1 Monday, 3 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

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

9 Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. This morning, Mr. Lukic, I think, because

11 Mr. Krgovic had indicated that you had a few questions for the witness.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

13 WITNESS: MAKSIM SIMEUNOVIC [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning to everyone.

17 Good morning, Mr. Simeunovic.

18 A. Good morning.

19 Q. I will now ask you questions on behalf of the Defence of Mr.

20 Miroslav Tadic. More specifically, what I want to know is about the

21 exchanges, and I will ask you right away, Mr. Simeunovic: In your work -

22 and I'm interested in the period of 1992 and 1993 - did you work on the

23 exchanges?

24 A. Yes, I did, in the period of 1992. Even nowadays I'm still a

25 member of the state commission for the exchange of prisoners of war and

1 missing persons.

2 Q. First let me ask you: When did you start working on these

3 exchanges?

4 A. I started working on the exchanges, so to speak, from the very

5 beginning, immediately after hostilities broke out in the general area of

6 northeast Bosnia, in May. There were prisoners on both sides already, so

7 it was necessary to start work on the exchanges, and I was involved right

8 from the beginning.

9 Q. Which commission did you take part in? What was its name and what

10 was your position in it?

11 A. I worked for military commissions for the exchange of prisoners of

12 war and deceased persons. At first they were at brigade levels, but after

13 that, a corps commission for the exchange was established, and I

14 immediately became a member of the corps commission of the East Bosnian

15 Corps.

16 Q. Can you tell us exactly when you became a member of the commission

17 of the East Bosnian Corps? Do you remember the month, or at least the

18 season, when this began?

19 A. It was towards the end of June of 1992.

20 Q. How many members did this commission have during your work? I'm

21 referring to the commission of the East Bosnian Corps.

22 A. It had five members.

23 Q. What was your role in that commission? Did you have any

24 particular position or were you merely a member?

25 A. For the whole of this time I was a member of the commission.

1 Q. The other members, were they also military officers, or were there

2 civilians there too?

3 A. All of them were military personnel.

4 Q. In addition to this commission of which you were a member, will

5 you please tell us whether there were any other military commissions, and

6 I'm referring to the army of Republika Srpska, and with what other

7 commissions did you cooperate?

8 A. Yes. In each corps of the army of Republika Srpska there was a

9 military commission. In my work, I cooperated a lot with the commission

10 from the 1st Krajina Corps.

11 Q. Can you perhaps remember the president of that commission in the

12 period that we are interested in, 1992 and 1993? What was the person's

13 name?

14 A. His name was Grujicic. He was the president of this commission of

15 the 1st Krajina Corps in the period between 1992 and 1993. That was him.

16 He was the president.

17 Q. Was there a state commission at that time, and where was it

18 based? Can you perhaps tell us?

19 A. Yes, there was a state commission at that time, and its

20 headquarters was in Pale.

21 Q. Did it too have military officers as members?

22 A. As far as I remember, most of them were civilians. There were no

23 military officers there.

24 Q. Do you perhaps know that those were people from the Ministry of

25 Justice? Please tell us if you know.

1 A. Most of the members were people from the Ministry of Justice, yes.

2 Q. Can you please tell us now: In your work on these exchanges, did

3 you cooperate with civilian commissions too?

4 A. Yes, we did. In our work, we cooperated with civilian

5 commissions. We had to cooperate with them, for the simple reason that

6 municipal civilian commissions were not able to carry out an exchange at

7 the separation line without military commissions. There had to be a

8 ceasefire first established by someone for the exchange to take place.

9 That was what the cooperation was about.

10 Q. Can you please tell us with which specific municipal commissions

11 you cooperated, in view of the area of responsibility of the East Bosnian

12 Corps.

13 A. I cooperated with the Bijeljina municipal commission, with the

14 Brcko municipal commission, with the Samac municipal commission, the

15 Modrica municipal commission, the Doboj municipal commission, the

16 Vlasenica municipal commission. Wherever there was a municipal commission

17 covering the area of responsibility of the East Bosnian Corps or the 1st

18 Krajina Corps, I worked with those commissions.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have received a remark from our case

20 manager.

21 Q. On page 4, line 8, you said that as a military structure you had

22 to secure a ceasefire and that that was why there was cooperation between

23 the civilian and military commissions. It was through the military

24 structures that a ceasefire was brokered?

25 A. Yes. That was the only way to arrange for a ceasefire.

1 Q. So civilian commissions would go to you and speak to you about

2 that, you as the military commissions. Would they simply join you once

3 you had brokered those ceasefires? What was the procedure like? Could

4 civilian commissions just simply go on their own to the separation lines

5 where exchanges were carried out or were they always accompanied by

6 military commissions?

7 A. Civilian commissions could not go on their own to the separation

8 lines between the warring factions. They always went when a military

9 commission went, when there was an exchange to be carried out. They would

10 join and bring up their own subjects at those meetings.

11 Q. With which commissions of the opposing sides, let me say, did you

12 negotiate? Can you please just try to enumerate them.

13 A. We negotiated with the Tuzla commission, which was also a military

14 commission.

15 Q. In whose hands was Tuzla at that time? Can you please tell us.

16 A. Tuzla was under the area of responsibility of the

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina army. We also cooperated with commissions under the

18 HVO, the Croatian Defence Council, in Posavina, and we also cooperated

19 with a commission from the Republic of Croatia. We cooperated with other

20 commissions too from the canton Zenica, Bihac and so on and so forth. We

21 did have cooperation with most of the commissions.

22 Q. Thank you. Now that we've outlined the general framework of your

23 activity, I would like to ask you the following: What was the main goal

24 and task of your work on these exchanges, you as a commission? What did

25 you usually discuss and what decisions did you take?

1 A. Let me make sure I understood you correctly. You want me to

2 explain the method of our work?

3 Q. Can you please tell us what or who you discussed or talked about,

4 and then please explain what the procedure or method of your work was, the

5 work of your commission.

6 A. As a military commission, we spoke about prisoners of war who were

7 military officers. We spoke about those who had been killed or those who

8 had gone missing. We spoke on behalf of Republika Srpska and they spoke

9 on behalf of their own side, their own persons, whether the BH army or the

10 HVO.

11 Q. What was the procedure like? Can you please explain to the Trial

12 Chamber briefly? What was the subject of those negotiations and what

13 would you do afterwards?

14 A. We would meet the opposing side, and at this meeting we would

15 exchange lists of persons. We gave them our own list of persons we were

16 looking for and they would give us theirs, following which we would verify

17 the whereabouts of persons that they were looking for, in which military

18 prisons those persons were incarcerated. We would check whether they were

19 somewhere in our area of responsibility or whether those persons were

20 actually in areas of responsibility covered by a different corps.

21 Once we managed to track down these persons, we would draw up a

22 list of persons found within our area of responsibility or persons we

23 managed to locate within someone else's area of responsibility, and then

24 this list would be forwarded to the security organ of the corps in our own

25 area of responsibility or someone else's area of responsibility, again if

1 such persons were found in someone else's area of responsibility.

2 After that, the security organs would provide specific individual

3 explanations pertaining to each person, whether a person could be

4 exchanged or not. Once we had that, we have a complete list and go back

5 to negotiating with the other side. We give them a list of persons that

6 we've managed to track down and who could be exchanged. After that, we

7 would have another request in case there were no changes or additions by

8 the other side, and this request would again be forwarded to the security

9 organ, and the security organ would give approval for the persons from the

10 list to be exchanged. And then the place and time would be determined for

11 the exchange, and the exchange would be carried out.

12 If a person happened to be on one of these lists against whom

13 criminal proceedings were under way, or a person who has already been

14 convicted, we were not allowed to exchange these persons. For that, we

15 had to receive approval from the security organs of the General Staff.

16 They were the only ones who could give approval for such persons to be or

17 not to be exchanged.

18 Q. Did you need to have approval from the military prosecutor or

19 military courts? In which period exactly and under what conditions?

20 A. Yes, that was necessary too. The security organ, once we have

21 forwarded the list of persons we were looking for, they would go to

22 military courts and military prosecutors to verify whether there were

23 criminal proceedings under way against any of the persons, and on the

24 basis of that, we would receive feedback from them with the list of

25 persons who could be exchanged.

1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Lukic.

2 I wonder whether, Mr. Simeunovic, you would know: What type of

3 criminal proceedings are we talking about? Are we talking about criminal

4 proceedings for ordinary crimes and the domestic law in Republika Srpska

5 and Bosnia-Herzegovina, or are we talking about criminal proceedings for,

6 shall we say, violations of military law or for violations of the laws of

7 war, the Geneva Conventions? What type of criminal proceedings are we

8 talking about?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pursuant to our rules, and pursuant

10 to our instructions, persons who had been convicted for war crimes could

11 not be exchanged. Those persons were simply not exchanged, persons

12 convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity. That would have

13 barred them from being exchanged. However, persons who had convictions

14 for illegal armament, or joining forces against the army of Republika

15 Srpska, there were criminal proceedings under way against such persons or

16 such persons were convicted, but those people in theory could have been

17 exchanged, it's just that it took approval from higher military organs.

18 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have just prepared some documents

20 now that will point this out even more clearly, Your Honour Judge

21 Williams.

22 I would like PDB 92/3 [Realtime transcript read in error

23 "96/2"] to be shown now, please.

24 I said 92. I said 92, but the transcript says 96. However, I see

25 that the witness has the right document in front of him nevertheless.

1 Q. Mr. Simeunovic, I believe that you are quite familiar with this

2 document.

3 A. Yes. These are rules for the work of the commission for the

4 exchange of prisoners of war in the zone of responsibility of the East

5 Bosnian Corps, and I am quite familiar with it.

6 Q. Now we are going to look at a few articles, and I would like to

7 hear your comments on that. However, my first question relates to the

8 date. I see that the date is the 7th of March, 1993. Did you work

9 according to these rules before that date, and which documents did you

10 base your work upon before you adopted these rules and regulations?

11 A. Yes. I said that the commission, the military commission of the

12 East Bosnian Corps, had been established sometime in June 1992. At that

13 time, until these rules entered into force, we worked according to

14 instructions given by the East Bosnian Corps and by the orders issued by

15 the command. Later on they were simply transformed into these rules and

16 regulations. So we actually worked the same way before. We worked when

17 the rules came into force the same way we did before that.

18 Q. I don't want to go into detail, because I think that you have

19 quite literally explained everything that is written here, notably,

20 articles 9, 10, and 11. But could you please take a look and could you --

21 could you please have a look at articles 9, 10, and 11, and is that the

22 procedure that you've just described to us?

23 A. Yes. We worked in accordance with these rules and that is the

24 procedure that I explained a short while ago. We worked according to

25 these rules. That's it.

1 Q. Please take a look at Article 13. Tell me: Was this the

2 principle that governed the exchanges? Were the exchanges conducted on a

3 one-for-one basis, one soldier for one soldier, et cetera? What about

4 officers? Was there a single principle involved for all commissions?

5 A. Yes. This was the principle of exchange: One-for-one, one

6 officer for one officer. We abided by those rules. There is also the

7 principle of all-for-all. We tried to carry that through, but we never

8 managed to organise that kind of an exchange, one that was based on the

9 principle of all-for-all. But we did abide by the one-for-one principle,

10 for the most part.

11 Q. Please take a look at Article 16.

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Lukic. Before you move to 16, I

13 see that Mr. Simeunovic, the underlining was put in by hand on the B/C/S

14 text, and I refer to that simply because, of course, in the English text

15 it's printed underlining. And Article 13, in the English text, not only

16 talks about the one-for-one basis of soldier for soldier, it also goes on

17 then to say: Woman for woman, elderly person for elderly person.

18 Now, I thought Article 13 and this document is referring to the

19 exchange of prisoners of war. So may I ask you: Why is there reference

20 not only soldier for soldier, which of course could be male or female, but

21 then also specifically woman for woman, elderly person for elderly

22 person? How come they were being classified as prisoners of war?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what it says here, because

24 women were also participants as military conscripts. They also took part

25 in war operations. Perhaps not in the first line of combat, but they did

1 participate in both warring parties. Also there were elderly people.

2 There were volunteers who, according to our rules, could not have been

3 included in military units, but they were there as volunteers, let's put

4 it that way. They wanted to take part. This is what the rules say, but I

5 do not remember that I ever had a single woman involved in any exchange.

6 There were women who were killed, but there weren't any women that were

7 exchanged that I can remember. There were some elderly persons, though,

8 who were exchanged just like soldiers were, but there weren't any women.

9 That's why the rules included this.

10 In the commissions, all involved were soldiers.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So if I understand you correctly, the use, to

12 your knowledge, of the word "soldier" was exclusively with reference to

13 male soldiers, based on what you've just said. Because you're saying

14 women could be conscripts, and so on and so forth, so your reference here

15 to soldier is exclusively, if I understand you correctly, referring to

16 those of the male gender.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'm referring to women soldiers

18 as well. I said that in our army, the army of Republika Srpska, there

19 were women who were soldiers too. Also on the other sides, in the other

20 warring parties, there were women soldiers as well. There were also

21 elderly people. Most of them were men, the elderly people. According to

22 the criteria that were in force, they did not have military obligation to

23 report to a military unit, but they came on a voluntary basis. They

24 volunteered. That is why it says specifically "women" and all the rest.

25 But we considered all prisoners of war as soldiers.

1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thanks.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Simeunovic, let's just have Article 16 explained as well. As

4 for Article 16, I'm interested in the following: There is something that

5 is written here, and you'll tell me whether this is the way it was in

6 practice, namely, the written opinion of the security organ. For every

7 exchange that you worked on, was it indispensable to have the opinion of

8 the security organ presented in writing, as it is put here, and was this

9 really applied in practice? That is what I would like to know.

10 A. Yes. Yes, this is the way it was in practice.

11 Q. I see a suggestion coming from my client now in relation to the

12 explanations you gave a few minutes ago related to all-for-all exchanges.

13 Do you remember the exchange in Sibosnica? At that time, was an attempt

14 made to carry out an all-for-all exchange?

15 A. Yes. That was on the 21st of July, 1993. The exchange in

16 Sibosnica, at the separation line, the line that separated the warring

17 parties. We tried to carry out this exchange on an all-for-all basis;

18 however, later we came to realise that it was not an all-for-all

19 exchange. There were some people who stayed behind in prisons in Tuzla,

20 so they came only subsequently.

21 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber why was this

22 agreement not honoured, the one that was based on an all-for-all

23 principle.

24 A. I don't know why it wasn't honoured, but this agreement was not

25 honoured because the opposing side did not bring in all the prisoners of

1 war who were in prison in Tuzla at that moment. Later on, they tried to

2 justify this by saying that these people had been incarcerated in the

3 meantime.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would

6 like us to get a number for this document, please.

7 MR. WEINER: No objection.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Could we have the number?

9 THE REGISTRAR: The next number is D166/3.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. In addition to what you said a while ago, that civilian exchanges

12 were linked to what you did, because only when you organised exchanges

13 could they do anything, tell me: Was there any other form of cooperation

14 between military and civilian commissions? Was there exchange of

15 information about prisoners? And what was this relationship like between

16 civilian and military commissions, generally speaking?

17 A. Yes, cooperation did not only mean that we should make it possible

18 for them to come to the separation line and to carry out the exchange.

19 With all commissions, we also exchanged opinions. We looked for people

20 that they were looking for. We tried to find out more about them. There

21 were commissions from a wider territory, one that went beyond the area of

22 responsibility of the East Bosnian Corps. So we certainly asked these

23 commissions for information too. However, as the military commission, we

24 did not decide --

25 Q. We're going to deal with this separately. We're going to deal

1 with this separately.

2 Tell me: Was there a practice or a tendency for families to go at

3 the same time, or rather, to have family reunification, if that is what

4 people wanted? Was there cooperation in that sense between military and

5 civilian commissions?

6 A. There was cooperation. If it was not possible to organise an

7 exchange the same day, both of civilian prisoners and of prisoners of war,

8 then if a group of prisoners of war would leave, then at the very next

9 agreement with the other side, the state commission would be present - I

10 mean the civilian commission - and they brought civilian persons who

11 wanted to follow their men, I mean their husbands, brothers, who had gone

12 to the other side, who had been exchanged previously as prisoners of war.

13 Sometimes it wasn't possible to organise both at the same time, but there

14 were such cases that there were even simultaneous exchanges of prisoners

15 of war and of civilians who wanted to cross over to the other side.

16 Q. Now I'm going to ask you the following. When I asked you to pause

17 a minute ago, because this is something that we clearly have to

18 distinguish. In their work, did military commissions interfere in the

19 decision-making of civilian commissions or the negotiations that were

20 organised by civilian commissions?

21 A. No. We didn't have the right to interfere with the negotiations

22 of civilian commissions. Also we did not allow civilian commissions to

23 interfere in our negotiations, in our work, in the work of the military

24 commission alone.

25 Q. Could any member of the civilian commission ask or insist or give

1 its consent for a person who had the status of a military prisoner of war?

2 A. A member of the civilian commission could ask but could not give

3 consent. They could ask through the military commissions. Perhaps they

4 were under pressure of family members or whatever. Perhaps they could ask

5 whether the family could be prepared to cross over at the same time. But

6 a member of the civilian commission could not decide about a prisoner of

7 war going to be exchanged. That is a decision that could only be passed

8 by military organs.

9 Q. Tell me, Mr. Simeunovic -- or let me ask you something else.

10 Concerning your work on exchanges, did you cooperate with Mr. Miroslav

11 Tadic, one of the accused persons here?

12 A. Yes, I did cooperate with him.

13 Q. Do you perhaps remember when you started contacts related to

14 exchanges?

15 A. This was towards the end of 1992.

16 Q. In addition to Mr. Tadic, did you also cooperate with Mr. Veljo

17 Maslic from Samac?

18 A. Yes, I did. He was the president of that commission.

19 Q. Did you cooperate with them along the same lines as with the other

20 civilian commissions that you have talked about?

21 A. Yes. We had the same kind of cooperation along the same lines and

22 principles.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

24 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt. Could I just

25 get some clarification? He indicated that he cooperated with Miroslav

1 Tadic at the end of 1992. Is that the same time period, or could we have

2 some time period that this witness cooperated with Mr. Veljo Maslic,

3 please.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure the witness can answer that.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. You've heard the question. When you talked about starting to

7 cooperate with Mr. Tadic towards the end of 1992, does the same apply to

8 Mr. Maslic, or no?

9 A. I think the same applies to Mr. Maslic. At that point he was

10 already president of that civilian commission, as far as I know. That was

11 the period of my cooperation with them, since the end of 1992, and we

12 continued to cooperate as long as there was any need for the work of these

13 commissions to continue.

14 Q. Thank you. You mentioned during the examination-in-chief the

15 other day when the army of Republika Srpska was restructured and

16 reorganised, that Mr. Beronja appointed Mr. Jez head of security, as far

17 as I understood, Captain Jez, and that in that period you remained in your

18 position as a security officer, as far as I remember. There is one thing

19 I would like to know in connection with Mr. Jez: What was his

20 relationship with Mr. Stevan Todorovic and the Special Forces of

21 volunteers from Serbia? Do you know that? On what sort of terms were

22 they, as you had similar positions, so to speak?

23 A. When Major Mile Beronja was appointed commander of the 2nd

24 Posavina Brigade, he appointed Captain Jez as a security officer, and he

25 appointed me as intelligence officer. I told you that these two positions

1 were separated. He had, in fact, separated them. The cooperation of

2 Captain Jez, because I didn't even know his first name at that time, his

3 cooperation with Stevan Todorovic and the Special Forces that were there

4 was close. I remember that we carried out arrests. When I say "we," I

5 mean the army of Republika Srpska. We carried out an arrest of Captain

6 Jez. That was in Donji Zabar. That was a forward command post of the

7 East Bosnian Corps. He was arrested because of their [as interpreted]

8 cooperation with them and because of certain criminal activities.

9 Q. I'll move on to another subject which is also related to

10 exchanges.

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one word here on page 17, line 4. He was

12 arrested because of "his" instead of "their." It should read "his

13 cooperation with them," meaning Captain Jez.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That will be corrected.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I would like now to ask you several questions about Batkovic. We

17 can use the term "collection centre" or "Detention Centre." My colleagues

18 from the Prosecution used the term "camp." But what I want to know is

19 when the Batkovic centre was established. Do you know that?

20 A. The collection centre at Batkovic was established after the

21 collection centre at Manjaca was closed down. That's also when the

22 collection centre at Bijeljina, that is, in Batkovic, which is a village

23 close to Bijeljina, was established.

24 Q. Can you please determine the time period? Was that in 1992 or

25 1993?

1 A. That was in 1993. I don't think I can remember the exact date,

2 but I think it was perhaps towards the end of 1992 or the beginning of

3 1993.

4 Q. We have information that the prisoners from Samac were transferred

5 to Batkovic towards the end of 1992, so it may as well have been the end

6 of 1992. Who established this collection centre and who controlled it?

7 A. The collection centre at Batkovic was under the East Bosnian Corps

8 command. This means that it was also established by the East Bosnian

9 Corps command.

10 Q. The warden of this prison, was he a military officer? Can you

11 remember that?

12 A. Yes, he was a military officer.

13 Q. Does the name Djoko Pajic mean anything to you?

14 A. Major Djoko Pajic was the head of the collection centre at

15 Batkovic.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

17 Exhibit D40/ID. May I please add: D40/3 ID.

18 Q. Can you please look at the signature on page 2. Are you familiar

19 with that signature, and tell me that first, please. Is this the man I

20 have asked you about?

21 A. Yes. Commander of the collection centre, Major Djoko Pajic.

22 That's him.

23 Q. Do you have any information that judicial organs visited the

24 collection centre and requested data, as it reads in this document?

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous translation continues]... On the ELMO

1 B/C/S version instead of English version, because our clients do not

2 understand.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, they can have the B/C/S version on the ELMO.

4 A. Yes, I knew that judicial organs came to the collection centre,

5 and they simply requested information regarding persons who were being

6 detained there. They wanted to know whether there were criminal

7 proceedings against any of these individuals.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to now

9 please tender this into evidence, because this was only for identification

10 when Witness Mehinovic was here. We mistakenly gave him page 1 only and

11 then additionally we found page 2. And my friends from the Prosecution

12 asked that this not be given a full evidence number. But since our

13 witness today has just identified the person who signed this document, I

14 think there is no longer anything to dispute.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution?

16 MR. WEINER: No objection, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have a number, please, or can we confirm that

18 it will retain the same number as an exhibit this time.

19 THE REGISTRAR: D40/3 and ter.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Simeunovic, who could have entered the prison in Batkovic, and

23 who was in charge of giving approval for someone to enter the prison in

24 Batkovic?

25 A. Permission to enter the collection centre in Batkovic was given by

1 the security organ of the East Bosnian Corps, and you needed to have this

2 permission to enter the collection centre. That was the only way.

3 Q. Do you know that members of civilian commissions also went into

4 Batkovic and took prisoners out to be exchanged? If so, tell us, please,

5 what the procedure was.

6 A. That's true. A person who was a member of a civilian commission

7 could also enter the collection centre in Batkovic. They would have a

8 list, a previously drafted list, and they would take prisoners away with

9 them. But they needed to be granted approval by a military commission

10 from a corps. As long as it was outside the area of the East Bosnian

11 Corps, then this person had to have permission to be able to enter the

12 collection centre at Batkovic, collect the persons included on the list

13 and take them to be exchanged.

14 Q. You said according to a list that had been delivered previously.

15 Does that mean that the prison command would be given a list, regardless

16 of whether a civilian, a member of a civilian commission or a member of a

17 military commission would be there to collect it, and what was the reason

18 for that?

19 A. When I explained about the working method of the commissions for

20 the exchange of prisoners, once there was a final list of persons who

21 could be exchanged, the same list would be forwarded to the commander of

22 the collection centre at Batkovic, and then two or three days before the

23 scheduled exchange, they would make sure that those persons included on

24 the list were there at the collection centre on that day. Some persons

25 were listed as being in the collection centre, but perhaps these persons

1 were at a certain point in time elsewhere, going after different duties.

2 So two or three days ahead of a scheduled exchange, the list of persons to

3 be exchanged would be forwarded to the head or commander of the collection

4 centre, and only those persons whose names were included on the list could

5 be exchanged.

6 Q. That would have been my next question. Was it possible at all for

7 a person who was not on the list to be taken away for an exchange?

8 A. No, that wasn't possible. The list would be forwarded to the

9 commander of the collection centre two or three days before the actual

10 collection and exchange, and only those persons who were on the list could

11 be exchanged. You couldn't change any of the names on the day of the

12 exchange and replace it with a different name. No one could change the

13 decision handed down by the security organ, by the corps security organ.

14 Q. What happened to those lists of exchanged persons after the

15 exchange? Were they registered and recorded?

16 A. Upon completion of an exchange, the president of the commission

17 was duty-bound to draw up a report on the exchange, including the persons

18 who were exchanged and the persons who arrived for an exchange, and then

19 this report would be forwarded to the security organ of the corps.

20 Persons who left the collection centre to go to an exchange, their names

21 would be entered into a computerised database at the security organ, and

22 they always had this information ready for retrieval. So it wasn't

23 possible for a person who was listed to be exchanged to go or to be

24 replaced by someone who was not on any of the lists of persons to be

25 exchanged. At least as long as I was there, this never occurred.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please show the witness

3 document internal number PDB 101/3.

4 Not this one; the other one. Yes. Not the one you have in front

5 of you. This will not be needed right now. Can you please place it on

6 the ELMO.

7 Q. Can you read this? Can you please tell us: Was there a court and

8 a prosecutor with the East Bosnian Corps, and where was the Court of the

9 prosecutor based?

10 A. Yes, there was the military prosecutor at the East Bosnian Corps

11 command, based in Bijeljina.

12 Q. This document speaks for itself, but even so, could you please

13 explain the first passage, line 3. It says: "From the administration of

14 the OB affairs." What does that mean?

15 A. OB means security and intelligence affairs. That's what the

16 abbreviation stands for.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please read out,

18 slowly, the first sentence of the second passage, the first two lines.

19 Because the translation is inaccurate, and I think the whole thing is

20 perfectly legible, especially the word that the translators claim they

21 couldn't read.

22 Q. So could you just please read out slowly the first two lines of

23 the second passage.

24 A. "Namely, such approval is granted according to instructions by the

25 judicial organs of the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska."

1 Q. Thank you. I think the rest is perfectly legible. It was about

2 the word "judicial."

3 Was this regular procedure for the prosecutor, when addressed by a

4 security organ, to issue such an opinion?

5 A. Yes, that was a matter of regular procedure in such cases.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have a number for this

8 document to be tendered into evidence, if there are no objections.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: I see none. Can we have the number, please.

10 THE REGISTRAR: D167/3, and ter.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I have merely a couple of questions left. Mr. Simeunovic, can you

13 please tell us, according to your information: Why did representatives of

14 civilian commissions go to take prisoners away? Why was this the case, if

15 we know that there were military commissions who were in charge of that?

16 A. The reason was that if the exchange was organised by the 1st

17 Krajina Corps of the army of Republika Srpska, and the prisons to be

18 collected were at the Batkovic collection centre, so as to avoid a member

19 of a commission coming all the way from Banja Luka to Batkovic. Then they

20 would simply grant their approval, their consent, for a civilian official,

21 a member of a civilian commission in the area of responsibility of the 1st

22 Krajina Corps, to collect the prisoners and to bring them to the

23 determined place of exchange. But this approval was given for merely

24 technical reason. As concerns the East Bosnian Corps, no persons ever

25 went there, simply because the seat -- its seat was in Bijeljina.

1 Q. Do you have information that civilians also left often during

2 these exchanges, or when prisoners were taken over, in order to be taken

3 to be exchanged?

4 A. Yes. As I said: Whenever this was technically feasible,

5 exchanges were organised of prisoners of war, and their families, if they

6 chose to do so, would go with them.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I just have one more document which I

8 would like to have shown to the witness, the one that was internally

9 marked PDB 129/3. It's already in front of the witness.

10 Q. Is this document familiar to you, or is this type of document

11 familiar to you?

12 A. This document is familiar to me. We, as a commission, had it.

13 But there were many other such documents that we received from the

14 collection centre in Batkovic.

15 Q. Did all persons who were in Batkovic have this same status of war

16 prisoners, prisoners of war? You see, it says so down here.

17 A. Yes. They had the status of prisoners of war. All persons who

18 were at the collection centre in Batkovic.

19 Q. We see here - and it will be of interest to the Trial Chamber -

20 the names of a few persons who appeared in these proceedings. This

21 involves quite a few different localities. But do you know from where,

22 from which territory, persons were taken from to Batkovic? Was it only

23 within your area of responsibility or did it come from other areas as

24 well, if I can put it this way?

25 A. No. There were persons there who had come from the entire

1 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Not only persons who were in the area of

2 responsibility of the East Bosnian Corps. When the collection centre at

3 Manjaca was abolished, persons from that centre were transferred to the

4 Batkovic centre too.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like us to get a number for

7 this document as well, if the Prosecution doesn't have any objections.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There's no objection. Could we have the

9 number, please.

10 THE REGISTRAR: D168/3, and ter.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Simeunovic, I'm about to finish my questions. The last

13 question I have for you, which is based on your first answer: You said

14 that until the present day, you work at the commission. You said that it

15 is today called the state commission for seeking missing persons. Since

16 you worked with Tadic, do you know whether Tadic, until his voluntary

17 surrender to this Tribunal, cooperated with this commission, and did he

18 offer his help in this regard? Did you talk to him in relation to this

19 work pertaining to the quest for missing persons?

20 A. When the Dayton Agreement had already been signed, Tadic was not a

21 collaborator of the state commission, but he continued offering his help,

22 and we, if necessary, took some information from him, or whatever else was

23 needed. Because for many years he had worked in the commission for

24 exchanges. Not only from him, but also from all members of the

25 commission, we seek information, and people are glad to give such

1 information.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have

3 completed my examination.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination by the Prosecution.

5 Cross-examined by Mr. Weiner:

6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Simeunovic. My name is Phillip Weiner and I'm

7 going to be asking you some questions on behalf of the Office of the

8 Prosecutor. Do you understand that?

9 A. I understand.

10 Q. You testified on Thursday - I'm sorry - on Wednesday, February

11 26th, about the arrival of some Serbian volunteers. You said they arrived

12 at Batkusa in JNA helicopters. Isn't that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you said that Stevan Todorovic and the commander of the 1st

15 Detachment of the 17th Tactical Group were there.

16 A. Stevan Todorovic and the commander of the 1st Detachment of the

17 17th Tactical Group, Mico Ivanovic.

18 Q. Were both present?

19 A. Yes, both were present.

20 Q. And at that time you met three of the leaders, or the three

21 leaders of the volunteers, or paramilitaries, whatever you want to call

22 them: Crni, Debeli, and Lugar?

23 A. At that moment, I did not meet them. I just saw them come there.

24 Later on I found out what their names were, but at that moment, when they

25 arrived, I did not even know who they were. I had just assumed because

1 they came and said hello to Stevan Todorovic, that they were the leaders

2 of the group that had come.

3 Q. Okay. Now, sir, are you aware that Simo Zaric has provided three

4 statements to the Office of the Prosecutor, he's been interviewed and

5 given three statements to the Office of the Prosecutor? Are you aware of

6 that?

7 A. I am not aware of that, but it is quite natural that he should be

8 giving statements to the Office of the Prosecutor.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note. Could the witness's other

10 microphone please be turned on, the one facing the Prosecution.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the usher can assist.

12 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

13 Q. Now, sir, in Simo Zaric's third statement, which is Exhibit P142

14 ter, Simo Zaric discusses the arrival of this Serbian volunteers, as you

15 did, and he indicates that Stevan Todorovic and Dr. Blagoje Simic were

16 involved in bringing them to Samac. On page 73, Zaric is asked about the

17 names of the Serbian paramilitaries who came to town.

18 MR. WEINER: And could the witness be shown this document P142

19 ter.

20 Q. If you could please turn to page 74, please. If you could go to

21 the top paragraph on page 74, the second sentence up from the bottom. So

22 let me bring you back. The second sentence from the bottom of that top

23 paragraph. Do you see? He's asked on the page before about the names of

24 the Serbian paramilitaries who came to town, and as he describes that, he

25 also says: "Mr. Todorovic and Mr. Simic certainly knew, with certain

1 forces in Serbia that they had contacts with, that they agreed with about

2 the group that was supposed to arrive."

3 Did I read that correctly, sir?

4 A. I know that Stevan Todorovic met this group. At that time,

5 Blagoje Simic was not in the village of Batkusa when these people

6 arrived. Perhaps Simo could have obtained some other information in

7 Belgrade or something, but I know that it was Stevan Todorovic who met

8 them, and the commander of the 1st Detachment too.

9 Q. What it was is Simo Zaric is commenting that those two persons

10 were involved in bringing them to Samac, that they knew about their

11 arrival coming -- was forthcoming. And did I read that correctly: When

12 Simo Zaric in explaining that, says: "Mr. Todorovic and Mr. Simic

13 certainly knew, with certain forces in Serbia that they had contacts with,

14 that they agreed with about the group that was supposed to arrive"? Isn't

15 that what happened in Samac: Those persons - Blagoje Simic and

16 Todorovic - were aware that those persons were arriving and were involved

17 or participated in bringing them there, based on your knowledge?

18 A. I have knowledge that Stevan Todorovic knew about this because

19 he's the one who met them. Now, whether Blagoje Simic knew about it is

20 something that I did not know about at that time. I know that Blagoje

21 Simic was president of the Crisis Staff. That I do know.

22 Q. Okay.

23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Weiner. Just for the sake of

24 clarity of the transcript. If you take a look at your question on page

25 19, beginning, I think, line 17 on the LiveNote, there are all sorts of

1 things left out of what you said, and for the sake of us coming back and

2 reading that a bit later on, it doesn't make too much sense. Do you see

3 what I'm referring to? Your question, it's gone off the big screen here,

4 but on page 27, line 17, where you asked the witness to turn to page 74,

5 and then three lines down you say the second sentence, et cetera. "Do you

6 see." And then what you say hasn't come out clearly at all.

7 MR. WEINER: All right. We'll continue on with that question and

8 comment.

9 Q. Simo Zaric made an indication in 1998 that those persons were

10 aware and planned with people in Belgrade for the paramilitaries to come

11 there. You stated, just previously, that you didn't know at that time,

12 upon the arrival. Did you sometime later learn that Blagoje Simic was

13 involved in bringing the paramilitaries there?

14 A. As for my previous knowledge, I did not really interfere with the

15 work of the Crisis Staff in any way. I did not express any interest in

16 that. I was personally present when Stevan Todorovic telephoned from the

17 command of the 17th Tactical Group, when he made this telephone call to

18 Belgrade. He called Colonel Jeremic. I never heard Blagoje Simic call

19 anyone. Whether he knew or not is something that I could only make

20 assumptions about. Blagoje Simic seldom came to the command of the 17th

21 Tactical Group. Stevan Todorovic was at the command much more.

22 Q. Okay. Now, let's continue on this, because we're talking about

23 information that was applied by Simo Zaric during his statement, and

24 that's information on page 74. But let's continue on this. Simo Zaric

25 was your assistant, or you were his supervisor and he was your assistant,

1 if you want to call it, in Bosanski Samac. He reported to you.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And it was his job to find out what was happening in Bosanski

4 Samac and report that to you, as the intelligence officer.

5 A. Yes. That was his task, and he informed me, he reported to me.

6 Q. And he reported to you with intelligence information of what was

7 happening politically, what was happening criminally, what was happening

8 militarily, in the municipality of Bosanski Samac; isn't that correct?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. And being in Bosanski Samac, in the town, he was in a position to

11 know what was happening, where you were a distance away?

12 A. Yes. He knew these people.

13 Q. So you have no reason to disbelieve Simo Zaric's statement that

14 Todorovic and Dr. Blagoje Simic brought those paramilitaries into Samac,

15 or into Batkusa?

16 A. I certainly have no reason --

17 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The witness

18 has already answered this question, and he said that he did not know about

19 Mr. Blagoje Simic knowing about the arrival of the special units. He said

20 that Stevan Todorovic was there and that he knew about this. And now the

21 Prosecutor is leading the witness, trying to make him say something else,

22 but he has already given a clear answer.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Vukovic, the question by the Prosecutor has

24 taken a different turn, and it's proper, so the witness should be able to

25 answer. So your objection is not sustained.

1 MR. WEINER:

2 Q. Mr. Witness, his objection to your statement was overruled, so

3 could you repeat your answer again to my question. You have no reason to

4 disbelieve Simo Zaric's statement that Stevan Todorovic and Blagoje Simic

5 were involved in bringing those paramilitaries into Batkusa; you have no

6 reason to disbelieve that, do you?

7 A. I have no reason for that.

8 Q. Let's continue on with the arrival of the paramilitaries. You

9 indicated that Colonel Nikolic had gone out, or you had talked to

10 Colonel Nikolic about the situation, and that he had scheduled a meeting

11 for the next day, for April 12th. Isn't that correct? That a meeting was

12 agreed to for April 12th?

13 A. Yes, it was agreed that the meeting would be held in Donji Zabar

14 on the 12th of April.

15 Q. And you -- and then Colonel Nikolic had told you that

16 representatives of the civilian authorities from Bosanski Samac would be

17 present; isn't that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's what he said, and upon his return he did say that they

19 had been present at the meeting.

20 Q. So upon his return, Colonel Nikolic's return, you spoke with him

21 and he said "they," referring to civilian authorities, had been present;

22 correct, sir?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And he told you, sir, that Blagoje Simic was present at that

25 meeting; isn't that correct?

1 A. When Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic returned from that meeting, he

2 said not only to me, but to the other members of the command as well, he

3 told us briefly about what this meeting was about and what was said there,

4 and he said that the representatives of the civilian authorities had been

5 there. I think he actually enumerated the members who had been there, who

6 had been present.

7 Q. And he told you, when he enumerated on those persons, that

8 Blagoje Simic had been there?

9 A. Yes. I think that he also mentioned Blagoje Simic, that he

10 mentioned Milan Simic as well. Then this Simeon. I don't know these

11 people. I know he mentioned Stevan Todorovic too. So the representatives

12 of the civilian authorities.

13 Q. And also, in addition to the civilian authorities from Samac - and

14 you mentioned Milan Simic, the defendant Blagoje Simic, Stevan Todorovic,

15 and a Simeon - in addition to those representatives from Samac were Crni,

16 Lugar, and Debeli, at that meeting; isn't that correct?

17 A. Yes. That is what Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic said, that they were

18 also at that meeting and that they showed him their official IDs, that

19 they were members of the MUP of the Serb Krajina.

20 Q. And you were aware at that time that Blagoje Simic was not only a

21 Crisis Staff president, but Blagoje Simic was also the SDS party

22 president?

23 A. Yes, I knew that he was president of the SDS in the municipality

24 of Samac.

25 Q. Now, the defendant Blagoje Simic's presence with the Serbian

1 paramilitaries on that day, isn't that consistent with Simo Zaric's

2 statement that we just discussed previously, that Blagoje Simic was

3 involved in bringing the paramilitaries to Batkusa? Isn't that consistent

4 with that?

5 MR. VUKOVIC: Objection, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Why?

7 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] Because the Prosecutor is leading

8 the witness and making him guess whether the presence -- whether one's

9 presence at such a meeting can have a certain significance.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Vukovic. There is no -- your objection is

11 misconceived, I think. The Prosecution will go on.

12 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

13 Q. The objection was overruled, so you can answer the question. The

14 question, again, is: Blagoje Simic's presence at that meeting with the

15 paramilitaries, isn't that consistent with Simo Zaric's statement to the

16 Office of the Prosecutor that Blagoje Simic was involved or participated

17 in bringing the paramilitaries to the municipality of Samac?

18 A. It is possible that in that context Simo Zaric made this

19 statement. This meeting was also attended by the representative from

20 Pelagicevo as well. I know that. Also from the civilian authorities. I

21 did not know whether he had taken part in bringing these volunteers in

22 either. Commander Nikolic asked for a meeting with these civilian

23 authorities, and they responded to that invitation. He enumerated the

24 people who were there at that meeting, and he said to us what had been

25 agreed upon at the meeting, that these volunteers would be under the

1 command of the civilian authorities, not under the military, because they

2 were not within the then Yugoslav People's Army.

3 Q. Let us continue, sir. Simo Zaric, in that document at page 64 and

4 65, talks about the establishing, prior to the war, of a shadow

5 government, or a parallel government, by the Serbs in the municipalities

6 of Bosanski Samac and Pelagicevo. Were you aware of that? Were you

7 receiving reports that that was happening?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And were you aware that this shadow government, or parallel

10 government, was called the Serbian Municipality of Samac and Pelagicevo

11 Under Formation?

12 A. Yes, I knew that that is what it was called.

13 Q. And were you further aware, sir, that Stevan Todorovic had been

14 named the chief of police of the Serbian municipality by this shadow

15 government?

16 A. Yes. We had this information. And I also had the information

17 that Mico Ivanovic had been appointed commander of the Territorial

18 Defence.

19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I think now would be a time to break and

20 we could continue on with this.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll continue at 1100 hours.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination continuing.

25 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. Mr. Simeunovic, before we broke, we were talking about the shadow

2 government that had been established by the Serbs prior to the war, and

3 you had indicated that a Serb municipality had been established, that

4 Todorovic had been named chief of police, that Mico Ivanovic had been

5 appointed commander of the Territorial Defence, or TO. Sir, were you also

6 aware that a Crisis Staff had been established by the Serbs?

7 A. Yes, yes, I was aware of that.

8 Q. And were you further aware that Blagoje Simic, the defendant, was

9 named president of the Municipal Assembly and then the Crisis Staff

10 president?

11 A. Yes, we had that information. I knew about that.

12 Q. And were you further aware that government bodies were being

13 established in this shadow or parallel government, including an Executive

14 Council, various positions were being filled? Were you aware of that,

15 sir?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And were you further aware that Stevan Todorovic was forming a

18 police unit? Were you aware of that?

19 A. We found out about that when the group came, a group of 23 young

20 people was sent, young men who were being sent for training. That's when

21 I found out about the police, established by Stevan Todorovic.

22 Q. And were you further aware that Stevan Todorovic was ordered by

23 the Municipal Assembly or the Crisis Staff, still prior to the war, to

24 establish this police unit and coordinate it with the military and

25 civilian authorities, including the TO? Were you aware of that too?

1 A. Well, certainly someone had to give him orders, and it was the

2 Crisis Staff. They probably ordered him to set up this unit, but they had

3 no cooperation with the JNA.

4 Q. And finally, sir: Were you aware that the SDS municipal board

5 initiated the appointment of Blagoje Simic as assembly president and then

6 Crisis Staff head?

7 A. I know that he was appointed to these positions.

8 Q. So basically, prior to the war, there were several SDS or Serb

9 activities involved in forming a government, this shadow government or

10 parallel government?

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: I have no problem with this question, but

12 actually, it contains two questions. SDS or Serb activities. This makes

13 a difference. I mean, SDS is a political party and Serb as ethnic group.

14 This is not the same thing, at least for the Defence. Maybe the

15 Prosecution has a different opinion.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. I think it's better to split it

17 and be more specific.

18 MR. WEINER:

19 Q. Sir, so prior to the war, there were several SDS and Serb

20 leadership activities, or other Serb political party joint activities in

21 forming a government, this shadow government or parallel government?

22 A. Yes, there were activities.

23 Q. And I assume that you being a Yugoslav didn't support these

24 separate actions of the SDS.

25 A. No, I didn't. I was in favour of Yugoslavia. I was a Yugoslav by

1 conviction. I wanted things to stay the way they were. After that point,

2 I wanted to continue that way.

3 Q. Now, sir, are you aware that the national Serb government leader,

4 or former leader, an SDS party leader, national SDS party leader, Biljana

5 Plavsic, has pled guilty in this court and has been sentenced just last

6 week in this courthouse? Are you aware of that, sir? And she was

7 sentenced for persecution of the non-Serb population of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you aware of that?

9 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.

10 Q. Sir, as part of her plea, she has admitted to several things, and

11 I'd like to read something to you and ask you how consistent that is with

12 the information we were just discussing. On page 3 of the factual basis

13 for her plea, paragraph 12 -- one moment, please.

14 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I have this in B/C/S, and it's one

15 paragraph. It might be easier if I read it and the witness followed along

16 in B/C/S.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that part of the record, this paragraph you're

18 trying to read? What is the formal document?

19 MR. WEINER: At this point, I'd ask that it be given an ID number.

20 It's the factual basis for her plea of guilty. It's part of the record in

21 that plea, and it's mentioned in the sentencing judgement.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. You can go ahead.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can we have it on the ELMO, please.

25 MR. WEINER: Sir, I'd invite your attention to paragraph number 12

1 on page 3.

2 Q. Sir, I'd like to read that to you, and would you follow along with

3 it. Paragraph 12: "In addition, the SDS prepared and distributed written

4 instructions to SDS municipal leaders to form crisis staffs, proclaim

5 Serbian municipal assemblies, and carry out preparations for the formation

6 of municipal government bodies, and to mobilise Bosnian Serb police and

7 Territorial Defence forces and subordinate them to JNA command. The

8 municipal crisis staffs implemented these objectives and directives in the

9 field, including ultimately the objective of ethnic separation by force."

10 Did I read that correctly, sir?

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm afraid we still don't see it on the ELMO. I

12 really tried here on the screen, on the video evidence, it is not visible.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but the witness is following as the Prosecutor

14 was reading, and it is now on record. So we can proceed.

15 MR. WEINER:

16 Q. Sir, those orders which Biljana Plavsic indicated that the SDS

17 leadership sent out to the municipal crisis staffs to take certain

18 actions, those actions were all followed in Samac. That's what happened

19 in Samac?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could I get an ID number on that? I

22 have the English and B/C/S versions.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

24 THE REGISTRAR: D169/3 ter ID.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it also says here to

1 place them under the command of the JNA in the area of responsibility of

2 the 17th Tactical Group, the forces that had been set up were not put

3 under the command of the JNA. It was only later, when Djordjevic, Crni,

4 was named as commander, that they did join in, but at that point they

5 joined the army of Republika Srpska. These forces were not under the

6 command of the JNA.

7 MR. WEINER:

8 Q. Okay. We'll get that to in a second. Let's work on the

9 administrative.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe we have one problem here. The number

11 for this document is D169/3. This would mean that it's a Defence Exhibit.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, can we go back to this document where

13 you are quoting? It's a Prosecution Exhibit. It shouldn't be given an

14 ID.

15 MR. WEINER: Yes. I was going to just straighten that matter out.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a Prosecution Exhibit. It's an official

17 document.

18 MR. WEINER: At this point, yes, it's a Prosecution document. I'd

19 like it ID'd, the English and the ter version.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: What I'm saying is it's part of the record of that

21 case.

22 MR. WEINER: Of that case?

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

24 MR. WEINER: Then I would move that it be admitted in full.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: So can we have the number, please.

1 THE REGISTRAR: P164, and ter.

2 MR. WEINER:

3 Q. Sir, with regard to your last question, the Crisis Staff and,

4 actually, the Municipal Assembly, Serbian Municipal Assembly, indicated

5 that this police unit and the military units were to collaborate with the

6 civilian and military authorities. However, based on your statement, they

7 did not actually follow through and do that. Is that correct?

8 A. The police forces that were set up, they were not under the

9 command of the JNA.

10 Q. No. I can understand that. They were supposed to collaborate and

11 work together, subordinate themselves with the JNA, but apparently in

12 Samac they did not do that; they didn't follow through and do that; they

13 didn't work together with the JNA. Isn't that correct?

14 A. They did not cooperate with the JNA in Samac.

15 Q. Okay.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, this document, it was filed under seal.

17 Has it been lifted? Has the confidentiality been lifted?

18 MR. WEINER: Yes, it was, in December.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

20 MR. WEINER:

21 Q. Now, sir, do you still have Exhibit P142 ter in front of you?

22 MR. WEINER: Is that still with the witness?

23 Q. Now, sir, Simo Zaric also discusses the basis of these pre-war

24 activities by the SDS, and these pre-war preparations for establishing a

25 shadow government, and he discusses that in his June 3rd, 1998, interview,

1 on page 65 of 142 ter. Now, if you go down to the fourth sentence, the

2 name John, to the left, is asking a question. The question, page 65: "It

3 didn't replace the government that was already in existence, but could

4 have been called a shadow government, if you will." Do you see that, sir?

5 A. On page 56 --

6 Q. No. 65, sir. Do you see the name John, the fourth name down,

7 with a question?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. Simo Zaric is asked the following question: "It didn't

10 replace --" And they're referring to this shadow or parallel government

11 set up by the Serbs. "It didn't replace the government that was already

12 in existence, but could have been called a shadow government, if you

13 will." And the answer is, if you -- there's then the interpretation in --

14 okay. I just read it in English. Then there's the interpretation of

15 question that, then there's the statement in B/C/S and then under that the

16 statement in English again. And I'll read it in English if you would

17 follow in B/C/S: "You could put it that way, yes, but it was all dictated

18 by the Main Board, which was headed by Mr. Karadzic, and Blagoje Simic,

19 who was the president of the Crisis Staff in Samac and took over the

20 power, was a very close associate in agreement with Mr. Karadzic. I can

21 say this because I found this out later, after the war had started,

22 because I could see in which direction they were preparing themselves, and

23 this is my conviction, and this is my opinion which I based on that."

24 Did I read that correctly, sir?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Simo Zaric's statement that the municipal leaders were given

2 orders by the national leaders, like Karadzic and Plavsic, that's

3 consistent with the statement that Biljana Plavsic gave, where we gave the

4 following orders to these people. Isn't that consistent, sir?

5 A. Yes. We [as interpreted] certainly received instructions from our

6 superiors.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one second. The answer that the witness gave

9 was not: "We certainly received instructions from our superiors." It

10 was: "They received instructions from their superiors." This is exactly

11 what the witness said.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we can just have the answer repeated.

13 MR. WEINER:

14 Q. Sir, could you repeat your answer to whether or not Zaric's

15 statement was consistent with Plavsic's statement as to the establishment

16 of the shadow government, as the orders coming down from the top? You

17 said that they received instructions from their superiors. Is that how

18 you answered that question of mine?

19 A. Yes. The municipal ones that were established, they certainly

20 received instructions from their superiors, from the SDS Main Board.

21 Q. Now, I'd like to refer to another one of Simo Zaric's interviews,

22 P141 ter, please. Pages 11 and 12, please.

23 Sir, what I'd like to do is --

24 MR. WEINER: Mr. Usher, you could sit down. Thank you.

25 Q. What I'd like to do, sir, is move on from the shadow government

1 into the takeover, and Simo Zaric, at pages 11 and 12 in that statement

2 that was given to the Office of the Prosecutor, discusses Blagoje Simic's

3 role in the takeover. And if you look at the bottom of page 11, where it

4 says "Nancy" on the left, right at the bottom, the question was: Did you

5 ever find out whether Blagoje Simic played any role in giving the orders

6 for the attack to take place?" Zaric, top of page 12:

7 "I already told you that Nikolic told us that it was President

8 Blagoje Simic of the Crisis Staff had called him and told him that the

9 Crisis Staff had decided that they would take over the town. So, yes, I

10 do believe that he played a key role in the takeover."

11 And if we go down to the next two paragraphs down, where you see

12 "Nancy" again, or actually, four, she says: "I'm sorry. I may have

13 missed this along the way. When was it that Nikolic received this call

14 from Simic, informing him that they had made the decision to take over?"

15 And Zaric responds: "And Nikolic told us that he had received a call from

16 Blagoje Simic on the 16th, after midnight, so it was actually the 17th,

17 very, very early in the morning, in the night, telling him that the Crisis

18 Staff had decided to take over the town of Samac and that it would then

19 become the Serbian municipality of Samac, that there were Serbian police

20 and units were taking over all vital buildings and objects in the town."

21 Did I just read correctly what Simo Zaric said? Did I just

22 translate that correctly?

23 A. No, I don't think you've read this out correctly. It does make

24 sense, but --

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: The translation basically is similar, but it is

1 not word to word same as it is in the interview. So maybe it would be

2 helpful to put it on the ELMO so the interpreters could have it before

3 their eyes. Or maybe rather, the witness can read the sentence.

4 MR. WEINER:

5 Q. Could you put it on the ELMO machine and read it from there,

6 please, sir. And could you please read the phrase or the sentence that

7 you indicate that is not correct, the interpretation is not correct.

8 A. There are several such sentences. What I said is that the general

9 meaning is what you said, but the text itself is not exactly consistent

10 with your reading. But the meaning is there. And still, there are

11 several sentences which have a slightly different meaning.

12 Q. For the record, could you read those sentences out so we could put

13 it in the record. Could you read it, that question and how Zaric

14 responded.

15 A. Where should I begin?

16 Q. Page 11, the first -- the question asked by Nancy --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Prosecution counsel.

18 MR. WEINER: Sorry about that.

19 Q. Page 11, that last question. Begin with that. Nancy: "Did you

20 ever find out whether Blagoje Simic played a role?"

21 A. That's page 11.

22 Q. Yes, sir. It starts --

23 A. "Did you ever find out whether Blagoje Simic played any role in

24 giving the order for the attack on the town?"

25 Q. And could you read the answer on the next page.

1 A. "I told you that Mr. Nikolic, the commander, that morning told us

2 that the president of the Crisis Staff, Blagoje Simic, had informed him

3 that they had taken the decision to take the town. This means - I'm

4 talking about the Crisis Staff and I'm talking about Blagoje Simic.

5 Therefore, I believe that Mr. Simic was one of the key people in bringing

6 such a decision."

7 Q. Okay. And then there's some requests for some water and then

8 there's another question by Nancy: "I'm sorry. I may have missed this

9 along the way." Do you see that? When was it that Nikolic received this

10 call from Simic?" Do you see that?

11 A. Should I answer?

12 Q. Yes. Could you read that again, please.

13 A. It's not on this page. There's only the question.

14 Q. Okay. Do you see the question and the answer? Does it follow,

15 the question and the answer, sir? It's in the middle of page 12.

16 MR. WEINER: May I point it out to the witness, walk over, to save

17 time?

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see the question, but the

20 answer is not on the same page; it's on the following page.

21 MR. WEINER:

22 Q. Okay. Could you please read the question and answer, up to the

23 discussion -- the end of the police taking over the vital buildings,

24 because there's other discussion there too.

25 A. The question is: "Excuse me. I may have missed this. When was

1 it that Nikolic -- when was it that Blagoje Simic called Nikolic to tell

2 him about the decision?" The answer is: "Mr. Nikolic told us that he had

3 been informed on the 16th, after midnight, by the Crisis Staff, that the

4 Crisis Staff had taken over power in the town, and so on and so forth.

5 That means that was on the 17th, in the morning, or thereabouts. I don't

6 know exactly. But at any rate, Mr. Simic informed him during the night

7 that the Serb police forces and volunteers had come in to take the vital

8 buildings and facilities and that they were taking over as the Serbian

9 municipality of Samac.

10 "If I may just be allowed to say this: This official government,

11 Mr. Simic and the official government, during the war years, whenever they

12 celebrated that day, the 16th, they considered it as the liberation day,

13 you know. Personally, I don't share this opinion, but they always

14 emphasised the role played by the Serbian police and volunteers, but never

15 the 4th Detachment, never. They never wanted to mention that. What I

16 want to say is: We really didn't - and this is not about pride - what I'm

17 saying is that this is their entire strategy. They're making history

18 anew. But I don't think history will be written in that way. For them,

19 we were always a unit of traitors."

20 Q. Thank you. Now, the statements that Zaric gave in this interview,

21 are those consistent with your memory of what Nikolic said on that

22 evening, or in those early morning hours, about receiving the telephone

23 call from Blagoje Simic that the Serbs had taken over with the police and

24 the paramilitaries? Is that consistent with your memory of Nikolic's

25 statement during those early-morning hours?

1 A. Yes, it is.

2 Q. And do you know of any reason why Colonel Nikolic would have said

3 that to Radovan Antic, to Simo Zaric, to yourself, if it wasn't true?

4 A. It was the truth. That is what he said to us.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Vukovic.

6 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is leading the

7 witness to speculate, purely.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Vukovic. That is not correct.

9 MR. VUKOVIC: Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: The objection is not sustained.

11 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Mr. Usher.

12 Q. Sir, you testified last Wednesday and Friday about the transfer of

13 the prisoners to Brcko. Do you recall that, testifying last week about

14 that?

15 A. Yes, I recall that.

16 Q. And based on the information that you were receiving, you also

17 talked about what was happening there in the town to the prisoners and

18 civilians, that some bad things were happening in that town at that same

19 period, which even resulted in prisoners being transferred.

20 A. Yes. The prisoners were removed for humanitarian reasons, in

21 order to protect them. That is why they were transferred to Brcko. That

22 was the primary reason.

23 Q. And you testified about the mistreatment of prisoners upon arrest,

24 including extortion being -- they were being extorted upon arrest, and

25 beaten.

1 A. Yes. That is the information that we received. That is the

2 information we received when the commander ordered Simo to go to the

3 police station to look at the statements that were taken from individuals

4 who had been arrested and, if necessary, to conduct some interviews. He

5 then noticed that these people had been mistreated, beaten up, et cetera.

6 Q. So you received information, in addition to mistreatment upon

7 arrest, mistreatment while in detention; mistreatment was taking place in

8 the detention?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And that in the detention, there were cruel and inhumane

11 conditions, beatings and tortures, and you even saw prisoners all black

12 and blue when you removed them. So the cruel and inhumane conditions in

13 that detention?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. And you further had heard that one or more prisoners had even been

16 killed, been murdered?

17 A. Yes. I think that it was exactly on that date, the 26th of April,

18 when this decision was passed, that the killing had actually taken place,

19 that the murder had taken place, and that is why the decision was passed

20 to have them transferred to Brcko immediately.

21 Q. And sir, you, as a professional military officer, wanted no part

22 of any of this mistreatment upon arrest, mistreatment of prisoners, cruel

23 and inhumane conditions, killing of prisoners. You, as a professional

24 soldier, wanted no part of that?

25 A. No, I didn't want to be any part of that. I opposed that, even

1 when I came to Brcko, when the military policemen were also receiving

2 these prisoners in a very rough manner. I opposed that as well.

3 Q. And sir, did you also learn sometime during that time period, or

4 sometime thereafter, that certain prisoners were being unlawfully

5 arrested? You talked about Commander Nikolic having to call to have those

6 JNA soldiers released, that certain people were being unlawfully arrested.

7 A. Yes. After authority was taken over, it was the members of the

8 4th Detachment of the Yugoslav People's Army who were also detained, and

9 Commander Nikolic intervened with Stevan Todorovic and sent Simo Zaric in

10 order to have these people released, and indeed they were released.

11 Q. Now, sir, these five types of mistreatment or criminal acts that I

12 just described above - mistreatment of prisoners upon arrest, mistreatment

13 of prisoners in detention, cruel and inhumane conditions in detention,

14 prisoners, one or more prisoners being killed, unlawful arrests - those

15 five criminal acts, are you aware that Biljana Plavsic has pled guilty to

16 the crime of persecutions, indicating that she and members of the Bosnian

17 Serb forces, Bosnian Serb political and government organs and their

18 agents, committed five of those acts that I just read to you? Were you

19 aware of that, that among the crimes of persecution, or among the factors

20 of persecution, were those five acts? Are you aware of that, sir?

21 A. I'm aware that Biljana Plavsic confessed her guilt. Perhaps the

22 reporting was not very detailed in our part of the world, but they did say

23 that Biljana Plavsic had confessed to her guilt and that that is why this

24 judgement was passed upon her.

25 Q. She has admitted and been sentenced for persecution of the

1 non-Serb population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and what she pled guilty to,

2 admitting those five different types of acts, were the same thing that was

3 happening in Samac, because you've just admitted that those things were

4 happening in Samac.

5 A. I said that there had been detentions in Bosanski Samac, and also

6 inhumane treatment of the non-Serb population. They were detained in Serb

7 [as interpreted] Samac. That was the case, yes.

8 Q. And she admitted that she was involved in a campaign to commit

9 those types of acts, and that amounts to persecution.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

12 MR. LAZAREVIC: The witness didn't say "Serb Samac," as it is here

13 in the transcript on page 50, line 2. He said "in Bosanski Samac," is

14 what he said.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That will be corrected.

16 MR. WEINER:

17 Q. Sir, my question was: And she admitted that she was involved in a

18 campaign to commit those types of acts, from the leaders on down, and

19 those acts amount to persecution; do you agree with that? When you commit

20 those types of crimes.

21 MR. VUKOVIC: Objection, Your Honour. [Interpretation] The witness

22 is not a legal expert, and he cannot define persecution. It's better for

23 the Prosecutor to ask the witness first what he means by "persecution,"

24 and only then he can answer this question.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

1 MR. WEINER: Let me rephrase the question, Your Honour. That

2 sounds good.

3 Q. Biljana Plavsic has pled guilty and has been sentenced for

4 persecution against the non-Serb population of Bosnia, which you know, and

5 the acts which constituted persecution included those acts which we just

6 discussed were occurring in Samac. So what Biljana pled guilty to,

7 therefore, was the same thing that was happening in Samac.

8 A. If we are now talking about persecutions in Samac, I cannot claim

9 that there were persecutions in Samac. I said that I took part in the

10 commission for exchange. No one from the commission for exchange forced

11 anyone to leave Samac, to leave Bosanski Samac, their houses, and to go

12 somewhere.

13 Q. We'll get to the exchanges later. Right now the question is:

14 Those acts, unlawful arrests, mistreatment of prisoners upon arrest,

15 mistreatment of prisoners in the detention facilities, murder of

16 prisoners, inhumane and cruel conditions in the detention facilities -

17 those acts which you admit occurred in Samac, Biljana Plavsic has

18 testified -- or actually, Biljana Plavsic has pled guilty to being

19 involved in those exact same acts.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Vukovic.

21 MR. VUKOVIC: Objection, Your Honour.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe I could give such information for this

23 objection, because I'm ...

24 My colleague Mr. Vukovic already said that the witness is not a

25 legal expert, and furthermore, this is not just these acts. There is also

1 some other elements of this crime. Putting it this way to the witness and

2 asking him whether it is a crime of persecution or not, it's far beyond

3 his knowledge, his legal knowledge and his experience.

4 MR. WEINER: I'll rephrase the question.

5 MR. VUKOVIC: Objection, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Vukovic.

7 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor put a question to the

8 witness, a very leading question. He never said that there were illegal

9 arrests. The witness never said so while he was making his own statement.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

11 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, he has testified about those five

12 things, those five crimes, including the unlawful arrests, because that's

13 why we also mentioned -- specifically we mentioned that Colonel Nikolic

14 had to call and have certain JNA or 4th Detachment members released.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Yes. That was regarding the -- some

16 members of the 4th Detachment. All right.

17 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the fact that Nikolic

18 called and asked for some persons from the 4th Detachment to be released

19 does not mean that they had been unlawfully arrested. That is what the

20 Prosecutor says. That's not what the witness said. And the police cannot

21 arrest the military, as well.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

23 MR. WEINER: Apparently they did.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: But the point Mr. Vukovic is making that the fact

25 that he ordered their release does not mean that they were unlawfully

1 arrested. Because we haven't got evidence as to why or how they were

2 arrested.

3 MR. WEINER: May the witness be shown Exhibit P127, please.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 MR. WEINER:

6 Q. Sir, could you go to paragraph beginning paragraph 5, or the fifth

7 paragraph. It's on page 2 in the English. It should be 2 or 3. Do you

8 see that paragraph, sir? It begins with: "The fact that criminals of a

9 Yugoslav calibre were hiding among the Serbian commandos." Do you see

10 that?

11 A. Yes. No.

12 Q. All right. Let me read the fifth paragraph to you, the third

13 sentence down, the third -- or the fourth sentence down, this is the 13th

14 signatories document which was mentioned to you previously. You indicated

15 you were aware of that document. Remember? Thirteen officers signed it,

16 complaining of certain crimes that were being committed in Samac. If you

17 read the fourth sentence down in that fifth paragraph, it says: "The

18 massive arrests and isolation of Croats and Muslims followed, without any

19 criteria, and some prisoners were subjected to measures such as abuse,

20 torture, and even killing, characteristic only of war criminals of Ustasha

21 origin."

22 Do you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. So it indicates that persons were being arrested and

25 isolated without any criteria.

1 A. Yes, that's what it says here.

2 Q. And could you look at the last page, where the signatures are.

3 Those are the signatures of the brigade command. Mile Beronja, Milan

4 Josic, Simo Zaric, Jovan Erletic, Milan Maksimovic. Do you see those 13

5 names?

6 A. Yes, I see them.

7 Q. Do you know of those persons?

8 A. I know most of these people.

9 Q. And do you know of any reason why they would be discussing arrests

10 without any criteria if it wasn't true?

11 A. There wouldn't be any reason. There must have been a reason why

12 they discussed this and why this kind of paper was compiled.

13 Q. And also in that paper, they talk about mistreatment of prisoners,

14 in addition to the isolation and arrests they mention in that same

15 sentence that mistreatment of prisoners, including torture and even

16 killing. Remember? They mentioned in that one sentence the mistreatment

17 of prisoners too. Do you want me to read the sentence again to you? "The

18 massive arrests and isolation of Croats and Muslims followed, without any

19 criteria, and some of the prisoners were subjected to measures such as

20 abuse, torture, and even killing, characteristic only of war criminals of

21 Ustasha origin."

22 A. During my testimony last week, I presented my own knowledge, that

23 is, that detainees had been beaten up, and it is people like that, beaten

24 up, black and blue, that I transferred to Brcko. And to the best of

25 everyone's knowledge, they got these bruises while they were being

1 arrested or upon arrest. The conditions were inhumane, their conditions

2 of detention. And it is because of all of that that a decision was made

3 to transfer them to Brcko, to the garrison in Brcko.

4 Q. And these people who were being mistreated and were placed in

5 inhumane conditions, these people that you then transferred to Brcko,

6 these were Muslims and Croats?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. All right, sir. Let us talk about exchanges for a few

9 moments. You testified this morning about your involvement in the

10 exchange process; isn't that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And that you were involved in the exchange of prisoners of war?

13 A. Yes. I was a member of the military commission for the exchange

14 of prisoners of war and missing persons.

15 Q. You weren't involved, sir, in the exchange of civilians. Your

16 involvement was in the exchange of prisoners of war.

17 A. Yes. I was involved in the exchange of prisoners of war, not

18 civilians.

19 Q. And not being involved in the exchange of civilians, you didn't

20 expect -- you didn't inspect any of the camps in Bosanski Samac after that

21 one -- after the one transfer of prisoners to Brcko; isn't that correct?

22 A. No, I did not visit these camps where civilians had been detained,

23 except for the 26th, when I came to transfer those detainees to Brcko.

24 Q. So you weren't aware of the condition of the prisoners in the

25 primary school during the summer -- during the late spring and the summer

1 and even early fall of 1992?

2 A. I know that there were detainees at the elementary school as

3 well. This was later. This was not immediately at the beginning after

4 the 17th. It was later. I know they were detained there, but I did not

5 know under what kind of conditions they were. I had never gone there.

6 Q. And after the movement of prisoners to Brcko, you never visited or

7 examined the condition of the prisoners at the SUP or the TO, the

8 civilian -- non-Serb civilians who were being held at the TO. You never

9 examined their condition or met with them or visited them; isn't that

10 correct?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps this is for cross-examination,

13 but I think it would be fair to put the following question to the witness:

14 Whether there were any detention in Samac after people were transferred to

15 Batkovic. Because this line of questioning refers to Batkovic, but he

16 does not ask whether there was anyone at the TO or the SUP after that

17 particular date.

18 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. I'm wondering whether the

19 translation. Is Batkovic right there? I thought we were talking about

20 Brcko.

21 MR. WEINER: I referred to, after the movement of prisoners to

22 Brcko, that he basically had no -- I was trying to show he had no -- he

23 had no visits or no opportunity to ever see those prisoners.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. I beg your

25 pardon. My oversight. Sorry.

1 MR. WEINER: Okay.

2 Q. Sir, the question is: After the Brcko incident, which was the end

3 of April -- on or about April 26th, April 28th, did you ever visit or see

4 or meet with any of the prisoners at the SUP, the police station or the

5 SUP, the TO or Territorial Defence, in Samac, during the spring, the

6 summer, or fall of 1992?

7 A. No. I did not encounter these people after that. After the

8 transfer, I did not come to the police station. I didn't go to the

9 Territorial Defence building in Samac either.

10 Q. Okay. And in addition to those other three facilities which we've

11 mentioned - the primary school, the TO, the SUP - there were also non-Serb

12 civilians that were held or isolated in Zasavica or at the high school,

13 and you never visited or met with any of those people at those locations,

14 did you, sir?

15 A. No, I didn't. I know that there were people in Crkvina, let's

16 say, in isolation, and also in Zasavica, a village. But I didn't visit,

17 because there were no prisoners of war being held there.

18 Q. So you didn't visit these people in isolation because you -- they

19 were civilians, these non-Serbs. They were civilians, and you were

20 interested in the prisoners of war, the soldiers.

21 A. Yes. I was only interested in prisoners of war. I was a member

22 of the commission. I was not interested in civilians. I mean, they

23 interested me as people, but I was not in charge of their release or their

24 exchange. I simply didn't have that sort of authority.

25 Q. And since you weren't involved with the civilians, you never

1 conducted any study or review of the voluntariness of the exchange of

2 these civilians from Bosanski Samac?

3 A. I did not conduct any studies, but I know that when we did go to

4 exchanges, and when exchanges were agreed to be held in the Republic of

5 Croatia, in Dragalic, or in the Gradacac area, or in the Doboj area, where

6 people from Bosanski Samac did go, civilian people, I'd come the day

7 before or the same day and I would go to the Red Cross. As far as I know,

8 especially as concerns Brcko, the civilian population volunteered to

9 appear at the Red Cross and apply for a possibility to be exchanged. They

10 wanted people to secure a possibility for them to cross into the zone of

11 responsibility of the HVO or the BH army.

12 [Prosecution counsel confer]

13 MR. WEINER:

14 Q. Okay. Now, sir, would you agree with me -- you were just

15 mentioning that what you knew about Brcko, you were just talking about

16 Brcko. But let's return to Samac for a few minutes. And was Simo Zaric

17 in a position -- in a better position than you were to know what was

18 happening in Samac in relation to the exchanges? Was Simo Zaric in a

19 better position than yourself?

20 A. As far as I know, Simo Zaric was not involved with the commission

21 for exchanges. Perhaps he was informed when an exchange would take place

22 or when an exchange would not take place. Perhaps he knew even before I

23 did. But I don't see that he was in any way involved in these exchanges,

24 and he never appeared at the exchanges. I don't remember having seen him

25 even at a single exchange where I was present in Samac. I don't remember

1 Simo attending any of those.

2 Q. My question to you: You were both intelligence officers in the

3 past. Was Simo Zaric -- I'm not asking you yet about his involvement. My

4 question is: Was Simo Zaric in a better position, being in Samac, than

5 you were, who was outside of Samac, in knowing about those exchanges?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe that my colleague from the

8 Prosecution must make this more specific as to which period exactly he is

9 referring to. We know how long Mr. Zaric stayed on in intelligence jobs

10 and when the exchanges took place. So if my friend wishes to continue

11 with this line of questioning, if he could please specify the time period

12 when Simo Zaric exactly was better informed on the exchanges, including

13 Samac.

14 MR. WEINER: I'll accept the suggestion of counsel.

15 Q. In the spring and summer of 1992, while you were outside of Samac

16 and Simo Zaric was inside of Samac, obviously Simo Zaric was in a better

17 position than you were to know about the exchanges and judge the

18 exchanges; isn't that true?

19 A. Well, certainly he knew perhaps more about that, simply because he

20 was in Samac. But as to the working method of the commissions, that's

21 something I don't think he knew about. I certainly know more about that

22 than he does.

23 Q. No. What I'm talking about is the voluntariness of the civilians,

24 of whether or not they were voluntarily leaving. He, being there, had a

25 better opportunity to talk to the people, and had a better advantage than

1 you had, because you weren't in Samac speaking to those people; isn't that

2 correct?

3 A. Certainly he did have that advantage. He could have known or

4 actually knew those people. He had more information as to whether those

5 people were leaving of their own free will or whether they had been forced

6 to leave. He certainly knew more about that than I did.

7 MR. WEINER: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P141 ter, please.

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]

9 MR. WEINER:

10 Q. Could you go to page 89, please. Turn to page 89. Could you look

11 on the left, the second time, where it says "Nancy," where it's in the

12 middle, where she asks a question. I'd like to read this to you, and

13 you've indicated Simo Zaric was in a better position than you to judge the

14 voluntariness of those people who were leaving.

15 Nancy: "So it would be fair to say that they felt they had no

16 choice but to leave Samac?" Answer, Zaric: "I think they had no choice.

17 This is my opinion. It is the terrible truth, but it's the truth."

18 Nancy: "Do you think that was true for most of the non-Serbs in Samac?"

19 Answer: "Yes. That's my opinion. I think I have the right to my

20 opinion. I saw that on the list there were many of my family members,

21 relatives, neighbours, friends, over 200 people."

22 Is that what it says there?

23 A. In a sense, yes.

24 Q. Do you know of any reason why Simo Zaric would say that those

25 people had no choice in whether or not to leave or that they were not

1 leaving voluntarily if it wasn't true? Do you know of any reason why Simo

2 Zaric would say that?

3 A. I can only give you my opinion on this why Simo may have said

4 this, in view of the beatings we talked about, a certain insecurity that

5 was in the air. A lack of certainty, precarious living conditions. It

6 was easier to deal with situations where you found someone in the family,

7 and that may have been the reason why people chose to go, why people

8 wanted to go. I think that must be what Simo meant. But it's possible

9 that he knew about pressure being exerted on certain individuals who then

10 had to speak out.

11 Q. All right. Let's take your answer in two parts. Let's start off

12 with -- let's start off with the prisoners. We'll talk about prisoners,

13 people in detention and people who were -- who are not in detention.

14 First, with regard to those people in detention, you would agree

15 that if a person is being held in inhumane conditions, as you described -

16 beaten, tortured - we've had testimony that they had their teeth pulled in

17 this case, that they faced death. You never know what day Lugar or the

18 paramilitaries will come in and kill you. In that situation, if you're

19 asked whether or not you want to leave Samac, you have no choice but to

20 say "Yes, get me out of here." Isn't that true?

21 A. Yes. I would have thanked them for making it possible for me to

22 leave.

23 Q. Now, with regard to Simo Zaric's statement, you weren't there when

24 he says that these people had no choice but to leave and he's referring to

25 the non-Serbs, you weren't there to determine what force or pressure was

1 placed on these people to leave. You weren't there to make that

2 determination. Simo Zaric was in a much better position to make that

3 determination than you, wasn't he?

4 A. Yes, that's true. I wasn't there. I was not in a position to

5 determine that. Certainly Simo was better placed to judge that.

6 Q. And he indicated that those people had no choice, in that

7 statement?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. Let's continue on with the exchanges. This morning you

10 were shown a document, D166/3, which was the rules and regulations for the

11 work of the commissions of exchange for prisoners of war. And remember,

12 we were looking at Article 13, where it talked about one-for-one

13 exchanges, soldier for soldier, woman for woman, elderly person for

14 elderly person. Do you recall that this morning?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And that document didn't say male soldier for male soldier,

17 correct?

18 A. No, that document didn't say that, but the document was from the

19 command of the East Bosnian Corps and it was meant for military

20 commissions.

21 Q. Okay. But it didn't say male soldier for male soldier or female

22 soldier for female soldier. It didn't say either of those things, did it?

23 A. No, it didn't.

24 Q. And it didn't say elderly soldier for elderly soldier?

25 A. No. It said elderly person for elderly person.

1 Q. Correct. So what it had was basically two categories: Soldier

2 for soldier, or a second category, if you want to call it, woman for

3 woman, elderly person for elderly person?

4 A. No. When I explained the rules, I said that the whole thing

5 applies to conscripts, to military conscripts, and a woman could be a

6 military conscript too. It didn't necessarily have to be a man. And

7 elderly person too could be a conscript. It didn't necessarily have to be

8 a young person. That's in the parenthesis. One thing is the principle,

9 but then in the parenthesis, the commission abided by -- there were

10 arrests. Let me give you an example.

11 A man was in military reprimand in Tuzla. He's 72 years old, but

12 his role is given as scout. He couldn't even -- he had poor eyesight. He

13 couldn't even stand up properly. And still, he was classified as scout.

14 So perhaps that was also why we had to detain elderly persons. There were

15 a lot of elderly persons in the prisons. We could not have set an age

16 limit of between 20 and 30 years and then find elderly people aged perhaps

17 60 or 70 years old there. That's why the regulation was there. Elderly

18 person for elderly person. That didn't strictly mean that no one could

19 cross, that no one would be allowed to cross.

20 Q. Sir, if they were all considered soldiers or conscripts, all you

21 would have to say is soldier for soldier. There would be no need to say

22 woman for woman, elderly person for elderly person. If they're all

23 soldiers, there's no need for those additional categories. Isn't it true

24 that those categories covered mixed situations or mixed exchanges, where

25 you had both soldiers and civilians being exchanged?

1 A. No. No. The rules were used by military commissions alone, and

2 military commissions were not involved in civilian exchanges. I'll say

3 this again why this applied: Because there were elderly people who either

4 came to the units of their own free will or they were treated as prisoners

5 of war. Whether a certain person really was a prisoner of war, we

6 couldn't tell, but if the person came from the military remand prison in

7 Tuzla, we accepted him as such. I am not saying that all people at

8 Batkovic were prisoners of war, but they were all treated as prisoners of

9 war. That was how I went about it as a member of the commission. These

10 are prisoners of war and people coming from the military remand prison in

11 Tuzla are prisoners of war, those on their side. And that's why we had

12 this rule woman for woman, elderly person for elderly person. It had

13 nothing to do with the civilian commissions.

14 Q. You mentioned Batkovic, and regardless of whether these people

15 were prisoners of war, they were all treated as such at Batkovic. Were

16 you at Batkovic often in late 1992 and in 1993?

17 A. I wasn't there often, but I was there sometimes, because sometimes

18 it was my duty to go there. We would go there to determine whether the

19 people requested by the other side were in Batkovic. And later, when we

20 would forward and deliver lists for the exchanges, we had to make sure

21 that those persons were in Batkovic at that point in time, so that they

22 could be transferred. That was the purpose why I went there.

23 Q. Were you at Batkovic in December of 1993, when Miroslav Tadic was

24 there? I'm sorry. December of 1992.

25 A. I was never in Batkovic together with him. I don't remember us

1 ever being together in Batkovic.

2 Q. So not being in Batkovic, you cannot really testify today as to

3 Miroslav Tadic's actions or activities at Batkovic. You weren't there to

4 observe them.

5 A. Not at that moment, but I can testify about the procedure, about

6 the principles governing the work there. In case a member of one of the

7 civilian commissions came. As I said, a member of a civilian commission

8 could go to Batkovic, but prior to that, they had to obtain consent or

9 approval that they were merely taking over prisoners on the day of a

10 scheduled exchange, and even that for purely technical reasons. So that

11 someone from Banja Luka would not be made to go to Batkovic and all the

12 way back, but they needed consent. Without any prior consent, they would

13 not have been able to enter Batkovic or talk to anyone there.

14 Q. Now, I understand that you were involved with providing consent to

15 him to go there, but you weren't there, obviously, to see his activities

16 while he was in Batkovic. You weren't present for any of his actions.

17 Isn't that correct?

18 A. No, not the activities, because I wasn't there.

19 Q. And you said, further, that you couldn't replace a name on a

20 previously approved list. You provided that testimony this morning; isn't

21 that true?

22 A. If a list was approved, if consent was secured from the security

23 organ of the corps, we could not change the list without again requesting

24 approval from the security organ. They gave their consent as to who could

25 leave Batkovic, and only those who were on the list, only those who had

1 been approved, could leave.

2 Q. Could consent be obtained by telephone in a last-minute situation?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Well, usually you would indicate that the rules wouldn't allow

5 that; is that correct? The rules would not generally allow that; isn't

6 that correct, sir?

7 A. Yes, that's correct. The rules would not allow that.

8 Q. However, sir, during the war, didn't a lot of things happen that

9 violated the rules or were not done according to rules, such as the Crisis

10 Staff in Bosanski Samac removing Colonel Djordjevic and appointing Crni as

11 the commander of the brigade? A lot of things happened not according to

12 the rules; isn't that true, sir?

13 A. That's true. Many things happened.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to be clear with the answer of the

16 witness. Is he also agreeing that the Crisis Staff did remove

17 Colonel Djordjevic and appoint Crni in his place, or is he just agreeing

18 to the fact that many things did happen which were not according to the

19 rules?

20 MR. WEINER:

21 Q. Sir, that was really a two-part question that I asked. I'm sorry

22 about that. You've agreed many things happened not according to the

23 rules. Are you also confirming your testimony of Friday, that the Crisis

24 Staff was involved, from what you knew from Colonel Djordjevic, the Crisis

25 Staff was involved in his removal and in the appointment of Crni? Are you

1 maintaining that testimony?

2 A. Yes. I maintain that he was removed by the Crisis Staff. That

3 was what Colonel Djurdjevic told me.

4 Q. And Colonel Djordjevic [sic] was the one that was removed; isn't

5 that correct?

6 A. Djurdjevic. Djurdjevic. Djordjevic was appointed.

7 Q. Okay. Mico Djurdjevic was removed. Am I pronouncing the name

8 incorrectly? Mico.

9 A. Mico Djurdjevic, Djurdjevic. Not Djordjevic. D-j-u.

10 Q. Was removed, and rather than say his last name, we'll use his

11 nickname. Crni replaced him, was appointed; isn't that correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. And all of this happened, based on what you learned, at the

14 request or at the insistence of the Crisis Staff of Bosanski Samac?

15 A. Yes. I found out about that upon return at the command post, when

16 Colonel Djurdjevic told me about what had happened at the Crisis Staff.

17 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move to one more quick topic before the

18 break and then we'll do one topic after the break and be finished.

19 I want to ask you some questions about the military, and you've

20 been here and told us about your whole career in the military, and you've

21 mentioned the use of a logistics unit inside of a military unit.

22 Logistics is basically the supply unit, if you want to call it, for a

23 military unit?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And it's the supply of everything, from weapons to ammunitions to

1 uniforms?

2 A. Yes. Yes.

3 Q. It's the supply of fuel, food, all sorts of equipment and the

4 repair of that equipment?

5 A. Yes. All of that is part of it, all the necessary things, not in

6 terms of combat operations but necessary for the normal functioning of a

7 unit. All that is considered logistics.

8 Q. And when you say it's necessary, it's vital, because it all

9 concerns the operation of the army or the unit. If people aren't being

10 fed, if they don't have ammunition, if they don't have weapons, the army

11 doesn't function, so it's vital to the functioning of that military unit

12 that you have logistics?

13 A. Yes. That's one of the important features.

14 Q. And it's not always a simple situation either to be in a logistics

15 unit, because it's rather complex. It involves storage, supplies,

16 dispersing the equipment, recordkeeping, and also planning for those

17 unit's needs. You don't just hand things out; you have to plan what

18 you're going to bring in to your supply and what you're going to

19 disperse. It involves a lot of planning?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And for the unit to function, you have to be -- the logistics unit

22 to function, you have to be aware of the military unit's plans. You don't

23 know what sort of ammunition to supply if you don't know of the plans or

24 operations of that unit. You don't know how much food to bring in and

25 allocate if you don't know the plans. So you have to -- the person in

1 logistics, in charge, has to know about the operations of the military

2 unit so that he can properly -- he or she can properly plan.

3 A. We would have to look at this separately. Logistics for the

4 lower-ranking units and logistics for the higher-ranking units. Those in

5 the lower-ranking units did not need to know about the plans drawn up by

6 the higher commands. He only secured the equipment for his own unit, and

7 he had no need to secure equipment for three or five days, say, unless he

8 had been ordered to do so. They had what they had in stock. And if we

9 talk about ammunition, that was one combat set. Those in the lower units

10 had to know about that. They had to secure a combat set for each member.

11 But they didn't have to know the plans of the higher units. They didn't

12 need to plan ahead, a month or two. He just sent his own needs on to the

13 higher unit, and that's all he needed to do.

14 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could we break now and come back to

15 this?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take our 20-minute break and come back

17 at 12.50.

18 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. Proceed.

21 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Simeunovic. When we -- just before we broke,

23 we were talking about the logistics unit, and you indicated there was a

24 difference between the higher-level units and the lower-ranking units, the

25 logistics, that the lower-ranking unit logistics don't have to know what

1 the higher-level logistics -- or what the higher-level command's plans

2 were. However, sir, isn't it true that at least the lower-ranking units

3 would have to know their own plans so they could determine their own

4 needs? The commander or assistant commander running that logistics unit

5 would have to know what the unit is doing in order to determine its needs

6 at that lower level.

7 A. Yes. When answering these questions, I'm answering questions

8 about all the units of the army of Republika Srpska, and also of the JNA.

9 I'm talking about the principle of work of all subordinated units, all the

10 lower-ranking units for logistics, as well as the higher-level units. I'm

11 speaking quite generally about the principles governing the work in the

12 army of Republika Srpska.

13 Q. And even in the former army of the JNA, it was very similar. You

14 had things happening at various levels: The command logistics and the

15 lower-level-unit logistics?

16 A. Yes. Yes. It was practically the way it was in the JNA. So

17 perhaps I can put it that way, that that's the way the army of Republika

18 Srpska operated, according to the same principle.

19 Q. And the jobs of -- or the responsibility of logistics would be --

20 could be extensive, or it really was extensive. For example, in Samac,

21 the kitchen which was set up through the logistics unit, the kitchen fed

22 not only the JNA soldiers and the 4th Detachment soldiers inside of Samac,

23 but were you aware it also fed the paramilitaries too?

24 A. I don't know which period we're talking about now when this

25 kitchen was established.

1 Q. In April, right after the takeover of Samac. If you know. You

2 might not know. You might not have been aware of it that the kitchen was

3 established and was feeding everyone, including the paramilitaries. Did

4 you receive that information in intelligence?

5 A. No. That kitchen that had already been established, that is to

6 say, by the 17th it was supposed to have been established, or rather,

7 before that there was no kitchen, because military conscripts were at

8 their homes. They were not staying at military barracks or under such

9 conditions. Part of the 4th Detachment, members of the 4th Detachment,

10 after the 17th, was living under barracks conditions, if I can put it that

11 way, and for them there was a kitchen. But this kitchen did not provide

12 for the volunteers and the rest. They were fed at the village of

13 Obudovac. They were staying there after their arrival, and that's where

14 they got their meals. The military --

15 Q. However, sir, after the takeover, when the paramilitaries were

16 mainly in Samac, at the different detention facilities or camps, they had

17 to eat, and that kitchen, according to Mr. Tadic's testimony, was feeding

18 those paramilitaries. Maybe you weren't aware of that.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: I object. [Interpretation] This is a total

21 misinterpretation of Mr. Tadic's testimony. Mr. Tadic said that there had

22 been two kitchens, that he organised the kitchen in Tekstilac, that that

23 is the one that was for soldiers and that in that kitchen, members of the

24 special unit did not receive their meals there. It was in the other

25 kitchen. If the Prosecutor is referring to Mr. Tadic's statements, then

1 the Prosecutor should read it properly and quote it properly.

2 MR. WEINER:

3 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Tadic organised kitchens and that

4 paramilitaries were being fed from one of them?

5 A. I know that a kitchen was organised attached to the command of the

6 4th Detachment, and that is only where the members of the 4th Detachment

7 only were being fed, nobody else. As for this other kitchen, I don't know

8 who organised it or where it was.

9 Q. Were you -- did you ever eat at that kitchen?

10 A. You mean at the 4th Detachment?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. No. No, I didn't.

13 Q. And you were never at the door examining those persons who were

14 entering and exiting the kitchen before and after meals?

15 A. I did not have that obligation to check who was entering and

16 exiting. I entered the command of the detachment, and that is where only

17 members of the command of the detachment entered, or rather, not only the

18 command; members of the command and also members of the entire 4th

19 Detachment, those that needed to come to the command. While I came to the

20 command of the 4th Detachment, I did not see volunteers ever coming

21 there. I never saw any such thing. But I did have knowledge -- I told

22 you about that - that they had walked up once, and when they mistreated

23 Radovan Antic, commander of the detachment. But I did not see this.

24 Q. Okay. Last question: You talked about various levels of units,

25 higher units, lower-level units. Was the 4th Detachment a lower-level

1 unit? Is that how you were describing various levels of units previously.

2 A. The 4th Detachment was a unit which was within the 17th Tactical

3 Group but that could exist independently as well. It was at battalion

4 level. It had the rank of a battalion. But units in the army of

5 Republika Srpska and in the army of Yugoslavia, it is only battalion units

6 that can exist independently. Companies, no. They have to be

7 subordinated to a higher-level unit.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you very much.

9 Let's move on to another subject. Yesterday you were questioned

10 about the - I'm sorry - on Friday you were questioned about the

11 relationship or the lack of relationship between the SDS and the JNA. Do

12 you recall that? You were questioned by Mr. Pantelic.

13 A. I mean, there were questions, but I don't know which specific

14 question you're referring to now. Perhaps you could remind me. I know

15 that there was something that had to do with that, but I don't know which

16 question you are exactly referring to.

17 Q. You indicated that you weren't aware of any relationship between

18 the JNA and the SDS.

19 A. We did not work on some common objectives, if I can put it that

20 way, that is to say the SDS and the JNA. We, as the Yugoslav People's

21 Army, had interests that were contrary to the objectives and interests of

22 the SDS.

23 Q. Well, sir, earlier you were shown a statement, the factual basis

24 of a plea by Biljana Plavsic. Remember we were looking at that, looking

25 at that earlier? That's P164. Remember you were looking at that

1 earlier. And you were aware or you are aware that Biljana Plavsic at one

2 point was the highest-ranking SDS official in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you

3 aware of that?

4 A. Yes, I know that she held a high office.

5 Q. And did you also know that she has admitted to collaboration

6 between the SDS and the JNA? Were you aware of that?

7 A. As for what I read, if I understood this correctly, she admitted

8 to her guilt, and also that municipal staffs were established and that

9 everybody should be put under the command of the JNA. I said that in

10 Samac, these forces that had been established were not put under the

11 command of the Yugoslav People's Army, because the Yugoslav People's Army

12 only handled units that belonged to it anyway.

13 MR. WEINER: Could the witness be shown P164. The question is

14 about Biljana Plavsic right now and whether or not you're aware of her

15 involvement in collaboration at the high level between JNA leaders and SDS

16 leaders, and her statement is about that, and I'd like to show you two of

17 them.

18 164 ter, please.

19 Q. Paragraph 11. Let us look at paragraph 11, please. "In October

20 1991 and the months following, the SDS intensified efforts to ensure that

21 the objective of ethnic separation by force would be achieved in the event

22 that a negotiated solution did not occur. These steps included arming

23 large segments of the Bosnian Serb population, in collaboration with,

24 among others, the JNA, the Ministry of Interior affairs, MUP of Serbia,

25 and Serbian paramilitaries, establishing Serbian military and police

1 formations and coordinating with the JNA and paramilitary units from

2 within and outside BH."

3 Further, could you look at paragraph 19 on page 4 and read along

4 with me, or I'll read it to you and you can follow along, please: "The

5 Bosnian Serb military, police and civilian forces and authorities, under

6 the direction and control of the SDS and the authorities of the Serbian

7 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the collective Presidency

8 and the expanded collective Presidency, collaborated with the JNA, the

9 ministry of internal affairs, MUP of Serbia, and paramilitary units from

10 within and outside BH to implement the objective of ethnic separation by

11 force. The Bosnian Serb military, police, and civilian forces,

12 collaborating with the JNA, the MUP of Serbia, and paramilitary units,

13 committed persecutions upon the non-Serb populations through a persecutory

14 campaign."

15 What I've read so far, in both of those statements,

16 Biljana Plavsic talks about collaboration between the SDS and the JNA. Do

17 you agree with that, what I just read? Did I read that correctly?

18 A. You read it correctly, but let me just say one thing. In relation

19 to Samac, in Samac there was the 4th Detachment, which was multi-ethnic.

20 It did not include Serbs only. It involved Croats and Muslims too.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. Generally speaking, for the B and H, this is what Biljana Plavsic

23 said. I cannot talk about her interests or her ideas or what she knew.

24 But as far as the territory that I hail from is concerned, this is what

25 the situation was, and that is what I'm describing to you.

1 Q. Sir, you never attended any meetings with any of the national SDS

2 leaders and the military, did you?

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, just to make -- I don't have a problem with

4 this line of questions, but SDS and military, does that mean both

5 together?

6 MR. WEINER: I'll rephrase the question, Your Honour.

7 Q. Did you ever attend any meetings between the SDS leaders,

8 including Karadzic, Krajisnik, Plavsic, and the JNA leaders? Did you ever

9 attend any of those meetings?

10 A. No, never.

11 Q. And you never appeared during any conversations of any of those

12 persons, the JNA leaders and Krajisnik, Plavsic, Karadzic? You weren't

13 present during any telephone conversations involving those persons?

14 A. No, never.

15 Q. Nor were you ever present for any conversations between

16 Slobodan Milosevic and any of those SDS leaders relating to the JNA --

17 relating to plans for the JNA?

18 A. I was never at any such place.

19 Q. So you really can't report what plans were being made at the

20 highest level between the Serb leaders, the Serb and SDS leaders from

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, from Serbia, and the JNA; you really can't comment on

22 those?

23 A. No, I never attended such meetings, and I cannot speak about them.

24 Q. All right. Well, let's move on a little bit. And you talk about

25 the evening or the early-morning hours of the takeover, where

1 Blagoje Simic calls and indicates that the paramilitaries, at the request

2 of the Crisis Staff, have taken over Samac. Do you recall that?

3 A. Yes. When we were awakened by the person on duty, this is what

4 Commander Nikolic said to us, that Blagoje Simic called him and that the

5 Crisis Staff had taken over, that volunteers were at these vital

6 facilities, and that the Crisis Staff had taken over.

7 Q. And you knew at that point that Blagoje Simic was not only the

8 Crisis Staff president, but he was also president of the SDS?

9 A. Yes. I knew that before too, that he was president of the SDS.

10 Q. And you knew that a Serb government had been installed and the

11 legitimate government had been removed?

12 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour. I think this witness is

13 not a legal expert. Maybe the issue could be rephrased, because that's up

14 to the Trial Chamber to determine whether certain government is legitimate

15 or not. Because Defence has completely opposite position. Maybe the

16 question should be framed in terms of multi-ethnic local government

17 elected in 1990, and then to ask with regard to that. Because whether

18 it's legitimate or not, it's a big question, in light of the facts that

19 Defence is of the position that after the broke-up, after the failure of

20 the Bosnian parliament in October 1991, there is no legitimate state and

21 there is no legitimate system in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is the position

22 of Defence. And maybe this witness can be confused with this line of

23 questions. Legitimate or non-legitimate. It's a legal issue. Thank you.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

1 MR. WEINER: I'll use the word "elected government."

2 Q. So you were aware --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Or simply --

4 MR. WEINER: I'll withdraw. I'm sorry.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Instead of classifying it in any manner, simply use

6 the word "previous government."

7 MR. WEINER: Well, he -- this witness has testified that the

8 elected government had been removed from his testimony.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. Yes.

10 MR. WEINER: So I'll use -- I was hoping to use his language.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

12 MR. WEINER:

13 Q. But sir, you've testified that the elected government had been

14 removed and a Serb government had been installed through the paramilitary

15 forces.

16 A. Yes. I said - and if necessary, I can repeat it once again - the

17 staff told us, Commander Nikolic told us, that the Crisis Staff had taken

18 over, that it took power. I did not use any other word but "takeover."

19 Takeover in cooperation with these volunteers. They took these vital

20 facilities, et cetera. The Crisis Staff of the municipality of Serb

21 Samac -- of the Serb municipality of Samac and Pelagicevo under formation.

22 Q. Okay. So as a summary, the town has been taken over, the elected

23 government has been overthrown, there is a new Serb government that's been

24 installed, the Serb Crisis Staff is in control. And after knowing these

25 things, Colonel Nikolic contacts his command and asks them what to do.

1 Should he send the troops in, should we retake the town? He calls them

2 and asks them for direction, and they basically tell him: Do nothing.

3 Isn't that correct?

4 A. Yes. Later, when he got this information from Blagoje Simic,

5 Commander Nikolic called the Superior Command, conveyed to them what had

6 happened in Samac. The order given was to raise the level of combat

7 readiness in all units of the 17th Tactical Group, but that nothing should

8 be done, that the army should not be used. That moment.

9 Q. They told you that the army should not be used. They didn't tell

10 you to go in and reinstate the elected government; isn't that correct?

11 They didn't tell you that, to go in and reinstate the elected government?

12 A. No. There was no such order. And we acted in accordance with the

13 order that we did receive, raising the level of combat readiness. The

14 army was not there to establish a government or to remove a government.

15 Q. The army was there to maintain the status quo, and the status quo

16 had been an elected government.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object to this question. I believe that the

18 witness as a factual witness has very clearly explained what were the

19 objectives of the JNA at that moment.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: There was nothing that he said that would say that

22 it was the status quo that was the topic of the army to keep.

23 MR. WEINER:

24 Q. Sir, wasn't the JNA's duty to defend the constitution of

25 Yugoslavia and to maintain the status quo?

1 A. Yes. That was the role of the Yugoslav People's Army. That is to

2 say, to prevent the spread of war. That was the basic task that we had.

3 The spillover of war from Croatia to the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

4 One of the basic tasks of our unit at that time was that, in that

5 territory. I already explained why there was this objective possibility

6 of a spillover of the war. We proved this because we knew that the army

7 of the Republic of Croatia was already interfering and was already issuing

8 orders in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Our task was to prevent

9 the spillover to the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10 Q. Sir, the command was worried about a potential spillover. They

11 were not worried about a group of paramilitaries and a Serb Crisis Staff

12 taking over a town and removing the elected government; isn't that true?

13 They weren't worried about that at the time.

14 A. You see, it's not quite the way you've put it. The army, the

15 Yugoslav People's Army, cared about that too, and the transfer of people

16 when killings occurred, a killing at the police station, the Yugoslav

17 People's Army reached a decision to transfer these people to a safe place.

18 Q. But, sir, the Yugoslav People's Army did not say: Go in and

19 retake the town and place -- or reinstall the elected government of

20 Samac. They never said that. They never said: There's killings now,

21 there's beatings, illegal arrests. You're to go in and reinstall the

22 illegally-elected government. They did not do that; isn't that correct?

23 The command never gave you that order.

24 A. The command never gave such an order, but immediately after the

25 takeover - I testified about that earlier - we had the knowledge that

1 there were units that had already been established and that had been

2 attached to that government, units that were paramilitary units, that

3 already had its areas of responsibility, its commanders, et cetera. So we

4 would be legalising these existing units.

5 Q. Well, sir, if you don't do anything and go in and stop the

6 situation, you are legalising those units and you're ensuring the survival

7 of that Serb government which just took over and removed the elected

8 government; isn't that correct?

9 A. Until the mass arrests and mistreatments started, the Yugoslav

10 People's Army did not interfere. It was a matter for the politicians to

11 resolve, to resolve that situation. However, when the physical

12 liquidation of people started, that is when the Yugoslav People's Army

13 interfered.

14 Q. But sir, what you did was removed people from the SUP and the TO

15 when there was a murder and beatings. You never went in and removed that

16 government that police chief, you never reinstated or reinstalled the

17 elected government, and that's because those were the orders you had

18 received from the command; isn't that correct?

19 A. Yes, we did not receive such orders, and we did not act in that

20 way.

21 Q. Instead, what you had done on that first day, on the 17th, you

22 activated the 4th Detachment and sent them to the river banks to protect

23 against any attack from either Croatia or any armed Muslim civilians, or

24 whatever you want to call them. That's what you did.

25 A. Yes. At that time, the Yugoslav People's Army went to the border,

1 if I can put it that way, to protect the border. This was on the

2 Sava River.

3 Q. So since the commander, the Yugoslav's army, didn't have you do

4 anything to prevent the takeover or to change the status of the takeover,

5 but instead had you send in troops to prevent anyone from reinstituting

6 the elected government or reinstalling the elected government, the only

7 explanation is that the Yugoslavian army command agreed with what was

8 happening or that they were working with the paramilitaries or

9 collaborating with the paramilitaries; isn't that true?

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

12 MR. LAZAREVIC: This is a very long question, so I'll have to --

13 first of all, I believe it should be divided. First of all, it's calling

14 for speculation. What would, for example, a Croatian side do if they come

15 back to Samac? Would they reinstall a government that was elected in 1991

16 or not? That's the first question. The witness couldn't know that. No

17 one could answer to that question. And furthermore, the consequences that

18 my colleague is talking about, that they actually agreed with what

19 happened and things like that, this is -- I don't believe that this

20 witness is the one who can answer to that question.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. First of all, it's loaded, and

22 part of the speculation is actually true. Nobody would have known if the

23 Croatian army had got into the area in question, what would have happened.

24 MR. WEINER: I'll withdraw. Thank you.

25 Q. Sir, the fact that the command told you to do nothing, basically,

1 told you not to interfere, isn't that consistent with Biljana Plavsic's

2 statement that the JNA was collaborating with the SDS and the Serb

3 political leaders, and that's why they didn't want anything done there?

4 A. No. No. That's not what it's like. Biljana Plavsic said that

5 all those units should be placed under the command of the JNA, but they

6 were not placed under the command of the JNA. Therefore, even after the

7 events, after the 17th, this group was not under the command of the JNA

8 until Djordjevic, Crni, was appointed as brigade commander.

9 Q. Sir, that's not my question.

10 A. The JNA was distanced from that.

11 Q. My question is: The fact that the JNA command did nothing, isn't

12 that consistent with Biljana Plavsic's statements that the SDS and the

13 Serb political forces were collaborating with the JNA? Isn't that

14 consistent? At the highest levels.

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: I don't know how he can answer that question.

16 First, my colleague really asked him very carefully, this witness, about

17 whether he was present on such negotiation of such meetings, and now he

18 asks him to speculate about if there was any such agreement at the highest

19 level of JNA and SDS.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. The question is clear. He's simply asking

21 whether that situation was not consistent with what Biljana Plavsic has

22 said in her statement in admitting her guilt. He's merely asking that

23 part, whether or not that was consistent.

24 A. If at that moment the JNA, when the takeover happened in Bosanski

25 Samac, did not take any measures, it didn't necessarily mean that the JNA

1 was in agreement with the situation that was there. We, as the Yugoslav

2 command of the JNA, still had the same view that we had had on the 15th or

3 on the 12th of April, for that matter.

4 MR. WEINER:

5 Q. But sir, the fact that the JNA never took any action to remove the

6 Serb government that was put in by the Crisis Staff and the paramilitaries

7 and reinstate the elected government, that they never took any action,

8 isn't that consistent with Biljana Plavsic's testimony -- or statement,

9 not testimony - that the JNA and the SDS and the Serb political leaders

10 had all collaborated at the highest levels? Isn't that consistent, sir?

11 A. I think not. If the JNA decided to interfere in every single

12 municipality where there had been a takeover, then what would the JNA be?

13 It would be some sort of a policeman patrolling the area. Its purpose was

14 not to preserve the government of a given municipality. Its purpose was

15 to prevent the war from spreading into the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

16 from the Republic of Croatia.

17 Q. Sir --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, please move on. I think we've been on

19 this point for too long.

20 MR. WEINER: Last matter on this.

21 Q. Are you familiar with General Veljko Kadijevic? He used to be the

22 Yugoslav federal secretary of Defence. Are you familiar with who he is?

23 A. Yes, I am familiar with who he is.

24 Q. Were you aware that he has written in his auto biography that

25 after the disintegration of Yugoslavia, that the JNA -- sorry, that the

1 JNA concentrated upon the protection and the defence of those ethnic Serbs

2 who, in the course of the disintegration, found themselves outside of

3 Serbian Montenegro? Were you aware of that, that that's what he felt, the

4 general, thought that's what their responsibility was, the protection of

5 the Serbs? Were you aware of that?

6 A. I didn't read that.

7 Q. So once again, assuming that is true, my statement, what I've just

8 made to you, the fact that the JNA command told you to do nothing and that

9 the JNA didn't do anything, isn't that consistent with the statements of

10 Veljko Kadijevic and the statements of Biljana Plavsic, a collaboration

11 between the Serbs and the JNA at the highest levels?

12 A. I'll say this again. In our area of responsibility, in the area

13 of responsibility of the 17th Tactical Group, there were mixed units of

14 the JNA, and that runs counter to what Biljana said. Perhaps she was

15 talking about a more general level.

16 Q. I'm talking about the command decision not to do anything.

17 A. I'm in no position here to discuss what it was like in the top

18 command ranks of the JNA, because I was only a member of the command of

19 the 17th Tactical Group.

20 Q. So you can't answer for -- answer or really indicate what their

21 policies were at that time at the high levels, at the highest levels. You

22 can't answer what their policies were. You're not aware of what they

23 were.

24 A. No. No. I can't answer that. I don't know what their strategy

25 was.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. WEINER: No further questions.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Our agreement is to start in this

5 order. I only have several brief questions related to the

6 cross-examination, relating to the exchanges.

7 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] You have been shown one section of the interview

9 given by Mr. Zaric. You explained prior to that to the Trial Chamber that

10 your information concerning the exchanges was far greater in comparison to

11 Mr. Zaric's information, given the amount of work you've done related to

12 the exchanges. In the examination-in-chief, you said that Mr. Zaric

13 worked on security affairs until April 1992 or thereabouts.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you know that during the spring and summer of 1992, there were

16 three exchanges with the opposite side that took place in Samac and that

17 one of those exchanges was actually organised by the International Red

18 Cross?

19 A. I know that those exchanges took place, but I was not present when

20 they took place.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, I don't think I appreciate what you are

22 saying, that our agreement is to start in this order. What did you mean?

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What I meant is that I should start

24 the re-direct, because my questions were related to the exchanges. I'm

25 not sure if Mr. Pantelic has any other questions. We did not exactly

1 decide at the beginning.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: The procedure is that the counsel calling the

3 witness re-examines at the end.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, but you made it

5 possible for us in our additional examination, should any issues be raised

6 during the cross-examination that are related to the other two defences,

7 that first the other two Defences should have the right to ask the first

8 questions, and then finally the party calling the witness. It was in that

9 sense that I was saying I meant to ask the first questions, because

10 they're directly related to my client.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. That's clear now.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. So do you know that representatives of the International Red Cross

14 at any given point in time --

15 MR. WEINER: Objection.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

17 MR. WEINER: There was no discussion during the Prosecution's

18 cross-examination relating to the International Red Cross or the local Red

19 Cross.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'll give up this line of questioning,

22 but the questions asked by Mr. Weiner related to Mr. Zaric's information

23 and knowledge related to the spring and summer of 1992, and that was

24 demonstrated by the interview given by Mr. Zaric about the exchanges in

25 which the International Red Cross took part too. But as the witness just

1 stated that he had no direct knowledge of that, I'll just drop this line

2 of questioning.

3 Q. During the period that you worked on the exchanges with civilian

4 commissions, mostly, and what I really want to know about is the Samac

5 commission, did you ever notice that any civilian or prisoner would go to

6 an exchange against their own free will? Did you ever notice a prisoner

7 or a prisoner about to be exchanged who did not want to be exchanged and

8 yet was made to go to an exchange?

9 A. Perhaps my explanation was not detailed enough. I did not wish to

10 go into the technical details of the exchanges themselves. But when an

11 exchange is organised and once you reach the separation line, the opposite

12 side asks the persons who arrive from our side whether they wish to be

13 exchanged or not. They had to say it loud and clear, in front of them.

14 And there was never a single case that anyone came up and said: I was

15 forced to come to this exchange. There were cases where people refused to

16 be exchanged, and then those people would return to their place of

17 residence.

18 Q. That's not what I wanted to ask you, because we've heard enough

19 about that before this Court, such testimonies. In a position where, for

20 example, a person from Batkovic was being taken for an exchange and

21 decided not to be exchanged, would they return to Batkovic or would they

22 go to their own home?

23 MR. WEINER: I'd object to that.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

25 MR. WEINER: There was no discussion of that during --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought there was.

2 MR. WEINER: Not in cross-examination. About where they would

3 return to.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just be allowed

5 to say --

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The witness was shown a section of an

9 interview by Mr. Simo Zaric concerning the element of free will as

10 involved in the exchanges, and this question of mine arises directly from

11 the Prosecution question posed to the witness about the free will and

12 Mr. Zaric's interview when prisoners were taken to an exchange. Part of a

13 person's free will is the possibility to refuse to be exchanged and to go

14 back home. I think this is directly related to questions asked by the

15 Prosecution when showing the witness the interview by Mr. Zaric, and they

16 did want the witness to give his own opinion on why Mr. Zaric said some of

17 the things, so I must get this clear.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. I think the relationship is so

19 close to the question that you had posed.

20 Yes, Mr. Lukic, you can continue.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Shall we again have this document,

22 this interview, shown to the witness, the last section of the interview by

23 Mr. Zaric. He said this is only my own opinion and I am entitled to my

24 opinion. Now, the question is:

25 Q. Persons from Batkovic who were approved for an exchange, who went

1 to an exchange, and then they would say there loud and clear whether they

2 wanted to be exchanged or not, and the Trial Chamber knows this, so in

3 case they refused to cross to the other side, would they go back to their

4 own homes or would they be returned to detention? That's my question.

5 A. Such a person would have been free to go and would not be returned

6 to detention.

7 Q. The opposite side, during negotiations and talks, representatives

8 of the other side, did they ever tell you that any of the people who had

9 been exchanged had ever told them that they had been forced to be

10 exchanged? Did you ever learn anything like that from the other side in

11 negotiations?

12 A. The commissions that we were in negotiations with never told us

13 anything like that. They never told us: Well, why did you bring those

14 people the last time around by force? They never told us anything like

15 that.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. Thank

17 you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I'd just like to ask the witness --

21 it's just a question following up from Mr. Lukic. And Mr. Lukic had asked

22 you, concerning persons from Batkovic, whether -- if they refused to

23 cross, whether they could go back to their own homes or they would be

24 returned to detention. And you said they would have been free to go and

25 would not be returned to detention. And I'm just interested to find out

1 how you know that.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that because of a case in

3 Brcko, where a man said that he did not wish to be exchanged, and he did

4 not wish to go to leave for a third country through the International Red

5 Cross, but rather wanted to return to Brcko, and then he was subsequently

6 returned to Brcko. Not a single person was returned to the collection

7 centre from an exchange taking place. Either there was a third exchange,

8 but mostly people wanted to cross to the other side.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

15 Re-examined by Mr. Pantelic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Simeunovic. My learned

17 friend and colleague Mr. Weiner from the Prosecution asked you about

18 whether Mr. Blagoje Simic had any role in bringing in the volunteers from

19 Serbia. You will remember that, won't you? You specified that there was

20 Stiv Todorovic and so on and so forth, and then the Prosecution read out

21 sections of the interview given by Mr. Simo Zaric to the Prosecution,

22 where Mr. Simo Zaric claims that it was his view that Blagoje Simic too

23 had been involved in that. You remember the Prosecutor asking you that?

24 A. I do.

25 Q. I think my colleague Mr. Pisarevic, last week, asked you, in terms

1 of your position in the 17th Tactical Group, you had daily reports coming

2 in from the commander for security at detachment level. You'd collect

3 these reports and analyse them. Isn't that what you said?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. That was the usual modus operandi?

6 A. Yes. Those were regular, daily reports that were delivered every

7 day.

8 Q. I'm merely repeating what you said, because I'm trying to lead you

9 to a different subject that I wish to broach now. On page 11, that's Simo

10 Zaric's interview dated 2nd of April, 1998, and page 12, the question by

11 Ms. Nancy Paterson, the Prosecutor, was, addressed to Simo Zaric -- I'm

12 reading this to you now. I want you to analyse what you hear: "Did you

13 ever find out -- Ms. Paterson says that Blagoje Simic had played any role

14 in giving the order for the attack on the town. And then Simo Zaric -

15 I'll omit the first part of his answer - says that he believes that

16 Mr. Simic was one of the key people in taking such a decision.

17 So you have Mr. Zaric's precise wording. He believes. And then

18 if you compare that to what you've been read out by the Prosecution with

19 what seemed a hundred per cent certainty. But I should assume that

20 Mr. Zaric himself was not really positive about these developments and how

21 exactly --

22 MR. WEINER: That question is unintelligible. It's multiple

23 questions and it's more of a speech too.

24 MR. PANTELIC: It's very precise. I will rephrase. It's no

25 problem. I will rephrase.

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simeunovic, can you please tell us --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we will continue the next time we are

3 able to continue with the witness, because other proceedings are waiting

4 for the courtroom.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: If I may address very briefly to the Trial

6 Chamber. It is about Mr. Mirko Pavic who gave his 92 bis statements.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: We have received on Friday late afternoon the

9 English translation of his interview.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: I have already given this statement to the

12 Prosecution, and I have here enough copies for the Trial Chamber. So if

13 it is appropriate moment, I believe we should deal with this promptly.

14 Maybe it is a moment to offer this for evidence, this statement of

15 Mr. Mirko Pavic so the Trial Chamber can look at it and maybe issue some

16 decision after hearing what the Prosecution would say.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps we can have it numbered for

18 identification purposes only, and have the Prosecution indicate -- no, no,

19 no. This is the witness -- this is the witness who is a heart patient.

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, that's the witness who is -- yes. No, no.

21 Well, actually, he had a brain stroke.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The one I had suggested that because he has

23 this problem, why can't he have his statement and then he can just appear

24 for cross-examination.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, that's true.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll make an exception in this case because

2 of his health. So we don't have to ask the Prosecution to indicate. They

3 will go ahead and cross-examine. Because we have this limited period for

4 videolink, so we'll just have to make that exception.

5 Yes. But we'll still have the number.

6 THE REGISTRAR: D43/4, and ter. That's "D" as in David.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll adjourn and continue our proceedings

8 tomorrow with videolink. The witness will continue, because we haven't

9 finished with you, Mr. Simeunovic. We'll continue -- your counsel will be

10 able to indicate when we will be through with the videolink witnesses.

11 The Court will rise.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I do apologise, I've just been

13 informed that my colleague didn't raise that issue. With regard to the

14 line-up of witnesses for videolink, first witness will be Grujicic,

15 Mr. Grujicic. Second witness is Savo Popovic. And the third witness is

16 Pistoljevic. Due to the fact, Your Honour, that I was just informed

17 yesterday from Mr. Savo Popovic, he is a high-rank official in the spot or

18 position of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the Republican level, Muslim Croat level

19 and Republika Srpska, very serious conference which should be in Bijeljina

20 on Friday, at noon. So with that regard, we moved him prior to the

21 others.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: So he will be the second.

23 MR. PANTELIC: He will be the second one, yes. Thank you for your

24 understanding, and I do apologise to my friends.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: The Court will rise.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of

3 March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25