1 Thursday, 20 February 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Case number IT-95-9-T, the

7 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the Prosecution is cross-examining.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If Your Honours please, before I continue

10 with my cross-examination, there is an evidential issue that has arisen

11 and that the Prosecution wishes to address you on before it continues with

12 its cross-examination and Mr. Re will make that application.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

14 MR. RE: The Prosecution has an application. The application is

15 simply this: I'll just tell Your Honours what the application is and then

16 address you on it. The application is to seek the Trial Chamber's leave

17 to cross-examine the accused Mr. Tadic on matters which were in the

18 records of interview, the telephone interviews, which the Trial Chamber

19 ruled upon in the order of 11th of September, 2001. For the purposes of

20 the -- it only goes to my submission will be only directed to credibility

21 and prior inconsistent statement, not being used as part of the

22 Prosecution case. For the purposes of this application, I will hand to

23 Your Honours a copy of the decision for Your Honours' ease of following it

24 and for the purposes of the application the telephone interviews I'll hand

25 you a copy of those so that you can follow the points I wish to address

1 you on.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. RE: First of all I hand up three copies of the Trial

4 Chamber's decision of the 11th of September, 2001, entitled decision on

5 Prosecutor's request to add further exhibits to the confidential

6 Prosecution exhibit list filed on the 9th of April, 2001 and I have some

7 copies for my learned friends.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic? You have something to say?

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Naturally, I cannot object the

10 Prosecution giving their arguments at the very beginning but what I'm

11 objecting to is that they quote any part of that interview in order to

12 support their argumentation before the Trial Chamber rules on it. So I

13 would request that the argumentation of the OTP be restricted strictly to

14 legal matters, not to factual matters and then I will present my

15 argumentation once I hear what they have to say.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's better to allow the Prosecution to put

17 before the Chamber what they want to put before the Chamber and then the

18 Trial Chamber will be able to decide on the next step to be taken.

19 MR. RE: For the purposes of the application only and I assure my

20 learned friend Mr. Lukic of that, I hand up copies of the telephone

21 interview with Mr. Tadic and the OTP on the 26th of April, 1996, telephone

22 interview with Mr. Tadic, a transcript of it, the 29th of April, 1996, and

23 thirdly, the telephone interview with Mr. Tadic on the 22nd of May, 1996.

24 Copies for the Trial Chamber and for the Defence.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

1 MR. RE: If I can take Your Honours to page 3 of the decision --

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. Your Honours,

3 I am stating my objection again. I don't think that this document should

4 be analysed in this way. The Prosecution wants to present something to

5 the Trial Chamber without explaining why they want to do that. I've

6 explained very clearly when I objected the first time what were the

7 reasons. If you remember, the reason was that the OTP did not apply the

8 rules of procedure properly, because they did not inform the accused of

9 the charges, and that was the basis for the Trial Chamber's ruling. They

10 objected to this kind of attitude of the OTP with respect to the accused.

11 Forcing him to take the interview without informing him of the charges,

12 and now they are trying to bring in the interview again. Let them state

13 what their reasons are without quoting the interview. Trial Chamber's

14 ruling was based on the fact that you did not wish to be informed of the

15 interview, which was taken illegally from the accused, and now, the

16 Prosecution is trying to present that very interview to the Trial Chamber.

17 When the Prosecution informed us how they interviewed Tadic before

18 informing him of the charges and one of the most fundamental rules of the

19 Statute is Rule 21 where it says that the accused needs to be informed of

20 the charges. Now they are trying to go around this. They want to you

21 read the interview, which you have already declared to be illegally

22 obtained. Let them present their arguments first. If they have something

23 that goes against the credibility of that witness, they can put questions

24 to the witness without presenting the conclusions to us first. I insist

25 on hearing the arguments of the OTP for raising this matter now. They

1 cannot raise the matter by simply giving the Trial Chamber the document to

2 read which the Trial Chamber declined to be informed of.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 MR. RE: Your Honours, I was not reading from the interviews, I

5 was referring Your Honours to page 3 of the decision and the decision does

6 not say that it was illegally obtained. What my friend said was just

7 wrong. I was taking Your Honours to the basis for the exclusion and I was

8 going to address you on that. And then come to the evidentiary issues

9 which you as professional Judges must look into before deciding on the

10 admissibility of the motion which I haven't yet got to because of my

11 learned friend's objection to me even addressing you on it.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] One more matter, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, can you just wait a minute? Can you just

14 sit down? Mr. Re, the Trial Chamber wants to know whether these

15 interviews are the same interviews, the basis of this decision?

16 MR. RE: Yes, that's the bases of the application but the

17 application is only put on the basis of impeachment in relation to

18 credibility and a prior inconsistent statement, not consciousness of

19 guilt. It was excluded for one reason. I have case law which I will take

20 you to if I can get to that. The application is to allow the Prosecution

21 to cross-examine Mr. Tadic as to inconsistencies between various

22 statements he has made on various issues which goes only to his

23 credibility and believability as a witness, and when the Trial Chamber has

24 to decide his credibility versus the versions of other witnesses who may

25 not have made statements which the Trial Chamber could decide to be

1 inconsistent as to who you will believe on various issues. None of these

2 issues are in the nature of a confession or in the nature of an admission

3 which is, "I committed the crime or I did not commit the crime." These

4 only go to a number of inconsistencies the Prosecution would say between

5 various versions the defendant has given of different issues in the case

6 but none of them being the big one, none of them being the complete

7 admission to the offence. That is that is the nature of the application.

8 It is limited only to credibility. Prior inconsistent statement,

9 impeachment. It does not go to consciousness of guilt. And Mr. Lukic

10 said that the Trial Chamber excluded it on the basis of it being illegally

11 obtained. This is just -- that is very far from the truth. If you look

12 at the decision, page --

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re? You finished your legal argument?

15 MR. RE: I'm trying to start it. Mr. Lukic, I think, wants to

16 object again before I finish my argument. He's on his feet so I'll sit

17 down.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought you have said so because you are

19 dealing -- you are stating that you only want to use them as to

20 credibility and nothing else.

21 MR. RE: Completely correct, yes.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

23 MR. RE: The basis upon -- this is what I was taking Your Honours

24 to the basis upon as I can see, as the Prosecution understands the Trial

25 Chamber's exclusion was not that it was an involuntary statement which of

1 course would render it inadmissible but only as -- on a discretionary

2 basis as to the way it was obtained. That is a -- not a violation but it

3 was obtained in such a way as the Trial Chamber considered it to be unfair

4 to use it in the Prosecution case against the accused, because the Trial

5 Chamber found that the accused did not fully -- was not satisfied the

6 accused did not fully appreciate the seriousness of the indictment, nor

7 understand fully the nature of the indictment and the proceedings. Now

8 that is obviously a pure -- a discretionary decision. It's not a -- based

9 upon fairness grounds rather than voluntariness. The three interviews

10 which I understand that the Trial Chamber had in front of them for the

11 purposes of deciding the Prosecutor's original application to use it in

12 the Prosecution case, reveal very clearly that firstly Mr. Tadic was the

13 person who initiated the contact with the OTP, telephoning them, in the --

14 all three of the interviews he had his lawyer present with him, the second

15 one the lawyer came in after the first few minutes, maybe five, ten

16 minutes, into the interview, he was cautioned, and the procedures were

17 entirely consistent with Rule 43 for the interview of a suspect, although

18 of course he wasn't a suspect, he was an indicted accused at the time.

19 And each of the three interviews reveals the cautioning, the reading of

20 the rights, the establishment by the OTP as to whether Mr. Tadic was

21 voluntarily speaking to the OTP, whether he wanted a lawyer, and so on.

22 And it transpired that his lawyer was there with him. In the last record

23 of interview his lawyer even spoke to the OTP over the phone.

24 So --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

1 MR. RE: Your Honour, that should put aside in my submission any

2 concerns Your Honours may have as to even now the voluntary nature of what

3 he said. What we look at is whether or not, if it's not part of the

4 Prosecution case, and has been excluded, the Prosecutor or another party

5 is entitled to cross-examine the witness or the accused as to any

6 differences between any statements he has made in the past and his --

7 that's hearsay evidence of course, and his in court testimony. And of

8 course it would operate in a common law jurisdiction as an exception to

9 the hearsay rule, a prior inconsistent statement of an out of court

10 representation of a witness.

11 The Prosecutor's submission here is that it does not infringe any

12 of his rights under the Statute because it is not being used, the right to

13 be informed of the charge which the Prosecutor says he was informed in

14 general terms of the nature of the charge, in the first record of

15 interview in the first couple of pages he even says I've been indicted for

16 -- I've been indicted for what he says the ethnic cleansing in Bosanski

17 Samac. He was fairly clear that he was aware of the circumstances of the

18 indictment and there was an exchange of information between him and the

19 OTP, as Your Honours can see from the record of interview -- sorry, from

20 the telephone interviews where Mr. Tadic either through his lawyer or

21 himself sent a large volume of material to the OTP, mainly consisting, I

22 think, of exchange lists. So there was an ongoing dialogue so to speak,

23 after he was indicted, after he'd been informed he was indicted and was

24 aware he was facing charges of quote ethnic cleansing unquote.

25 Now the Prosecutor says that in those three telephone interviews

1 which he made voluntarily after having been informed of his right not to

2 speak to the Prosecutor, that it was being taped, having obtained his

3 consent in all three to the taping of the interviews, and having his

4 lawyer present, he gave information to the OTP which the Prosecutor says

5 is inconsistent with some of the answers, some of the testimony he's

6 given, over the last few days.

7 We have done some comparative law research to look for -- sorry, I

8 withdraw that. The starting point is ICTY and perhaps ICTR jurisprudence

9 on this particular point. Our searches have been unable to reveal any

10 direct precedent in the ICTY on this particular point or any ruling of a

11 Trial Chamber. Our searches have been unable to reveal but sometimes

12 there are oral rulings which are hard to detect. We have done a survey of

13 the major common law systems. As far as we can see it's not really a

14 matter which is applicable in civil law systems because of the role of the

15 investigating judge or the larger role of judges in civil law, criminal

16 trials, and their role being determinative of the -- from an earlier

17 stage, and the use that can be made of it, of an inconsistency. And it

18 would appear that in the major civil systems it wouldn't really make a

19 difference, the judge would be able to use it if he or she wished, having

20 had the material in front of him or her for the duration of the trial, all

21 of the material.

22 The most relevant jurisdiction we can find or the most relevant

23 area on point is in the United States, and the exception to the Miranda

24 rules for violations of the 5th Amendment where an accused has given

25 information to the police after not having been cautioned. Now, that

1 information cannot be used against him or her in court because it's been

2 obtained in violation of the 5th Amendment and Miranda -- and Miranda but

3 the case law holds that this does not prevent the Prosecution or another

4 party impeaching the witness with that material at a later point if what

5 they -- if they say something contrary to the material which was excluded.

6 The relevant cases to which I refer Your Honours, and I'll hand up the

7 cases, the case two United States Supreme Court cases of Harris and New

8 York, the citation is 401, U.S., 222, and the case of Calder -- just

9 excuse me one moment, I have it. The case of - I'm sorry - Walder,

10 W-A-L-D-E-R and the United States, 347, U.S., 62. I hand up these two

11 cases and provide copies to my colleagues on the Defence.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 MR. RE: If I could take Your Honours first to the case of Walder

14 and the United States, Your Honours can see from the head note on the

15 first page the circumstances of the case. That is what -- that is it

16 relates to the credibility of an accused and the possession of narcotics.

17 The relevant passage is in the second page of the copy I've handed up, you

18 see on the second half of the page, it's at page 356 of the citation.

19 There is a paragraph heading 2, "It is one thing to say that the

20 government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully

21 obtained" -- and I just interpolate here that there is no issue despite

22 what my friend said, that the evidence which Your Honours excluded on a

23 discretionary basis was illegally or unlawfully obtained. It was a

24 discretionary fairness exclusion. I go back to the judgement "It is quite

25 another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which

1 evidence in the government's possession was obtained to his own advantage.

2 And provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.

3 Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the

4 4th" --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please slow down for the interpreters.

7 MR. RE: I'll repeat that last sentence, "Such extension of the

8 Weeks, W-E-E-K-S, doctrine would be a perversion of the 4th Amendment."

9 The next paragraph outlines the circumstances and I take you -- Your

10 Honours can read that and I take you to the last sentence on that page:

11 "Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the

12 defendant" --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down?

14 MR. RE: "Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for

15 letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in

16 reliance on the government's disability to challenge his credibility."

17 And that really is the situation here, that the Prosecution's hands are

18 tied behind their back if it has material excluded only on fairness

19 grounds which may suggest that the defendant is not being truthful in his

20 evidence before the Trial Chamber.

21 The second case is Harris and New York, again a U.S. Supreme

22 Court decision. The basis of the decision was that the -- a statement of

23 the accused was held inadmissible because the defendant had not been

24 ruled -- advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent prior to

25 making the statement but otherwise, it satisfied legal standards of

1 trustworthiness, the Supreme Court held that it was properly usable for

2 impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of the defendant's trial

3 testimony. The passages I take Your Honours to for the purposes of this

4 application on the second page of the copy I've handed up, which is at 224

5 of the reported judgement, second paragraph, on the second half of the

6 page, halfway down, "Miranda barred the Prosecution from making its case

7 with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or

8 effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that

9 evidence inadmissible against an accused in the Prosecution's case in

10 chief is barred for all purposes, provided, of course, that the

11 trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards." And then the

12 Court in the next paragraph affirms the quotation I read to you a moment

13 ago from Walder. And over the page, the second paragraph, with the

14 paragraph heading 1, "Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in

15 his own defence or to refuse to do so but that privilege cannot be

16 construed to include the right to commit perjury." And the top of the

17 second half of the page, the second column, "The shield provided by

18 Miranda can not be perverted into a licence to use perjury by way of a

19 defence free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent

20 utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was

21 appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements."

22 The Prosecution says that the accused has given inconsistent --

23 sorry, has given testimony which is inconsistent with statements he made

24 in each of the three prior records of interview. Sorry, the telephone

25 interviews, which I've handed up for the purposes only of this

1 application.

2 In broad categories, they are in the --

3 MR. LUKIC: Objection.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic?

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I object. I am listening to the

6 Prosecution and I will say what I think after they finish but I'm opposed

7 to the Prosecution bringing out their arguments, what the witness said in

8 one way then and in another way now. So I'm asking the Prosecution,

9 please, to finish with their argument so that I can respond and then --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I didn't know that the Prosecution have

11 finished their legal argument, and now they are going to quote whatever

12 the statements are. I didn't realise that. So that's why I was not

13 prepared to allow to you speak. I thought the Prosecution is still

14 continuing with their legal arguments.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I agree.

16 MR. RE: I'll conclude my legal arguments, I was going to take

17 Your Honours to the basis for the Prosecution making the application being

18 what we say are inconsistencies, however I'll just conclude the legal

19 argument which is -- or summarise it, which is the Prosecution does not,

20 and I assure my defence colleagues of this, would not intend to use it as

21 evidence of consciousness of guilt. That is the defendant lied because

22 the defendant was -- had a guilty conscience or guilty mind or had a

23 reason to lie. The Prosecution would only seek to make use of what we

24 say, and it's up to the Trial Chamber of course to judge, are

25 inconsistencies between various versions to impeach his credibility, and

1 this is particularly important in situations where a witness may have

2 given evidence on an issue contrary to the defendant's testimony, the

3 accused's testimony, which may be inconsistent with something in an

4 earlier utterance which has been excluded on a discretionary basis, and

5 when the Trial Chamber has to assess who is more believable on different

6 issues, the Trial Chamber should have before it all statements by any

7 witness or an accused in relation -- as long as they are voluntary, in

8 relation to the issue which the Trial Chamber has to decide, and this is

9 particularly important when deciding the competing credibilities between

10 two witnesses or the accused and a witness, either of his own -- either a

11 Defence witness or a Prosecution witness, especially when there is no

12 corroboration from anywhere else on those points. Sometimes it's the only

13 thing which a court or Trial Chamber can look at in determining who is

14 more believable is whether the Prosecution is entitled to submit at the

15 end a witness or the defendant, accused, is unbelievable on this issue or

16 another because of the following.

17 That is the limited use which the Prosecution would seek to make

18 by cross-examining the accused on parts of his prior -- what we say are

19 inconsistent statements. Those are the legal arguments, we put it clearly

20 there is no illegality, the Prosecution says no violation of the Statute.

21 The decision doesn't reflect a violation of the Statute. It reflects a

22 discretionary exclusion on the basis of fairness which the Prosecution

23 says would bring it in, would open it, to allow the Prosecution to

24 cross-examine or another party on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court --

25 the United States practice, after something has been excluded for a

1 technical -- a violation of someone's rights but it is otherwise a

2 voluntary statement.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Re, concerning the Harris and New York case,

5 I see there are four very renowned Supreme Court of the United States

6 Justices dissenting in that case. Have you appended any of the dissents

7 to this?

8 MR. RE: No. I can obtain them.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm sure we can obtain them too in the library

10 but as I say there are four very strong, all Supreme Court of the United

11 States Justices are, but we do have very -- four who are dissenting so

12 this was not an unanimous decision obviously on this point and a second

13 question that I have is this is a 1970 decision. The Walder case is

14 1953. Have there been any developments since 1973 concerning this issue,

15 the fruit of the poisonous tree as Americans like to call it? And a third

16 point, quite obviously we are not bound by decisions of United States

17 Supreme Court or any other domestic jurisdiction. We are an International

18 Tribunal so from the point of view of comparative reference, I think we

19 should have case law cited to us from other countries other than just the

20 United States.

21 MR. RE: Can my colleague Mr. Weiner address you on the U.S.

22 Supreme Court point? The Prosecution has endeavoured to obtain

23 comparative research on this particular point. We have not been able to

24 find anything particularly -- exactly on this point. There is some

25 English law but the Pace Act - the Police and Criminal Evidence Act - has

1 basically overturned a common law position contrary to what we are arguing

2 and in my submission, that probably wouldn't be very helpful. We can

3 endeavour to find more. We've looked. We've surveyed jurisdictions

4 Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Australia, Kenya, India, even Canada. And

5 the Canadian -- there was a Canadian Supreme Court case which appeared to

6 be contrary but it related to consciousness of guilt as opposed to

7 impeachment on the basis of credibility. We couldn't find anything in

8 Canada and we looked, which was directly on point but my learned friend

9 Mr. Weiner can certainly address you on the American aspect better than I

10 can.

11 MR. WEINER: Just --

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Very briefly, Mr. Weiner.

14 MR. WEINER: Just very briefly, Your Honour, this has been the

15 United States law since the Walder case, since 1954. This has been held

16 repeatedly throughout all federal jurisdictions and throughout the States

17 within the United States. In fact, I argued one of these types of cases

18 in 1983 relating to guns and drugs, where evidence -- where information

19 had been excluded from trial, where the defendant got on the witness stand

20 and lied, and the court then changed the decision or reviewed its decision

21 and said we will allow you to use that information which had been rejected

22 strictly on the terms for impeachment. It was a non-published decision in

23 1983 before the Massachusetts appeals court which was a successful

24 decision. I could get the name if the Court would like but this has been

25 the decision -- this has been the view of the United States since the

1 Walder case, that there is no shield for perjury. Evidence which has been

2 excluded may be used whether it is a 4th Amendment and these are

3 constitutional violations. The Walder decision concerned a 4th Amendment

4 violation, which the right of search and seizure and the Harris versus New

5 York concerned a violation relating to admissability of statements, 5th

6 Amendment related statements. And in each of those areas the statements

7 were later to be used and that is the position of the United States for

8 approximately 50 years.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Mr. Lukic?

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, from everything that we

11 have heard so far from the other side, it only confirms my position that

12 the Prosecution is following the wrong road and is trying, via the back

13 door, to do something on which the Chamber has already ruled. Why? The

14 entire arguments of the Prosecution go in favour of what you have said and

15 what I have said and what I'm going to repeat now.

16 It's not up to the Prosecution or the Defence to interpret your

17 decision. Perhaps we could interpret some other Chamber's decision but

18 you, as the Chamber that reached this decision of 11th of September, 2001,

19 know best whether this was a formal or a substantial decision. According

20 to what I think, what you said in the passage before last, on page 3, and

21 you said, [In English] integrity of the process, [Interpretation] does not

22 mean that it is missed procedural thing that the Prosecution didn't carry

23 out during that interview. I think that you have noted the seriousness of

24 such an interview, and the facts which could appear as evidence in the

25 course of the case itself.

1 What I stated then and I am stating now, not going into the broad

2 practice referred to by the Prosecution, I'm going to cite one and

3 fundamental act which is probably a key act in your proceedings, and that

4 is Rule 21 of the Statute. What I said then, item 4, -- 4(A), "The

5 accused must be informed in detail about the nature and the reasons of the

6 charges against him." That is the key. And without this right, there can

7 be no interview with any person, if they happen to be accused, and if

8 there is an indictment against that person. That is the catch. That is

9 what you said that we would not permit in this -- in these proceedings,

10 any catches. The accused was Miroslav Tadic, there was a public

11 indictment issued against him, the Prosecution conducted an interview with

12 him but did not inform him in detail about the charges against him. And

13 now the Prosecution is using that -- those allegations, wishing to compare

14 them with the allegations from this case. What the Prosecution would like

15 to do, and the Chamber and I agree, of course, is that one of the main

16 tasks of this Tribunal is to confirm the credibility and the consistency

17 of statements. He needs to be informed about the allegations and he

18 needs -- these need to be confirmed with evidence of other witnesses, and

19 proof, and these have to be done with something that is permissible to be

20 compared with. You have said that these things are not permissible and

21 not to be used for comparison. The Prosecution has said that it was a

22 mistake, quote unquote, because he was not informed of all the charges but

23 that all the other rights of the accused he was informed about that he had

24 a counsel and that he was informed of his rights. I'm now asking my

25 learned friends from the Prosecution why would anybody need a counsel if

1 the counsel or the person were not aware of what this person is charged

2 with? What right is being met here? Why would anybody need to be

3 informed of their rights if they are not informed of the allegations

4 against them? And because of such an interview, some possible facts were

5 stated, upon which the Prosecution wishes to deal with credibility issues.

6 I think that here we have a flagrant violation of Rule 21 of the Statute,

7 which the Prosecution accepted because, in the ultimate instance, they did

8 not appeal your decision. The Prosecution, without any objection,

9 accepted your ruling, your decision, Your Honours, and now are trying to

10 introduce -- reintroduce this.

11 The position of Miroslav Tadic's Defence is based exclusively on

12 the Statute and on your decision. Nothing has happened or changed for

13 this decision to be reviewed and changed again. Opening up this interview

14 in order to check the consistency means checking facts, and facts which

15 were provided in one way and cannot be compared with facts that you have

16 determined were not given in the proper procedure.

17 And finally, I would like to say as far as procedure is concerned,

18 if the Prosecution wanted to initiate this earlier, I will wait, of

19 course, for the decision of the Chamber but this would lead us to a

20 dramatic situation regarding the rights of the accused and so on but this

21 is something that I do not wish to dwell on now. I think the matter is

22 crystal clear. In order to check consistency, we can compare that with

23 facts which the Trial Chamber views as suitable for comparison, but

24 because one of the basic fundamental rights was violated, and I do not

25 need to remind the Chamber that this provision of the Statute is based on

1 all fundamental human rights decisions about basic -- all the charters,

2 the basic Declaration on Human Rights and others, in any of these

3 charters, the accused has the right to be informed in detail about the

4 charges against him. How can Miroslav Tadic know what ethnic cleansing is

5 in the view of the Prosecution if he had not seen the indictment? So such

6 an interview, which was -- if I were the Prosecutor, I would bury deep in

7 some drawer, they are trying to use it now at this point. And I really

8 very strongly object to that.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour on the same issue, because it's --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic -- you are not the counsel for

11 Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour but very briefly --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I will not allow you to make any submissions on

14 this.

15 MR. PANTELIC: It's a fact also general legal --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Your client gave evidence, this issue

17 didn't arise. It doesn't touch him and these interviews were done with

18 the accused Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I understand Your Honour --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: You are not co-counsel.

21 MR. PANTELIC: They relate to the case law and to the fundamental

22 issues --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, sit down.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. No problem. I concur with your decision, of

25 course.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will adjourn and we will notify

3 the parties when we shall resume the proceedings.

4 --- Break taken at 9.50 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has considered the oral motion by

7 the Prosecution on their application for leave to use the interviews, the

8 subject matter of the decision of the Trial Chamber on 11 September,

9 2001. We have also considered the submissions of the Defence, and we have

10 decided that the motion should be rejected. The reasons will be given in

11 writing in due course.

12 So the cross-examination continues.

13 WITNESS: MIROSLAV TADIC [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, if Your Honours please.

16 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

17 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday you said that your assessment of the events

18 of the night of the 16th and 17th was that the town was under attack. You

19 recall saying that?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. And do you agree that essentially, on Friday last, you described

22 these events, you heard shooting at about 2.30 from the foot bridge,

23 shooting spread to other parts of the town, and at dawn, the episode where

24 your house came under fire occurred? That's a fair assessment of what you

25 said, correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Your reaction on the night of -- sorry, on the 17th, was to

3 telephone the 4th Detachment headquarters across the road. You were

4 informed that the commander, Mr. Antic, had gone to Pelagicevo, he called

5 you back in the afternoon, told to you do nothing? That's correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the Prosecutor to

8 quote from the transcript. I don't believe that the witness stated it

9 exactly in that way, so I would like that to be quoted, if the Prosecutor

10 is referring to what this witness stated, then he should also tell us

11 where was that recorded.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't have to do that with respect, but I am

13 happy to oblige.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the question was understood by the

15 defendant, and he answered.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps to not use up any more time, Mr. Lukic, I

17 think you'll find the evidence in the LiveNote transcript at page 74

18 onwards from Friday, the 14th.

19 Q. Essentially, though, essentially, Mr. Tadic, you did nothing

20 that -- in response, other than to make the briefest of inquiries and the

21 4th Detachment did nothing on the 17th, nothing that you were able to

22 discern?

23 A. I've said yes to your previous question, because doing nothing and

24 waiting for orders are two quite similar things. I personally didn't do

25 anything and as for the 4th Detachment, I don't know what it did, what

1 orders it received. I know that I personally did not receive any orders

2 but the 4th Detachment could have received orders in view of its position

3 and it didn't have to receive orders. It depended on the commander. Some

4 parts could have been issued orders and some parts not -- so.

5 Q. Mr. Tadic, you were in the command of the 4th Detachment, you were

6 the assistant commander for logistics. You received no orders to do

7 anything positive on the day of the 17th, did you?

8 A. Neither positive nor negative.

9 Q. All right. Well, thank you. Now, did you report the shooting

10 that you had heard during the night to the command of the 4th Detachment?

11 A. I did not, because they were able to hear the shooting also. I

12 will repeat again that at the time the phones weren't working and one

13 couldn't use them to report anything.

14 Q. You were still --

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have just found in the

16 transcript something to which I objected just a minute ago. The witness

17 said that he had spoken to his commander on the 17th at 11.00 a.m. whereas

18 the Prosecutor said that the witness had stated that they talked to each

19 other in the afternoon. This is why I wanted this to be shown to the

20 witness, when we are talking about these dates, the hour is very

21 important, and I think that this should be presented to the witness. This

22 is on page 15213, line 8.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Before I go there --

24 Q. Mr. Tadic, on the 14th of February, Friday the 14th of February,

25 referring to page 76 of the transcript, your counsel asked you --

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Will Your Honours just bear with me for a moment?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

5 Q. On the -- last Friday, the 14th of February, your counsel asked

6 you, "The next day, Radovan called me and I went across the street I went

7 there. Question: We are talking about the 18th of April? Answer: Yes,

8 I went to see him since the phones were working. I had already called

9 some people and asked them what was going on and the people told me so I

10 knew what happened. So I went to see Radovan he said the commander of the

11 tactical group ordered that a part of the 4th Detachment takes the border

12 areas around the Bosna River and a part of the 4th Detachment should go

13 about collecting the illegal weapons."

14 So you spoke to -- you spoke to the commander, Mr. Radovan Antic,

15 on the 18th?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And page 75, your counsel asked you questions about the events of

18 the 17th, he asked you if you left your house, you said, I didn't go

19 anywhere, the command was across the road, you could just yell out to

20 them, you called them on the phone, you were told that the commander had

21 gone to Pelagicevo, he had not said anything regarding about any activity,

22 told that you had better stay at home, later Radovan came back, told me

23 there was no need for me to come and that he would call you when he needed

24 you. That's a fair assessment of what happened on the 17th. In fact it's

25 your own words, page 75 of the transcript? Now, that's a fair assessment

1 of what happened, isn't it, on the 17th? According to you.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, let's get back to your informing the command or not informing

4 the command of what you had seen and observed on the night of the 16th and

5 17th. You didn't tell the command of the 4th Detachment of the shooting,

6 now you say that was because they had seen it themselves or heard it

7 themselves. How do you know that?

8 A. Because both them and I have ears and we can hear what's going

9 on. Other people have stated here as well that they had heard shooting

10 that night so why wouldn't they hear it? The house of Radovan Antic is

11 much closer to the bridge than mine, so he could have heard it just as I

12 heard it.

13 Q. What about the shots being fired at your house? Did you report to

14 the command of the 4th Detachment that your house had been fired upon,

15 that you had almost been killed?

16 A. I probably did inform him, I don't remember the details, but I

17 probably did it when I saw him and I told him that among other things,

18 this had happened as well. I wouldn't have omitted mentioning that but he

19 had no comments to offer.

20 Q. Did you report to Mr. Zaric, the assistant commander for security

21 in the 4th Detachment, of the shooting that you'd heard and of the attack

22 that your house had come under?

23 A. I might have told him about it but I don't remember. It wasn't

24 necessary to inform him because he had probably heard it from other

25 people. He knew what was going on. I didn't inform him officially,

1 Mr. Zaric, this and this had happened.

2 Q. Mr. Tadic, the town is under attack. That's your assessment. The

3 town is under attack, gun fire has been heard. Your house has been shot

4 at. Bullets have been fired in your direction. You are in the command of

5 the 4th Detachment. You seem to have adopted a fairly casual approach to

6 dealing with the situation.

7 A. I didn't attribute much significance to this because I could see

8 that shooting at my house was just an incident that was over quite

9 quickly.

10 Q. So you weren't too concerned about hearing gun fire in the town in

11 the middle of the night? You weren't too concerned about your house

12 coming -- having come under fire? You weren't too concerned about having

13 narrowly escaped death?

14 A. It is possible that I was concerned but not as concerned as you

15 depict it. I wasn't gripped by panic --

16 Q. No?

17 A. Regarding these incidents.

18 Q. Is that because you knew precisely what was going on on the night

19 of the 16th and 17th of April, you knew exactly what was happening, you

20 knew that there was a takeover in progress, and that you were

21 participating in that? Is that the reason for your lack of deep concern?

22 A. It's not that. I simply was not concerned. Now, the fact that

23 you're presenting it in your way is something quite different.

24 Q. And again, from what you could see and observe, the 4th command or

25 rather the command of the 4th command was not too concerned either,

1 because Mr. Radovan Antic left no orders that you were aware of on the

2 17th for you to follow?

3 MR. LUKIC: Objection, Your Honour, calling for speculation.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: It's a matter of pure -- pure fact. He's being

5 asked the 4th command left -- let me rephrase it and put the question in

6 this way.

7 Q. The 4th Detachment left -- gave you no specific orders, did it, on

8 the 17th?

9 A. No, no orders whatsoever. I had no orders. It could be concluded

10 that the commander didn't have them either because you know that very

11 early that morning, he went to Pelagicevo to see the commander, so had he

12 had orders on the 17th in the morning he wouldn't have gone to Pelagicevo

13 which is some 40 kilometres away to receive possible instructions.

14 Q. The 4th Detachment had means of communications in its possession,

15 didn't it? Radios, telephones?

16 A. Yes, telephones, it did have telephones.

17 Q. What about radios, radio communications, walkie-talkies, radio

18 sets, the sort of things armies and soldiers have as a matter of course?

19 It had those facilities as well, didn't it?

20 A. No, it didn't have those.

21 Q. Are you telling the Chamber -- are you telling the Judges that the

22 4th Detachment didn't have radio sets, didn't have any communication

23 means, this army that existed in 1992, did not have any means of wireless

24 communication?

25 A. Mr. Di Fazio, that wasn't the army. These people were reservists

1 with very, very limited duties. Therefore, they didn't have those

2 facilities that you mentioned.

3 Q. They had uniforms, did they not?

4 A. Some did but they didn't wear the uniforms. Those uniforms were

5 kept in suitcases or in wardrobes at home. Those were reserve uniforms,

6 reserve garments that they had to put on at a certain time.

7 Q. I see. What about the weapons? Did they have weapons?

8 A. They did have weapons, but those weapons were treated similarly as

9 uniforms. They were not worn around town, they were kept where they

10 believed it was safest to keep it, away from family members and children

11 and so on. They had to secure the weapon in order to prevent the children

12 from getting a hold of it because these people had their jobs and they had

13 to go away and work during daytime.

14 Q. I see. So incidentally, were the weapons also kept in suitcases

15 or stored somewhere safe?

16 A. Some were very safe. For the reasons that I have just given you.

17 Q. How many men were in the 4th Detachment, approximately?

18 A. In the beginning, there were fewer men and later on, there were

19 just above 400, around 400, 450 towards the end of that period leading up

20 to the 17th of April.

21 Q. It was part of the JNA?

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. Therefore, a formation which is part of the JNA consisting of 400

24 men didn't have any wireless communication?

25 A. I didn't have it. I didn't see it. Therefore, I assume they

1 didn't have it. It could be that somebody else had it and I didn't know

2 about it. That's a different matter.

3 Q. All right. Very well. We'll move away, then, from the 17th and

4 let's go to the 18th of April, 1992. You have described two essential

5 tasks that were undertaken by the 4th Detachment, firstly was the securing

6 of border areas around the Bosna River and the collection of illegal

7 weapons; is that correct?

8 A. Precisely so.

9 Q. And you've given evidence of later collection of weapons by the

10 4th Detachment. In the course of that collection of weapons, were legally

11 possessed weapons seized?

12 A. I didn't go with the soldiers who were assigned to collect

13 weapons. I said that illegal weapons were confiscated, so during that

14 first period of time, they probably did not confiscate legally possessed

15 weapons.

16 Q. You gave detailed evidence of the consensual nature of the

17 seizures. You gave detailed evidence of the manner in which soldiers from

18 the 4th Detachment simply asked for weapons to be handed over and you gave

19 evidence that houses were not entered or searched by soldiers of the 4th

20 Detachment. How were they to obtain illegally possessed weapons if they

21 weren't entering houses and searching?

22 A. I have already said how they could have done it. The explicit

23 orders of the commander were to collect illegally possessed weapons

24 without forcing anyone to surrender weapons. So simply two or three

25 soldiers would come two or three soldiers covering that area, and they

1 would go door-to-door and say hello, good afternoon, do you have any

2 illegal weapons? And then the other person would say no. And then they

3 would go to the next door, and so on. That's the way that this went on.

4 A large number of people did have weapons and took it out and turned it

5 over to the members of the 4th Detachment. Sometimes they would say,

6 well, it's owned by my father, it's owned by my brother, without saying

7 that it was actually owned by them and this is how they found a way of

8 surrendering weapons to the members of the 4th Detachment.

9 I can give you an example. We've already heard a witness testify

10 here and saying that members of the 4th Detachment came to his house. The

11 witness is called Galic -- Galib Nurkic, and he's an uncle of Saban --

12 Hasan Subasic. According to the records, in our possession, we knew that

13 Galib Nurkic was not a member of the HDZ and did not have weapons. When

14 they came to see him and asked him whether he had weapons he replied no.

15 And the people went on. The following day, he came to my house and

16 complained to me, saying, "Brko, please help me, I lied yesterday. I in

17 fact do have a rifle." I asked him, whose rifle it was and he said,

18 "Don't ask me, you know whose it is." And then I said to him, "All

19 right, Galib, my son will come with you, he will take the rifle and he

20 will turn it over," and he doesn't say anything -- he doesn't have to say

21 anything about the origin of the rifle and that's how it was. He took the

22 rifle from him, he turned it over to the 4th Detachment, without saying

23 whose it was, and as a result of that, Galib had no consequences. He was

24 not detained for illegally possessing a rifle. This is how it was. And

25 there were many similar cases.

1 Q. How can you tell the Trial Chamber of these cases, how can you

2 tell the Trial Chamber of the methodology used by the 4th Detachment when

3 you said two or three questions ago that you didn't go with the soldiers

4 who were assigned to search? How can you testify to all of this unless

5 you were there?

6 A. I am testifying about the fact which is well known. It has

7 nothing to do with any rules of the 4th Detachment, I'm just saying that

8 the man came to me, he said he had a rifle, and that the -- this rifle was

9 taken and surrendered but this other thing that I was saying about the 4th

10 Detachment, these are facts that I heard at the meeting, the meeting of

11 the command of the 4th Detachment, when the commander was issuing

12 individual orders. He wasn't issuing orders to soldiers. He was issuing

13 orders to company commanders, and I was present there because I also was

14 expecting to get an order.

15 Q. I see. So your testimony that the 4th Detachment didn't enter

16 houses, simply asked people to hand over illegal weapons, that's all based

17 on orders that you heard being given on the 18th of April?

18 A. Exactly that.

19 Q. So therefore you can't tell us if any of the testimony of the

20 Prosecution witnesses who described forcible searches of their premises is

21 correct or incorrect, you weren't there.

22 A. I wasn't present when the statements were made that I talked

23 about, but so far I haven't said anything about anybody who did not hand

24 over weapons or that there was any forcible seizure of weapons. I haven't

25 come to that.

1 Q. I'd like to remind you of something else you said in evidence in

2 chief. Mr. Lukic will find this at page 77. Again, your counsel,

3 Mr. Lukic was asking you about the events of the 18th of April, in the

4 course of your answer, you said this: So the commander told me, since the

5 activities of the soldiers had already started, not only in the 4th

6 Detachment but of others, that it would be necessary to see if it was

7 possible to form a kitchen in the -- the text is unclear to me, but I

8 believe you said Tekstilac. What I'm interested in is this: Who were

9 the others who had started activities along with the 4th Detachment that

10 you referred to?

11 A. The others were the other soldiers, if there were any, but there

12 were some from the other battalions, from the 18th, who arrived to secure

13 this line, the line on the River Sava and the River Bosna.

14 Q. What about paramilitaries from Serbia? Were they included in the

15 others that you mentioned?

16 A. They were also hungry and they had to eat somewhere too, but I

17 think that they didn't eat at Tekstilac, I think that they ate at Uniglas,

18 I'm not sure but this is implied. I said that this was a place where

19 soldiers ate also police officers, including also clearly a large number

20 of citizens who were able to find food there. Why would there be any

21 exceptions?

22 Q. Thank you. So it's plain from your testimony that at the very

23 least on the 18th, the 4th Detachment was swinging into action and along

24 with it, were other armed units of the JNA?

25 A. You could say it like that, even though I don't have any detailed

1 information about it.

2 Q. And positions were being secured and adopted by the -- by these

3 armed formations?

4 A. Well, you are pulling me into these powers of the commander. My

5 task was of a different nature. The commander knows what he did and how

6 he deployed the soldiers. I didn't have any insight into that. I can say

7 that the positions were secured.

8 Q. These armed formations, the 4th Detachment and other armed

9 formations of the JNA were, and I quote from your words, they had arrived

10 to secure this line, the line on the River Sava, to secure it, correct?

11 A. I can testify that it is so. What else would they be doing other

12 than that? But these were not my duties, and I am just a man who knows

13 that something was going on, and this is what I'm testifying about.

14 Q. Yes. I understand your position that you knew almost nothing

15 about what was going on. I understand that. But I still want to continue

16 with this line of questioning, if I may.

17 In order to secure positions and take positions, it would have

18 required all sorts of endeavours by these armed formations, wouldn't it?

19 For example, perhaps digging of trenches, parking of vehicles, setting up

20 of posts, that sort of thing?

21 A. Just as you are listing it, I could also say it, because neither

22 of us are really experts on military issues. It is certain that positions

23 had to be secured and this was done by soldiers.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic?

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am following this line

1 now but I object about questions which demand speculation. We all agreed

2 yesterday also that Mr. Tadic is not a military expert, so if a question

3 is asked about what could have been the tasks of the 4th Detachment in the

4 Defence of town, then he should be asked whether he had heard if this

5 happened or that happened, and not whether -- what the command should have

6 had as its own task. He should be asked did he hear, had he heard, that

7 the command was given such and such a task? Those would be the questions

8 then that need to be put.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, let me approach it this way.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

11 MR. DI FAZIO:

12 Q. I'll approach it this way: On the 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and

13 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th of April, did you see how the 4th Detachment

14 and the other armed formations secured the line? Did you see that?

15 A. No. I didn't see that, but I knew that they were securing the

16 line.

17 Q. How many men were involved in this exercise of securing the line?

18 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you.

19 Q. While this operation of securing the line was conducted by these

20 armed formations, were you, as logistics officer, assistant commander for

21 logistics in the 4th Detachment, informed of any requirements relating to

22 equipment such as raincoats, communication equipment, sandbagging

23 requirements, armaments, weapons, repair to weapons, repair to clothing,

24 shovels for digging holes, trenches, earth moving equipment to secure

25 positions, equipment to remove obstacles and trees, anything like that?

1 A. None of that. I've already said here that when I came on the 18th

2 to Tekstilac, that Mr. Mihajlo Tovirac was already there, who was working

3 on these security matters as an expert [as interpreted]. He was a captain

4 and a logistics person in the TO before the war. So he knew all of those

5 military lines and he was carrying out those tasks at that time.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: One correction in the transcript, because here on

7 page 33, line 23 he was working security matters. This is not an accurate

8 translation of what the witness said.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness repeat what he said so that we have

10 a correct translation?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that on the 18th, I said that

12 yesterday or the day before, when I was talking about that, that when I

13 arrived at Tekstilac to form the kitchen, this person, Mr. Mihajlo Tovirac

14 was already there and another neighbour of mine who was also a reserve

15 officer, and they were working on this securing. So they were experts for

16 this job, because this Tovirac was a captain, I don't know whether Captain

17 First Class, and before the war, he worked in the TO on those assignments,

18 so he was dealing with this logistics securing and he knew very well what

19 should be done.

20 MR. DI FAZIO:

21 Q. Did the command in Pelagicevo that was responsible for logistics,

22 inform you, the assistant commander of logistics in the 4th Detachment, of

23 any developments or concerns relating to logistics?

24 A. They didn't inform me about any of that.

25 Q. So therefore, tell me if I'm correct, Mr. Tadic, your role as

1 assistant commander for logistics in the 4th Detachment was basically to

2 organise food? Is that it?

3 A. Yes. I never talked about that with the commander, but they

4 probably assessed that I didn't have enough expertise to do that kind of

5 work so they engaged that other man, not asking me about it at all, and

6 they gave me tasks that I could perform successfully and which I knew how

7 to do, and that's how it was.

8 Q. Mr. Tadic, can you tell the Chamber, can you explain to the

9 Chamber, how it is that a man who doesn't have enough expertise to carry

10 out the position of commander of logistics, assistant commander of

11 logistics, gets that job? Do you know why? How that came about?

12 A. I don't know how that came about, but I said that Mr. Bogdanovic

13 felt that it would be the easiest for me to carry out that aspect of the

14 reserve work, and that's what they gave it to me. They didn't give me

15 other tasks because they knew that I wasn't expert enough to do that, and

16 practically throughout that whole period before the 17th, I wasn't doing

17 anything.

18 Q. Okay. Let's turn now again to the other aspect of the 4th

19 Detachment's activities on the 18th and that's the collection of weapons.

20 Did the 4th Detachment members who went about collecting weapons, as far

21 as you know, of course, carry arms? Were they armed when they did that?

22 A. As far as I could see, I saw that the majority of the members of

23 the 4th Detachment had weapons. They were armed.

24 Q. Did they use vehicles, loudspeakers, that sort of thing?

25 A. Members of the 4th Detachment didn't have any vehicles. They

1 didn't have loudspeakers, and the vehicle, that is being mentioned here,

2 which was used with the loud speaker probably came from some detachment

3 that did have such a vehicle. It must have been a motorised unit or

4 something. As I said I'm not an expert, but there are infantry and

5 motorised units. The infantry ones have only infantry and the motorised

6 have the vehicles. So that probably came from some unit, a motorised unit

7 of that composition.

8 Q. Did any other military formations participate together with the

9 4th Detachment in this collection of weapons?

10 A. I said that the man who was doing the driving, and I don't know if

11 anybody was with him together in the vehicle, but he wasn't from the 4th

12 Detachment, because the 4th Detachment didn't have such a vehicle. I

13 don't know. I didn't see that man so I don't know which unit he was

14 from. Perhaps someone else can tell you that, somebody who is better

15 informed.

16 Q. Yes. Do I take it from that last answer that you gave that the

17 4th Detachment performed this collection of weapons by itself, apart from

18 the appearance of this one stranger driving around in a car? Is that

19 correct? Or vehicle.

20 A. In your first question, you didn't mention the 4th Detachment, but

21 just the vehicle, and I said that the 4th Detachment mainly collected the

22 weapons from the 4th neighbourhood, the sector, so I knew about it, I

23 found out about it and I -- it might have appeared somewhere there but

24 this vehicle never came to the 4th district. I don't know what the

25 collection of weapons was like in the other districts other than what I

1 have already told the Chamber.

2 Q. Mr. Tadic, I don't seem to be getting the answer that I want.

3 I'll repeat the question that I asked three questions ago so that you

4 understand it. Did any other military formations, plural, military

5 formations, participate together with the 4th Detachment in this

6 collection of weapons? If you know of any other military formations

7 please tell the Chamber which formations they were.

8 A. In the 4th district, no. As far as any other organisation is

9 concerned, I don't know, except if you want me to tell you what I heard

10 here in this Chamber. I know that there was a vehicle which was involved

11 in the collection of weapons, but I never dealt with that much, and I know

12 that it did not belong to the 4th Detachment.

13 Q. Did the Serbian volunteers participate in searches, going from

14 house to house, seizing weapons?

15 A. I didn't know at the time from which zone they were -- in which

16 zone they were collecting the weapons. I found out about that here, that

17 they were collecting them, and that they were entering houses. I don't

18 have any knowledge that they were doing it in the 4th district. Perhaps

19 much later. But at the time I don't have any knowledge that they were

20 entering the 4th district.

21 Q. Right. So your position to the Trial Chamber is this, Mr. Tadic:

22 You had to come here to The Hague to find out -- listen to this trial,

23 hear the evidence, to find out that the paramilitaries went around

24 searching people's houses and seizing weapons; is that correct?

25 A. I'm not claiming anything that I don't know. I'm saying that at

1 that moment, I didn't know where those members of the Special Forces, let

2 me call them that way, were collecting weapons because I was focused on

3 the 4th district. I perhaps knew about it one month later, but that

4 doesn't mean anything if I found out that, for example, they were

5 collecting weapons in some other district. The details about them

6 entering houses is something that I heard about in this courtroom. I

7 didn't know about that before. So I'm not claiming anything specifically.

8 What I know is what I claim.

9 Q. I'll put the question in the simplest of terms. When did you

10 ascertain, find out, that the paramilitaries had participated in searching

11 houses and seizing weapons? When did you first become aware of that in

12 time?

13 A. Mr. Di Fazio, I never ascertained which houses they entered, and

14 what weapons they seized.

15 Q. I'm not asking which houses. I'm not asking which houses, Mr.

16 Tadic. It's very simple. When did you find out that the paramilitaries

17 had participated in searches and seized weapons? That's all. Did you

18 find out about it on the 18th, on the 16th, on the 17th? Did you find

19 about it a decade later here at the trial? When did you find out about

20 it?

21 A. I cannot give you a specific date, but you must know that

22 information that I have received over the past nine years are all

23 intermingled. How can I know when I remembered or when I found out from

24 somebody what happened? It's impossible to determine the date. Perhaps I

25 heard that in May or perhaps in July, but I don't have any personal

1 knowledge about the things that you are talking about.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Zaric was in the town on the 17th and 18th of

3 April, wasn't he?

4 A. As far as I know, on the 17th, also based on my information, he

5 went to Pelagicevo and the other days he spent in Samac. I don't know

6 where he was specifically but I assume that he was in Samac.

7 Q. He was asked questions on this topic by investigators from the

8 OTP. I'm referring -- I'll quote to you now from Exhibit P141, that's

9 P141, not P141 ter. It's the English-only version and I'll read out to

10 you what Mr. Zaric had to say on this issue. Page 13. "There is

11 something that is also very important for Mrs. Nancy to know. It wasn't

12 just the 4th Detachment that was going and disarming people in order to

13 prevent a further conflict but also members of Serbian police, those in

14 camouflage uniforms also went to disarm people, and they were doing it in

15 a very different way. They were entering and searching houses and they

16 were detaining people, not only were they doing it but they were also

17 doing it to some members of the 4th Detachment as well. What happened is

18 very important to see. The separation of these two different forces in

19 town and that sometimes members of the 4th Detachment who had their

20 weapons issued legitimately were still being disarmed by the Serbian

21 police and the people in camouflage uniforms" and he goes on to describe

22 the process.

23 So he was aware of this -- of the fact that the men in camouflage

24 uniform, the Sareni, were participating in searches and going into houses,

25 arresting people. Is there any explanation for why he would have that

1 information and you wouldn't, that you're aware of?

2 A. The explanation is very simple. Mr. Zaric was an officer for

3 intelligence and security affairs, so he has no idea how I formed the

4 kitchen. It's a completely different area from what he does. So as an

5 officer for security, and as an experienced policeman, he learned of all

6 of those details, which are a part of his work. The part of my work that

7 I was carrying out is something completely different. I wasn't trained

8 and I didn't know how to carry out the jobs that he was doing, so I don't

9 know what he -- the job that he was carrying out and he doesn't know the

10 job that I was carrying out. They are two separate jobs, two separate

11 men, and men -- two separate men with completely different interests.

12 Q. You would agree of course that the appearance of camouflage men

13 from Serbia in the town conducting searches is a matter that would excite

14 the interest of military commanders? Particularly in the 4th Detachment?

15 No matter what their task?

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment. Again, this is

17 speculation, the way this question is phrased. The witness should be

18 asked if he had heard that the commanders of the 4th Detachment were

19 concerned about this. The way the question is put now calls for

20 speculation.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, I'll withdraw it.

22 Q. Now, you've given very clear evidence that the 4th Detachment, as

23 far as you could tell, did apparently nothing on the 17th but sprang into

24 action on the 18th. I want to put to you something that Mr. Zaric had to

25 say concerning the dates. And I refer to Exhibit P140 ter. He was again

1 being asked about events on the night of the 16th and 17th of April, and

2 he said -- in fact to save time perhaps I could ask the registry to

3 produce P140 ter it will save time and the reference, Mr. Tadic, you will

4 find at page 49.

5 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic?

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Regarding the question just put by the

8 Prosecutor, that he said that Tadic had stated that 4th Detachment had no

9 tasks on the 17th. Could the Prosecutor tell us where did Tadic stated

10 that. He said something about the weapons on the 17th but I don't think

11 that was the answer Mr. Tadic gave to my question but let Mr. Prosecutor

12 tell us that so that we can locate it.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, that's the effect of his evidence. He's

14 described already what happened on the 17th, the telephone call in the

15 morning, told to do nothing, and he agreed with me, I used the expression

16 springing into action, I recall distinctly a few moments ago, that they

17 sprang into action on the 18th.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell best about what I stated.

19 I said that I didn't, but I also said that the commander, upon coming from

20 Pelagicevo, deployed the 4th Detachment in accordance with the order so

21 it's not that I said that the 4th Detachment was not ordered to do

22 anything. I said that the commander, upon coming there, was given orders

23 to deploy the 4th Detachment. I said that I didn't have to go anywhere to

24 see whether there was going to be an attack or not.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: There is no challenge to that. There is no

1 challenge to that. We are all clear. On the 18th, searches started, on

2 the 18th, the kitchen started. On the 18th, positions were secured. On

3 the 17th, Mr. Tadic was given no orders to do anything. There is no

4 dispute about that.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Di Fazio put the question as

7 follows: That Tadic had to conclude that the 4th Detachment did nothing

8 on the 17th and on the 18th. That was the question put by Mr. Di Fazio,

9 and Mr. Tadic gave the answer he gave me in examination-in-chief. That's

10 why I wanted Mr. Di Fazio to tell me where exactly was this recorded by

11 Mr. Tadic, because Mr. Tadic replied clearly to this, and I object to the

12 way the question was put. Mr. Tadic gave an appropriate answer. The same

13 answer he gave to me during examination-in-chief.

14 MR. DI FAZIO:

15 Q. Let me put it this way, Mr. Tadic. As far as you could observe,

16 there were no significant military activities on the part of the 4th

17 Detachment on the 17th. On the 18th, as far as you could determine, they

18 did spring into action, starting with the searches, starting with the

19 securing of the Bosna, all right? That's a fair assessment, wouldn't you

20 say?

21 A. If your assessment is that it was in that way, then that is only

22 strictly speaking your assessment but not a correct one. What I said is

23 the correct assessment and you can find that in the transcript in several

24 places.

25 Q. All right, Mr. Tadic. You tell the Chamber now, please, of all

1 the significant military actions undertaken by the 4th Detachment on the

2 17th so that we are absolutely clear. Tell them what they did. Tell them

3 what you saw and observed. Tell them if you saw men marching down the

4 street, vehicles moving about, securing of positions, searching of

5 weapons, et cetera, on the 17th.

6 A. I didn't see any of that and I didn't say that I had seen it.

7 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now, P140, the interview of

8 Simo Zaric on the 1st of April, 1998. In answering questions of the

9 investigators, and you can read it for yourself because it's at page 449,

10 he said that the role of the 4th Detachment was not to allow the transfer

11 of war from Croatia -- I'm sorry, have you found it?

12 A. I have.

13 Q. I'll continue. He said that the role of the 4th Detachment was

14 not to allow the transfer of war from Croatia, prevent interethnic

15 clashes, had no function until the 16th and 17th, and then they started

16 acting on the orders of the commander on the 17th of April at 8.00 in the

17 morning after the Special Forces of the Serbian authorities and the

18 volunteers from Serbia had already taken power in Samac.

19 Now, plainly, his assessment is that an order for action came at

20 8.00, 17th of April. Are you aware of any such order for action at 8.00

21 on the morning of the 17th?

22 A. The information in this form, as presented by Mr. Zaric, is not

23 something that I have. I wasn't responsible. I wasn't in charge, in

24 order to justify, for me to know them. Let me repeat once again that my

25 interests and that of Mr. Zaric are quite different. It would be the same

1 as if you asked Mr. Zaric how to make an espresso coffee. He knows

2 nothing of it, just as I know nothing of security issues, handled by an

3 officer who was in charge of that in the 4th Detachment.

4 Q. Mr. Tadic, did you ever experience any feeling of being kept in

5 the dark about matters concerning the 4th Detachment in those days,

6 following the 16th and 17th of April?

7 A. I had no need to know about this, and I wasn't the person that was

8 supposed to be informed in detail about this. I knew of things in a

9 global form. I knew details of my own tasks but I didn't know any details

10 concerning the tasks of those who were subordinated to the commander.

11 That is something that only the person assigning tasks could have known,

12 just as the person in charge of security matters, but how could I know of

13 orders that were issued to the 1st Detachment or any -- or 1st company

14 or any other unit? How could I know about that? Nobody had the duty to

15 inform me of it.

16 Q. I wasn't so much concerned about the 1st Detachment or the first

17 company or any other unit, I was more concerned about the 4th Detachment.

18 Did you have any view that you were being kept in the dark regarding

19 activities of the 4th Detachment in the days following the 16th and 17th

20 of April? That you were not being told things as assistant commander of

21 logistics?

22 A. When I'm saying things here, everything that I'm saying here

23 pertains to the 4th Detachment. And I don't have the impression that you

24 seem to have. I was sufficiently informed in the realm of things that I

25 was supposed to be informed of, but nobody informed me, nor did they have

1 the duty to inform me, about what the 1st company was doing or any other

2 unit. Nobody officially informed me about that. I could see that people

3 were behind the embankment, taking positions there, hiding and waiting to

4 be issued orders, but that was not the official information. That was

5 not -- that something informed me of officially.

6 Q. Very well. Let me move to another topic. The -- do you agree

7 that shots that were fired at your house when you were standing out on the

8 balcony was for you a frightening and dangerous thing? For you

9 personally.

10 A. If there is shooting going on, that is definitely dangerous.

11 Q. And it's something that you could -- sorry, do you want to take a

12 glass of water or something?

13 A. No problem, go ahead.

14 Q. All right. And it's something that you have not forgotten since

15 it occurred, this shooting episode, and something that is indelibly etched

16 into your memory?

17 A. Well, one could say so.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be given Exhibit P138 ter?

19 Q. Can I direct your attention, please, to page 34 and 35? But page

20 34 in the main, at the top. You can follow the exchange between yourself

21 and investigators by simply looking at the B/C/S. I'll give you a moment

22 to do that. All right. Okay, Mr. Tadic, there is only a couple of

23 answers that I want to ask you about. You were asked by Nancy Paterson,

24 who was then questioning you, who managed to take over the town of

25 Bosanski Samac if the 4th Detachment was not involved? You replied it

1 wasn't a problem to take over Bosanski Samac. Serbian police, some

2 trained people in half an hour, they took over Bosanski Samac without any

3 shots being fired, without shelling, without the war. And then you go on

4 to comment on --

5 A. That's not what it says here, exactly.

6 Q. All right. Read it out, please.

7 A. It just says here, without any shooting. It didn't say without a

8 single bullet being fired. That's the difference.

9 Q. Read it out in whole, please, start at the beginning of the

10 paragraph and read it out to the end, please. Slowly.

11 A. "Well, it was no problem to take over power in Bosanski Samac,

12 Serbian police with the assistance of some trained people took Samac in

13 half an hour, without any shooting or war or shelling and so on."

14 Q. That suits me, Mr. Tadic. So in 1998, 1998, when you were

15 answering questions from the investigators, your position was there

16 weren't shots fired, it all happened in half an hour. Why is it that you

17 have told this Chamber that you heard shooting during the night, not only

18 did you hear shooting during the night but that you personally, your

19 house, was fired upon, your life placed in danger, because the two

20 accounts cannot be reconciled.

21 A. They must be reconciled, because they did not take place

22 simultaneously. Taking over of town took place in the morning, if I can

23 say so, in the morning, between 2.00 and 3.00 a.m. whereas my house was

24 shot at in the morning at 9.00 so -- and that event was totally unrelated

25 to the taking over of power in town.

1 Q. The thrust of your evidence has been clear. You didn't know what

2 was going on at that particular time. You heard shots being fired from

3 the direction of the river at night, and your house was fired upon later,

4 perhaps in the morning -- in the morning. How and why do you make a

5 distinction between those two events?

6 A. I have to make a distinction. I've just told you that the firing

7 at my house had nothing to do with taking of the town, because the town

8 had already been taken over at that time.

9 Q. You included that event when you were testifying to these Judges

10 about the -- about the night of the 16th and 17th of April. You testified

11 about having heard shots, being fired from the direction of the river, and

12 then followed that with this description of shots being fired at your

13 house. Plainly you were telling the Judges that was part of the events of

14 the night and morning of the 16th and 17th of April. That is correct,

15 isn't it?

16 A. That's not what I meant, if that was the conclusion drawn, then I

17 have to tell you once again now that these two events have nothing in

18 common. Taking over of town took place between 2.00 and 3.00 in the

19 morning, whereas my house was shot at at around 9.00 in the morning, which

20 means much later. The shooting at my house has nothing to do with the

21 taking over of town. The people who shot at my house had already been in

22 town, walking about town, they were in front of the health centre, and

23 they probably felt some danger when they saw us appearing on the terrace.

24 They perhaps expected us to shoot at them. In the town, that was already

25 liberated, if I can call it that way. And this is why they shot several

1 bursts that I've just described. So if the impression was created that

2 these two events are somehow related, let me repeat once again, these two

3 events have nothing in common.

4 Q. Why do you call the activities of the night of the 16th and 17th a

5 liberation?

6 A. I said conditionally speaking, liberated town, if I could call it

7 that way.

8 Q. Yes. Well, was that your view back on the 16th and 17th of April,

9 that Bosanski Samac had been liberated?

10 A. On the 16th and 17th of April, I believed that Samac had been

11 taken and this is how I talked about it, that it had been taken by the

12 forces of the Yugoslav People's Army and Territorial Defence. This is

13 approximately how I described it.

14 Q. Okay. Let's get back to the central issue which I'm concerned

15 about, namely what you said in the interview. Let's forget the shots that

16 were fired at your house. Let's forget that. That's a separate episode,

17 you say, unrelated. But your evidence here remains nonetheless that

18 during the night, you heard shooting from the bridge, the direction of the

19 bridge, or the river. Why did you tell the officers of the Office of the

20 Prosecutor that the town was taken in half an hour without shots being

21 fired, without any shelling, if in fact you had heard gun fire during the

22 night?

23 A. This response here pertains to the context of war. If we were to

24 speak about a war in Bosanski Samac, then we could say that Samac had been

25 taken over in such a way that there was nothing dramatic about it.

1 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic?

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In view of the quote and the

4 insistence of the Prosecutor that the witness stated on page 34 that there

5 was no shooting at all, the immediately following response of the witness

6 explains that there had been some shooting in fact, and therefore I don't

7 think that the Prosecutor should insist at every particular word and

8 should not take things out of context. I think that a general explanation

9 needs to be given.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's just what I said. If you are

11 looking at it in a context of war, then you can say that it wasn't very

12 intense, that gun fire was sporadic. I didn't claim ever that I heard a

13 very intense gun fire.

14 MR. DI FAZIO:

15 Q. Mr. Tadic, just so that the Judges can satisfy themselves as to

16 whether or not I'm taking these remarks out of context, please read into

17 the transcript the following question by Nancy Paterson and your answers,

18 the following two. Sorry, I'll read the English and your answers into the

19 transcript and you tell us if that's correct.

20 Nancy Paterson question: There was no resistance offered by the

21 non-Serbs? Answer: Mostly no resistance. Perhaps partly some but not

22 significant.

23 There is nothing there that I can see about shooting, gun

24 fire, from the direction of the river.

25 A. Mostly none. That means that there could have been some, perhaps

1 partial. So it's not that there was absolutely nothing but it wasn't some

2 major war, at least by my own assessment, I wasn't present there at the

3 site, I'm not a military expert, but from a distance of kilometre and a

4 half, that was the impression I had when speaking about the bridge. I

5 wasn't present in town in order to be able to see what was going on there.

6 That was the assessment that I had as a citizen sitting in his own house

7 waiting for the events to develop.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, am I correct that we take

9 our break at 1230?

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'd like to try and wrap this up before

12 12.30, thank you.

13 Q. Just go to page 36 of P138 ter, if you would, Mr. Tadic, page 36.

14 And again, acquaint yourself with the questions and answers. Now, Mr.

15 Tadic, in your answer at page 36, you said, that you would have moved your

16 family out if you had known that there was going to be a takeover. In the

17 morning, you were still at home, so we didn't know, as if nothing

18 happened, because there was no shooting, and it's only when the commander

19 told me that, that I then knew. Around my house, there were no buildings

20 that needed to be taken over. There was, for instance, some bridge but

21 that was far away from my house. The police station was also on the other

22 side and was only when I went to the commander that's when I found out

23 what had happened.

24 Now, again, the reference to no shooting, is that what you meant

25 to say in the interview?

1 A. What I wanted to say, I did say, namely that there were no

2 activities around my house, and I said that all of those facilities that

3 had been mentioned are quite distanced from my house and that's how it

4 was. We were at home. My wife, my son and I. Therefore, nobody was

5 removed elsewhere at the time.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic?

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The witness was shown the document.

8 However, when the Prosecutor started reading, he didn't read out

9 everything. It says here that on the 18th of April, that day started

10 normally, the 18th. That's the part that the Prosecutor did not read out

11 to the witness. And the other part pertains to a completely different

12 site.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here on that day, the 18th,

14 meaning April, there was no activity going on.

15 MR. DI FAZIO:

16 Q. No, no, no. Just go up, go up to the -- to your answer at the

17 top -- two-thirds of the way up the page. I'll read it.

18 Nancy Paterson: So basically you went to bed on the 17th of April

19 with absolutely no clue that the town was going to be attacked and at 8.00

20 the morning much to your surprise you found out that the town had now been

21 completely taken over and was in control of the Serb forces.

22 All right? Do you see that? Now, that's --

23 A. Yes, I do. And that's a statement by Nancy.

24 Q. Now, you know, and there is no dispute by you, that the town was

25 in fact attacked on the 16th and 17th, the night of the 16th and 17th of

1 April, correct? You know that, don't you?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You know that it's the case of the Prosecution that the town was

4 attacked and taken over on the night of the 16th and 17th of April. You

5 know that, don't you?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You know that everyone is in accord that the takeover occurred or

8 call it what you will, on the night of the 16th and 17th of April, don't

9 you?

10 A. Let me tell you just this: You either don't want to read this or

11 you can't read. Does this mean that on the 17th of April, you went to bed

12 and that the following day, at 8.00 in the morning you learned from the

13 commander and so on. This here pertains to the 17th of April, when the

14 town had already been taken over and I went to sleep and then the

15 following day, at 8.00 in the morning I reported to the commander so there

16 is nothing contentious here. This does not pertain to the night between

17 the 16th and 17th. No. This refers to the 17th in the evening. Did you

18 go to bed that night? This is where Nancy puts a question to me.

19 Q. Okay. Fine. Assuming that you're entirely 100 per cent correct,

20 okay? Let's assume that, you still said it was as if nothing had happened

21 because there was no shooting. What did you mean by that?

22 A. What I've already stated, that there was no major war that could

23 cause concern at that particular time. That's what I meant.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, this is an appropriate

25 moment for the break.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will take our break or 20 minutes and

2 resume at 1250 hours.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio?

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Q. Mr. Tadic, in your interview, again the one that we have been

8 discussing, that's Exhibit P138 ter, taken on the 26th of March, 1998, you

9 described the takeover of the town as a more of a kind of a political

10 question, to prevent an interethnic conflict because there were

11 indications that an interethnic conflict was going to happen. What

12 precisely did you mean when you said it was more of a political question?

13 A. There were indications that there could be a takeover of Samac on

14 the part of forces from the Republic of Croatia. There were indications

15 which were becoming apparent and that I talked about.

16 Q. Mr. Tadic, you've spent I suggest a good part of this morning

17 telling the Trial Chamber that you knew virtually nothing of the 4th

18 Detachment's intentions or movements on the 17th and you only found out on

19 the 18th what was to happen. How can you say that there were indications

20 that there was going to be a takeover from the forces of the Republic of

21 Croatia in those circumstances?

22 A. The indications, and I'm not talking about the 17th or the 16th of

23 April, the indications existed for days and days before that, not on that

24 specific day but these indications were something that was talked about

25 even 15 days before that, that possibly something like this could come

1 about.

2 Q. I see. And so this was known to you and to the command of the 4th

3 Detachment, these indications?

4 A. I'm talking about what I knew as a citizen, not as a member of the

5 4th Detachment. Members of the 4th Detachment who were informed from

6 these tales, these stories, also knew that. Other citizens knew that,

7 that there was a danger of something like that.

8 Q. Did you see the 4th Detachment making any plans to deal with such

9 a danger?

10 A. The 4th Detachment did not make any such plans, but the higher

11 command probably had such plans and probably more information than I did.

12 Q. That must be pure speculation on your part given your state of

13 ignorance on any contingency plans.

14 A. But your question is like that. You asked whether I knew. So I

15 assume that that is what it was like. I wasn't in the command, nor did I

16 make any plans. You asked me if I knew about any plans of the 4th

17 Detachment, and I said that I knew that there were no plans in the 4th

18 Detachment but that they probably existed in the higher command.

19 Q. Yes. You were asked by Nancy Paterson, page 34 of P138 ter

20 question: So who ordered this takeover, if it was not a JNA action? Who

21 gave the order for the takeover to occur? And you answered: Well,

22 possibly the JNA command or the military police or the civilian police. I

23 was not directly involved so I wouldn't know. Possibly the command.

24 What --

25 A. I have nothing to add to that answer.

1 Q. That's okay. I'm not asking you to. I want to ask you a question

2 about it. What made you say that it was possibly the JNA command?

3 A. Because the JNA was - how can I put it - the one to prevent

4 interethnic conflicts, and interethnic conflicts were a political question

5 and that is why I thought that the JNA was in charge of preventing the

6 interethnic conflicts in the regions where the JNA was deployed.

7 Q. Did you ever form the view, in the days following the 16th and

8 17th of April, that the Crisis Staff had decided to take over the town

9 with the help of the police and the paramilitaries?

10 A. I didn't get such an impression then, or later.

11 Q. And now, is that your position? Have you learned anything since

12 the events of 1992 to lead you to the conclusion that the Crisis Staff

13 decided to take over the town with the help of the police and the

14 paramilitaries?

15 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please stop? Because the --

18 there is blood from the accused's nose. He's bleeding from the nose so

19 perhaps we can take a break.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can take a break.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it's nothing dangerous.

22 We can continue.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not a question of danger. It's a question of

24 the witness's comfort.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think it's better for us to make a

1 break.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will have a break and we'll wait to be

3 informed.

4 --- Break taken at 1.01 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has been informed by the registry

7 assistant that the accused who has been giving evidence is not well enough

8 to continue because the nurse has indicated that the blood pressure is

9 very high so the trial is not able to continue.

10 We shall adjourn now and continue our proceedings on Monday,

11 depending on the status of health of the accused. Mr. Lukic?

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I need to address the Chamber

13 officially. What worries me are two things: One, the willingness of my

14 client to finish the proceedings as soon as possible, and as you were able

15 to see over the past few days he did want to continue to testify, even

16 though he was bleeding.

17 The second concern is my professional concern, like I mentioned

18 the other day, about his state of health and whether he's able to maintain

19 the same concentration throughout the proceedings. We were informed by

20 the Registry that upon our insistence, and upon the proposal of the

21 Chamber, he would be examined by Dr. Falke in the detention unit and we

22 expected this examination would be conducted on Friday after the

23 proceedings so that we would all be able to find out what his state of

24 health was, and whether he was able to go through testifying for the whole

25 day, but the examination has not been carried out to this very day, and we

1 were informed by the Registrar that steps have already been taken for this

2 examination to be conducted this afternoon.

3 I remember the same thing happened about a year ago, when Mr.

4 Tadic was taken ill. So unfortunately, until we took steps via the

5 Chamber to make sure that he was examined, he was not examined by a

6 doctor. So in circumstances like these, where he's testifying the whole

7 day, he really does need to go through a medical examination, and if it's

8 necessary, we are asking for the assistance of the Chamber to help us

9 secure this medical examination, because it really is important for Mr.

10 Tadic to finish his testimony. He just managed to tell me now while he

11 was waiting to be examined that his blood pressure is even higher than it

12 usually is, and he suffers from high blood pressure any way. Any way, I'm

13 going to get in touch with the Registrar to see whether there would not be

14 any more serious consequences relating to him completing his testimony.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Trial Chamber will take steps

16 through the Registry to see to that he's medically examined and so that

17 the Trial Chamber is informed as to whether or not he can continue at this

18 stage with his testimony.

19 The Court will adjourn and the proceedings will continue on

20 Monday.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

22 1.22 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

23 the 24th day of February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

24

25