videolink for one of their witnesses, who

6 they say is not in good health. I wanted to find out from the Prosecution

7 whether there is any objection.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I've only briefly discussed

9 this with my colleagues. Might I just have another look at the motion

10 just to refresh my memory?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I think that my answer will be no, we don't have a

13 problem with it or objection to.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: This is Mr. Grujicic Milutin, who was supposed to be

15 the first witness viva voce for Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: He's the Croatian gentleman on the handling of

17 exchanges, I believe.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that is the area of his evidence. Mr. Grujicic

19 Milutin.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance to the Trial

21 Chamber and my learned colleague from the Prosecution, the gentleman is

22 not from Croatia. We proposed the gentleman who is the president of the

23 military commission of the 1st Krajina Corps, a Serbian witness who is

24 supposed to testify live, viva voce. And depending on the videolink, I

25 know this may not be important, but it is not necessary that he be the

1 first one to testify. If the approval is given by the Trial Chamber, then

2 I can --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: We've got no problem with the videolink.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Trial Chamber will grant the motion

5 for videolink, but as to the venue, that will be decided later because we

6 want to see how many other witnesses may come under videolink and then it

7 is easier for the Registrar and the administration to arrange one venue

8 after that venue is cleared by all concerned parties, then the parties

9 will be informed. I take it that that is okay.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may help the Chamber, in light of

11 his health condition, the witness lives in Sombor the town of Sombor which

12 is located 100 kilometres from Belgrade, and any further movement, I

13 think, could be more complicated in view of the condition of his health.

14 I hope that the Chamber will bear this in mind.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because you did indicate in your motion that

16 either Belgrade or Novi Sad would be appropriate. Very well. The Chamber

17 will bear that in mind. The other motion is for more time for the

18 demographic expert because of the problems mentioned in the motion getting

19 the information required.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection, if Your Honours please.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. I have to say that on the relief

22 requested on page 3, the English translation is not complete, in case the

23 Defence does not -- I just wanted to clear that with the Defence right

24 away. Or can I say this? That the Defence, if they have a hitch right at

25 the beginning of next year, can they inform the Trial Chamber in writing

1 so that we know -- we find -- we decide on the specific date when to

2 expect this particular report? Although we haven't seen the other two

3 expert reports do we take it that they will be filed by the 10th of

4 December?

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My apologies for this omission in the

6 text, in the last sentence of the text, but what I have to draw your

7 attention to in respect of this analysis which is quite specific, because

8 of the relationship and the fact that we need some documentation from the

9 Prosecution, and not any other expert testimony, our problem with this

10 particular expert testimony is as follows: As you have seen, we did

11 receive the answer from OSC. However, we did not receive the response

12 from the relevant authorities for statistics in BH. We wrote to them on

13 several occasions but we haven't received any answer so far. So I'm

14 afraid we are likely to have further problems. I will go to Belgrade soon

15 and I will try to contact them directly over the telephone. We will

16 inform the Chamber thereon because the information given by OSC doesn't

17 really mean anything for us. In view of the fact that the documentation

18 is with the OTP, I will ask the Trial Chamber to enable our expert to

19 inspect, in a confidential manner, these documents in the Office of the

20 Prosecutor because I'm afraid that if we asked the Chamber for the

21 assistance, and if the Chamber then addresses itself to the relevant

22 authorities there, that will take a lot of time. But if it is possible to

23 have this comparison and analysis of the documents be done on the spot, in

24 a confidential manner, that would significantly facilitate our problem.

25 At any rate, I think we would be able to inform the Chamber immediately

1 after Christmas whether we have received in the meantime any response from

2 the relevant authorities.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, then, in that case, then, the Trial

4 Chamber will make a ruling then and find out from the Prosecution whether

5 what you have suggested can be done. Very well.

6 Yes. The Trial Chamber has been observing the Defence so far,

7 although it is only from Mr. Blagoje Simic, but there appears to be

8 certain matters which are common to the Defence case, and I would like to

9 find out from the parties and especially the Defence counsels themselves,

10 since we are dealing with a matter which covers only one region. The

11 evidence relating to ethnic tensions, which built up, up to the time of

12 the armed conflict, the Trial Chamber is of the view that there isn't any

13 difference in the way the case is being presented by the Prosecution as

14 well as the Defence. There is no dispute from either party that there

15 were ethnic tensions which built up leading to the time of the armed

16 conflict. So that the Trial Chamber would like to -- the parties to avoid

17 leading any evidence on this issue, unless there is something specific

18 which attaches to the defence of a particular accused, otherwise generally

19 I don't think that there is any contention in that -- on that point.

20 On the arming, that different ethnic groups were arming themselves

21 in the same period leading up to the armed conflict, again, the Trial

22 Chamber is of the view that there doesn't seem to be any dispute in this

23 regard, but I would like to ask the Prosecution to confirm, ethnic --

24 different ethnic groups were arming themselves in the period leading up to

25 the armed conflict

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, yes, there was a degree of that going on,

2 amongst all three ethnic groups. The degree and the quality of that is

3 another issue altogether and the extent of it on the part of one or more

4 groups. That's another issue. That's another matter. But yes, there is

5 generally no dispute that there was a lot of arms and weaponry in the

6 municipality and a lot of people were -- of the three ethnic communities

7 were purchasing and buying arms.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no dispute with that.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: No general dispute with that, no, and -- but I

10 stress that the extent of it and the manner in which it was organised and

11 done and the purpose and intent of it, well, that's another issue.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can't speak of the intention or the purpose

13 of it because there is no dispute that there was an armed conflict.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no. I appreciate that. Of course not, we

15 don't dispute that at all.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I know that the case of the Defence appears to be

17 that those who were arrested or detained were found to have -- to be

18 involved in an armed insurrection. That's a separate issue.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Because that is material as to when they were

21 arrested and whether they were arrested.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: And just how many arms and just how serious the

23 arming and -- sorry, potentially dangerous the arming of other groups was

24 is also a matter that is to a certain extent contested between the

25 parties.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: But does it matter? Because this is a situation

2 which led to the actual conflict itself.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No, it doesn't matter particularly, but if you want

4 the -- if the Prosecution's position is that the factual scenario is that

5 the extent of arming amongst the Muslims, and in particular in the town of

6 Bosanski Samac, was of a different quality, a different order, than the

7 arming of the Serbian population, in the town.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So how does that impact on the case of the

9 Prosecution, if it is accepted that there was an armed conflict?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it may not. I may not have a considerable

11 impact on the presentation of the Prosecution case, but I just don't want

12 to be seen to be making some sort of admission that there was -- the

13 arming amongst the three ethnic groups of the same type, the same quality,

14 the same extent, that's all.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. It's just the general situation which was

16 occurring at that time, each ethnic group was arming themselves.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not discussing about the particular, the

19 quality of arms or the particular.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: How much arming was goes going on, how many guns

21 and the quality, the superior weaponry, preponderance of weaponry, that

22 sort of thing. There is no concessions made there.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: No.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Can I just raise one other matter not related to

25 that but the earlier issue that you raised, and that was ethnic tensions?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: You heard nothing from the Prosecution when you

3 raised that and that is generally the position of the Prosecution, but I

4 just remind you that at the beginning of the trial, there was some

5 evidence from some of the witnesses regarding certain episodes that took

6 place, particularly from Dragan Lukac who gave evidence and the import of

7 his evidence and also from stuff, material from Todorovic as well.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: That indicated that some of the incidents -- the

10 people who committed those episodes and people who were behind episodes

11 leading to ethnic tension, and I think some of the other witnesses have

12 also mentioned episodes. They point to certain episodes and say, "We

13 think it was this group behind it or we think it was that group behind

14 it." And I only raise that because the Defence may want to produce

15 evidence about those specific episodes. For example, a kiosk was

16 destroyed. You will recall that. There were power lines that were

17 destroyed and Dragan Lukac gave evidence about some of the foot prints he

18 found near the telephone lines.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: And that he thought it was the JNA, the explosive

21 used and so on. It's those issues that the Defence should be free to

22 attack, if they want to, by calling witnesses and --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the specific incidents but not the general

24 situation.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: However, the general situation, it is accepted,

1 that there was a rise in ethnic tensions amongst all three groups. Thank

2 you.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, if I may just briefly say something

4 in respect to what our colleague Mr. Di Fazio said, we were instructed as

5 the Defence, all three Defences, by the Trial Chamber, not to challenge

6 the part of the indictment that was not in force any more since it was

7 dismissed through the motion for acquittal, in oral and also written

8 decision with reasons, so we didn't have much witnesses and we didn't pay

9 much attention to these events that related to the destruction of

10 properties of non-Serb ethnicity. However, there were a couple of

11 incidents involving shooting, involving wounding of some persons, that we

12 would like to bring witnesses for. So we didn't deal with what the Trial

13 Chamber ordered us not to take --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- attention to.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is on record, on the ruling under Rule 98

17 bis.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering, Mr. Lazarevic, in terms of

20 the destruction of power lines, it strikes me that that is a different

21 matter to destruction of houses and businesses and so on, because in

22 destroying the power lines, it would be like destroying a water system and

23 what have you, in terms of its impact on the population as a whole in the

24 town, in the city.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, I understand, Your Honours, that this is not

1 something that the Prosecution gave hard evidence during their case that

2 this incident could be related to any one of the defendants. Even their

3 witnesses, they didn't actually say anything like that. They had some

4 suspicions. Now, in particular, Dragan Lukac, who was chief of the police

5 he actually admitted they didn't have any criminal record, they didn't put

6 any criminal case in this respect, and so this is why we didn't have

7 attention. And we also thought that this, if we go in these kind of

8 details, it would take too much time of this Trial Chamber.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not the point. The point is simply meeting

10 the Prosecution case, and what you have explained is actually -- is what

11 is on record regarding the power lines.

12 Yes. The other observation of the Trial Chamber is that the

13 Defence of Mr. Blagoje Simic, who has got some witnesses under Rule 92

14 bis, if those -- those statements are not ready, the Trial Chamber may

15 call upon the next defendant to start giving evidence, because we don't

16 want to waste time. So what is important is to have the evidence on

17 record. As to the sequence, it may not matter necessarily because the

18 Rule 92 bis statements have to -- the Registry and the administration are

19 also involved. So until those matters are resolved, it may be necessary

20 to start with the evidence of one or the other accused persons, and I'm

21 sure that the parties were informed about this. So what the Trial Chamber

22 is asking is that the other two accused persons should be ready, if they

23 are going to give evidence or if they have their viva voce witnesses. Of

24 course, this will be indicated to avoid sending back witnesses without

25 giving evidence.

1 The other point is that in view of the matters that have been

2 pointed out, where we don't need any evidence, the time to be taken by the

3 rest of the witnesses, even with Mr. Blagoje Simic's evidence, may be cut

4 down, because looking at the summaries, there is a -- there are common

5 points for some witnesses. So that may be cut down so that we avoid

6 wasting time unnecessarily. And the rest of the witnesses for the other

7 two should also -- the counsel should also bear that in mind so that we

8 don't repeat evidence which is not on matters which are not contested or

9 where there is nothing in particular to the defence of a particular

10 accused which is relevant to his defence, so that we can move on, and the

11 Trial Chamber expects that once the decision on Rule 71 deposition

12 witnesses is finally made, especially as to the venue, this also concerns

13 the Registry, then we should be able to work out the schedule when we

14 expect the Defence case to be completed or the trial to be completed.

15 Unless there are some other matters --

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, if you allow me, please, I

17 respectfully ask this Trial Chamber, and I would like to respectfully move

18 this Trial Chamber with regard to some changes in my list of Rule 92 bis

19 testimonies, due to some reasons because the people are not available,

20 they are away, and we cannot locate them, like in pre-trial phase, I

21 respectfully ask this Trial Chamber to grant the following motion:

22 Speaking of the -- in my -- in my motion, joint Defence motion of November

23 26th, in Annex 1, under the number 3, there is a person, Jusufovic Jusuf,

24 and now the Defence of Blagoje Simic would like to replace this person

25 with another gentleman, Sego Drago.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: This person hasn't been on the list before at all.

2 MR. PANTELIC: In fact -- well, he was on the large list --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: I see, okay.

4 MR. PANTELIC: -- at the beginning, so everyone is --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Just being reorganised.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

8 MR. PANTELIC: And under number 6 in my Annex 1 of this joint

9 motion is a witness Mrs. Nezirovic Dusanka, and we propose to replace her

10 with another person, another lady, called -- just a moment -- Andric

11 Pelka, Andric Pelka, because, Your Honour, we already informed the

12 Registry with these changes in regard to 92 bis, so everything is fully in

13 coordination with the Registry.

14 Another thing, Your Honour, is character witnesses. Defence is

15 not able to locate and to contact Dr. Mesud Nogic and, in fact, instead of

16 Mr. Nogic, the Defence will call, under Rule 92 bis, Mr. Jusufovic Jusuf,

17 who is already on the list 92 bis, but he can testify on the character

18 of Mr. Blagoje Simic, so there are only these two small changes.

19 Also I am informed by the Court officer that - and I do apologise

20 on behalf of my team - that there are some typewriting problems and errors

21 with regard to the name of Mr. Nijemcevic, Mitar. The right and exact

22 family name and name is Nijemcevic, Mitar but not Nijemcevic, Dragan like

23 it was mentioned in my earliest -- in my first motion.

24 And we do believe that by this afternoon, we shall receive

25 certificated translation from interpreters unit of the expert witness,

1 handwriting expert, forensic witness, Dr. Aleksic. As a matter of

2 courtesy, I already provided one copy of B/C/S language, I gave it to the

3 Prosecution. It's not so big document, maybe six or seven pages, so I

4 believe that by this afternoon we could have the translation, and

5 hopefully it will be filed tomorrow. If not, Your Honour, maybe we could

6 file B/C/S version, and then immediately while we are away, I can instruct

7 the Registry and our colleagues to just attach translation, official

8 translation, of that report --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

10 MR. PANTELIC: -- to my motion.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: As long as the report is filed, at least before we

12 resume next year so that the --

13 MR. PANTELIC: No problem with that. In next couple of days

14 maximum.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: To give the Prosecution sufficient time. Thank

16 you.

17 Mr. Lukic?

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] To follow up on what my colleague

19 Mr. Pantelic said, and it's a request of all of us, in connection with the

20 psychological expert testimony, Dr. Leposava Kron has -- the report has

21 been submitted and translated. In accordance with the Registry, we agreed

22 -- the report itself consists of 30 or 40 pages. In order to facilitate

23 the work of the translation unit here, the text of this report and the

24 Barasin report and Professor Nikolic report, you said -- you saw that we

25 had done the translation in Belgrade. So we agreed that we should provide

1 the translation in order to facilitate the work here. So the report has

2 been translated, but we should like to check the translation once again

3 because it's a very technical text, and we should like the deadline to be

4 extended until the 20th of December. We need only a couple of days when

5 we get back to Belgrade to verify, to check, the translation, so we would

6 like the deadline to be extended until the 20th of December, and by that

7 time it will surely be filed.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection to the extension?

9 MR. DI FAZIO: No, if Your Honours please.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Then that is granted.

11 Very well, we will continue our proceedings tomorrow at 9.00.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

13 4.28 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

14 the 10th day of December, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25