1 Friday, 21 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning, please call the case.

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

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

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We are starting with cross-examination by the

10 Prosecution.

11 MR. RE: Yes.

12 WITNESS: JOVO SAVIC [Resumed]

13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Re:

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Savic. My name is David Re. I'm from the

16 Prosecution and I'm going to ask you some questions about your testimony

17 over the last couple of days. You understand that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I'm going to try and ask you some fairly precise questions about

20 things and be very grateful if you could listen exactly to the question

21 and try and confine yourself as much as possible to the question and

22 answer that one.

23 A. Very well.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... for all of us here. Now,

25 sir, you gave some evidence a couple of days ago to Mr. Pisarevic about

1 your career. Essentially you spoke about being in the JNA and being an

2 army officer in the VRS, I think since 1992. I just want to fill in a few

3 details for the Trial Chamber, if possible. Your evidence was that you

4 had been a reserve officer for many years up until the end of 1991,

5 beginning of 1992. You were a reserve officer. What was your job, what

6 was your career, what were you doing when you weren't being a reserve

7 officer?

8 A. Upon completion of the reserve officer school in Bileca -- I got a

9 job in the municipal Secretariat for National Defence in the municipality

10 of Bosanski Samac. That's what it was called. I worked there for five

11 years and at the same time, I was assigned to the war unit in Derventa.

12 After five and a half or six years of my work at the Secretariat, I went

13 to work as a commercial representative, as a travelling salesman but all

14 the time I worked as the -- in the war unit in Derventa, and I was

15 commander of the company, of the battalion, in various functions. This

16 was up to 1991. From 1991 I still continued to be in the reserves, all

17 the way until -- up until 1997. So I'm talking of my functions as a

18 reserve officer. In 1996 [As interpreted], I went to the professional --

19 I was accepted into the professional military service, upon my request, so

20 now I have become an officer of the Army of Republika Srpska.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one small correction for the transcript, on

22 page 2, line 18, he said in 1997, he joined the professional army.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. Mr. Savic, you heard what Mr. Lazarevic just said. The transcript

25 says 1997. What year did you join the -- what year were you accepted as

1 a -- I'm sorry, what year did you join the professional army? That's what

2 I'm just trying to find out.

3 A. In 1997. 1997.

4 Q. So until 1991, beginning of 1992, the years immediately before

5 then, you'd been working as a commercial salesman or salesperson. You

6 then were in the reserves, had a full-time job, was it a full-time job in

7 the army from then onwards? That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm just

8 a little bit unclear at the moment.

9 A. I'll tell you. I joined the Army of Republika Srpska as a reserve

10 officer and I did not interrupt my engagement in the military. By a

11 decision of the ministry or somebody else's decision, I'm not sure who it

12 was, there was vacancy for reserve officers to join the professional army

13 if they fulfilled the conditions. I had to submit to a medical

14 examination, submit my previous work history and so on, so officially I

15 was accepted into the professional army in 1997 and this is where my

16 salary is -- comes from. Up until 1997, I don't know after Dayton, from

17 1995, in 1996, we did receive some kind of compensation for our work but

18 it wasn't all that much. So I did not leave my unit. I remained in the

19 brigade and I'm in the brigade still now.

20 Q. And after your removal from the position of commander of the 4th

21 Detachment in 1992, where were you based? Where were you working from?

22 A. I remained in the battalion command -- no, the detachment command

23 and then the battalion command. I stayed in the job of general affairs

24 clerk. I first it was the detachment, then it was the battalion. So I

25 remained in that same battalion in Samac until the 1st of September, 1992.

1 Q. Sir, of course the fact that you've come here to give evidence in

2 this Tribunal, before the Trial Chamber here, would indicate that you

3 support the work of the Tribunal, wouldn't it?

4 A. Of course.

5 Q. Of course, in supporting the work of the Tribunal, you would

6 respect its judgements and any findings the Trial Chamber -- Trial

7 Chambers or the Tribunal has made about things that actually occurred in

8 the former Yugoslavia during the war?

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, what is the point of asking this witness

10 that question?

11 MR. RE: It goes to credibility but it will become obvious later

12 on, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think it's fair to ask the way you phrased

14 your question. I don't think it's fair to the witness.

15 MR. RE: I can certainly rephrase it, Your Honour.

16 Q. Mr. Savic, Mr. Pantelic asked you about the SDS yesterday. Have

17 you ever been a member of the SDS?

18 A. No. I was never a member of the SDS or any other party. From

19 1990 onwards.

20 Q. You described yesterday when Mr. Pantelic asked you about the SDS,

21 you described it as "a national party of the Serbian people." You

22 remember saying that yesterday, just yes or no.

23 A. Yes, yes, I remember. That's how it is. This is my opinion.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we proceed, Mr. Re I just wanted to say that

25 we've noticed that Judge Lindholm is not with us. He's unable to come

1 today because he's ill so we are continuing under Rule 15 bis (A). You

2 may proceed.

3 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. The SDS, which you describe as a national party of the Serbian

5 people, that was a party that during the early 1990s, 1991, 1992, 1993,

6 pursued a policy of ethnic separation by force. Now you're aware, before

7 I go on, you're aware that three of its national leaders, that's

8 Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Krsnik, and Mr. Karadzic have all been indicted by this

9 Tribunal for committing war crimes in pursuance of SDS policies. You're

10 aware of that, aren't you?

11 A. What I know I know from television or from the press. Their work

12 programme, particularly the programme of the SDS, was something that I

13 didn't have the opportunity to read about or to deal with, and this

14 doesn't sound to me as very good, ethnic cleansing. I don't understand

15 that this was a part of their programme. I don't think that it was.

16 Q. All right. All I'm asking you is you're aware, aren't you, that

17 the three of them, Plavsic, Krsnik and Karadzic have all been indicted by

18 this Tribunal, whose work you told us you respect, for committing war

19 crimes, you're aware of that?

20 A. I know that.

21 Q. And of course, you're aware that Mrs. Plavsic pleaded guilty last

22 year and was sentenced several weeks ago for persecution, aren't you?

23 A. I know that she admitted to some counts of the indictment and I

24 know that later, she was charged.

25 Q. She admitted, sir, to pursuing -- she pleaded guilty to

1 persecution based upon her involvement with the SDS, her leadership of the

2 SDS, and its pursuing policies of ethnic separation by force, that is,

3 ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in 1991, 1992, 1993. That's what she admitted

4 and pleaded guilty to.

5 A. I heard that on television.

6 Q. You're aware, of course, that she was a very prominent SDS person,

7 she was the president at one point of Republika Srpska?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you're aware -- you of course were aware in 1992 and 1993 that

10 the defendant, the accused Blagoje Simic, was also a member of the SDS and

11 occupied a very high position in the SDS in the Bosanski Samac

12 municipality, weren't you? I'm sorry?

13 A. Yes, yes, I know that.

14 Q. Sir, in your time as either commander of the 4th Detachment or

15 afterwards, in 1992, and 1993, I think your evidence was in the last

16 couple of days you were aware of the fact that non-Serbs were being

17 arrested and detained in various facilities in Bosanski Samac and

18 mistreated very badly by those who had detained them.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In your time as the commander of the 4th Detachment and

21 afterwards, in 1992, and 1993, did you ever visit any of the places where

22 the prisoners were kept? The SUP, the TO, or the two schools?

23 A. I was the commander of the 4th Detachment for about a month or a

24 day or so longer than that. I did not visit any of the prisons. I don't

25 know what you call them. I didn't visit any of the TO staffs [As

1 interpreted] or any other facility where detainees were being kept so I

2 never visited them and I didn't see anything like that.

3 Q. I was asking you about the SUP, the TO and the two schools. What

4 about --

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Re, sorry to interrupt, actually

6 this is a question to you, Mr. Re, not to Mr. Savic and I make sure I get

7 your name right today and don't confuse you with Mr. Antic. Mr. Re, you

8 are mentioning Mrs. Plavsic and her guilty plea and so on. You've

9 mentioned a few times now war crimes. I'd like to be clear. I don't have

10 the documents in front of me but did she plead to war crimes and crimes

11 against humanity or only war crimes or only crimes against humanity?

12 Because there is clearly a big difference in international law.

13 MR. RE: Your Honour, is quite correct. If you give me one moment

14 I'll pull out the judgement which is at my feet.

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: And maybe while we wait there is just one thing

16 that we usually make this kind of correction in the transcript because I

17 didn't visit any of the TO staffs. It's on page 6, line 25. Usually we

18 refer to this in TO building so not to make any confusion.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you for that correction.

20 MR. RE: Your Honour, it was -- I correct myself if I said war

21 crimes. It was actually persecutions as a crime against humanity. I was

22 using it in a fairly loose term but I will be very careful to correct

23 myself in future.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Obviously the reason for my question is that war

25 crimes can only be committed during the context of an international armed

1 conflict whereas crimes against humanity can be committed in international

2 and internal armed conflicts which obviously is a point of contention in

3 this case.

4 MR. RE: But not in the other cases, many other cases, relating to

5 the areas in the indictment to which Mrs. Plavsic pleaded guilty. There

6 have been findings of an international armed conflict in those other

7 cases.

8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: But separate and apart from Mrs. Plavsic in the

9 context of our case, if you're using the Mrs. Plavsic's guilty plea. I

10 think we just have to be careful in the terminology of what we are asking

11 the witness.

12 MR. RE: Certainly.

13 Q. Could I just go back to what I was asking you about a moment ago,

14 Mr. Savic? And that was detention facilities. I was asking you about the

15 SUP, the TO and the two schools. Now I'm going to ask you about the

16 others. Did you ever visit detention facilities at Brcko, Batkovic or at

17 the JNA barracks in Bijeljina in 1992 or 1993? And if you can answer it

18 by saying yes or no, please do so.

19 A. No.

20 Q. During 1992 and 1993, in either your capacity as commander of the

21 4th Detachment or the work you were doing afterwards, did you ever witness

22 any exchanges of civilians or prisoners between the Serb side and the

23 other sides?

24 A. No, I just need to correct you. I wasn't commander in 1992 and

25 1993. I wasn't a commander then. I was a commander for only a month or

1 so in 1999. Until early June, I was the commander of the 4th Detachment.

2 I didn't attend any exchanges ever, because it wasn't in my area of duty.

3 Q. Maybe something was lost in the translation. I understand you

4 were a commander only up until June. The transcript to me says one thing

5 you might have heard something slightly different but we'll move on from

6 there. Did you ever witness any interrogations of prisoners where you

7 were working in 1992 or 1993?

8 A. No.

9 Q. When Mr. Pisarevic asked you questions several days ago, you said

10 that during the arrests in the first few days after the 16th, 17th of

11 April, that some Serbs were arrested. Would you be able to help us out by

12 telling us the names of these Serbs?

13 A. I can't remember the names but I assume that those were errors.

14 In our area you can tell by a person's first and last name in most cases

15 whether they are Serbs Muslims or Croats so I assume that some people were

16 arrested by mistake. The police was probably thinking those people

17 weren't Serbs. A relative of mine, his name -- his last name was Ibralic,

18 his first name was Davor or Damir, he was arrested by accident. He was a

19 member of the detachment and his mother [Realtime transcript read in error

20 "most"] is a close relative of mine. Her maiden name is Savic. I can't

21 remember -- a name maybe termed purely Serbian in our area but I know

22 about one or two cases where people were arrested by mistake. People were

23 stopped in the street and arrested but I can't remember their names.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one correction for the transcript on page 9,

25 line 18, and his -- the witness said mother and here we read "most."

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that will be corrected.

2 MR. RE:

3 Q. So apart from Mr. Ibralic, which has I assume a Muslim-sounding

4 name, the best you can say is there were a few isolated incidents that

5 you're aware of, of Serbs being arrested by mistake and the numbers were

6 very small?

7 A. Isolated -- I think very few Serbs were isolated. I didn't know

8 of that. I do know that there were Muslims and Croats. That's all I

9 know.

10 Q. After your removal as the commander of the 4th Detachment -- sorry

11 I'll withdraw that. I want to ask you about the meeting between the

12 Crisis Staff and Colonel Djurdjevic on about 29th or so of May. In those

13 few days around the May, 1992. Which you gave evidence about over the

14 last few days.

15 You spoke about a person called Aco Jankovic being present. Can

16 you tell us who that person is, please?

17 A. I know that man. He's from Batkusa. I think he is a relative of

18 Milan Simic and he was present there. I don't know what his role was

19 there and then.

20 Q. Do you know whether he was in the military at that time?

21 A. I'm not sure. He was in a different unit. He was not a member of

22 my detachment. Sometimes he was a police officer. I assume, but I'm not

23 sure. He's from Batkusa. There was a unit there just like in Samac.

24 Maybe he was a member of that unit but I don't know.

25 Q. Do you recall whether he was wearing -- whether he was in uniform

1 at that meeting you attended with the Crisis Staff in late May, 1992?

2 A. Yes. He was wearing a uniform.

3 Q. Are you able to say now what rank he held at that time?

4 A. I think he was a non-commissioned officer but I can't remember

5 whether he was actually displaying his rank at that time.

6 Q. Was Mr. Vukovic, the paramilitary person who had put the gun in

7 Mr. Zaric's mouth, was he present at that meeting?

8 A. Can you please repeat the question? Vukovic? I'm not sure who

9 the person is. The man who put the gun into Simo's mouth, his name was

10 Vuk. I didn't even realise what his first and last names were.

11 Q. The man nicknamed Vuk, was the man nicknamed Vuk who Mr. Zaric

12 told you had put a gun in his mouth, was he there at this meeting we are

13 talking about at the moment?

14 A. I didn't know that man. I didn't see him. I don't remember. I

15 just heard that his name was Vuk. That was all. I didn't have any

16 opportunity to see that person. At least not that I remember now.

17 Q. Do you know who he is or do you know what he looked like?

18 A. I never saw him. I have no idea. I heard that he was a rather

19 young man. I don't know, really.

20 Q. Getting back to this meeting, Colonel Dencic wasn't there, was he?

21 A. No one from the superior command was there.

22 Q. And your view, as a reserve officer of many years standing and

23 your knowledge of Colonel Djurdjevic and serving with him was that -- was

24 certainly not that he was too old to command the detachment, was it?

25 A. No. I believe he had been born in 1940. I'm not sure, give or

1 take a year or two I'm not really sure but thereabouts.

2 Q. And he was in good health and of sound mind at the time?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And respected by his subordinates? Not just because he was their

5 commanding officer but because of his qualities as a soldier; is that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. At that meeting, you knew that Mr. Simic, Blagoje Simic, was the

9 President of the Crisis Staff, didn't you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Mr. Zaric told you soon afterwards, within days, he travelled to

12 Belgrade. You've given evidence of that. Were you aware that other

13 members of the Crisis Staff, that was Mr. Tadic, Mr. Ninkovic and

14 Mr. Todorovic also travelled to --

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe I have to object to this question.

16 First of all, this witness testified about his knowledge of Mr. Zaric

17 travel to Belgrade related to Crkvina massacre. And that's the only thing

18 he testified about. I mean I have no problem but don't put this to the

19 witness, the things that he didn't say.

20 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I don't understand the objection. Maybe I've

21 missed something in the transcript. I haven't finished the question and I

22 don't know what the objection is.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe could be that -- I apologise because your

24 question was, Mr. Zaric told you soon afterwards, within days he travelled

25 to Belgrade you've given evidence of that yes and the witness gave

1 evidence about his knowledge of Simo Zaric travelling to Belgrade in

2 respect to the event that happened in Crkvina but then the other part of

3 the question was that other members of the Crisis Staff -- first of all

4 Mr. Zaric was not a member of Crisis Staff which was not in dispute here

5 so I have a bit problem with this question.

6 MR. RE: I'm sorry.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the problem is that it was combined with the

8 other information. Split your questions and if you put a statement to the

9 witness, let the witness answer first and then you go ahead with other

10 questions.

11 MR. RE: I'll do that I'm sorry about the word "other." I

12 understand the objection to the word "other."

13 Q. Mr. Savic, after this meeting, several days later, Mr. Zaric

14 travelled to Belgrade and you're aware that -- you've given evidence that

15 he travelled to Belgrade several days afterwards, that's late May, early

16 June?

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, again, I apologise. Again, I believe that

18 my learned colleague is mixing two things. Mr. Zaric did travel to

19 Belgrade and the witness was testifying it was question by Mr. Pantelic

20 and Mr. Pisarevic also that he travelled to Belgrade in relation -- well,

21 actually that he was sent in Belgrade by Commander Nikolic to inform about

22 the massacre in Crkvina. This is what the witness was talking about.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: This was on May 9.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think more than that was in the testimony of

2 this witness.

3 MR. RE: If I've confused what the witness has said, I apologise.

4 Q. Were you aware that Mr. -- I can clarify this. Did Mr. Zaric tell

5 you he travelled to Belgrade in early May or late May, early June?

6 A. I said yesterday, I don't know whose question it was, that Simo

7 Zaric told us about what happened, what had happened at Crkvina. He spoke

8 to his superior there and he said that he was on his way to Pelagicevo but

9 then he phoned me from Pelagicevo and told me, Savic, Commander, I'm going

10 to Belgrade, on official duty. I have some tasks to carry out there.

11 Once I'm back I'll get in touch with you. That was it.

12 Q. I'll put it another way. Are you aware, or did Mr. Zaric tell you

13 that he had travelled to Belgrade after the meeting on about the 29th of

14 May with the Crisis Staff, had travelled to Belgrade with members of the

15 Crisis Staff and had met Mr. Bogdanovic in Belgrade? Were you aware of

16 that or did Mr. Zaric tell you that?

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment, please.

18 This is not an objection to the line of questioning but for the second

19 time in a row, the Prosecutor refers to a meeting of the Crisis Staff.

20 The witness did give testimony yesterday of that meeting and who exactly

21 was present so I would like to have this question rephrased. This was not

22 a meeting of the Crisis Staff. Some members of the Crisis Staff were

23 there and some weren't. Maybe on the premises of the Crisis Staff, just

24 to specify when the question is asked about the meeting with

25 Mr. Djurdjevic so this is the second time in a row. But I have no

1 objections of a more general nature to the line of questioning. I just

2 want this to be made clear we are talking about the premises of the Crisis

3 Staff and not about a meeting of the Crisis Staff. My client was a member

4 of the Crisis Staff, for example, but he was not physically present at

5 that meeting. That's what I'm trying to say.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, you understand the objection, that this was

7 not one of the formal meetings of the Crisis Staff because not all members

8 of the Crisis Staff were present. It was a meeting, some members of the

9 Crisis Staff were present on the premises of the Crisis Staff.

10 MR. RE: Your Honour, I certainly understand that but I don't

11 think for the purposes of the question the witness was at all confused

12 because he went to a meeting with some people of the Crisis Staff,

13 although it was just a shorthand way of directing it, but if my friends

14 want me to be as specific as I can be about who was there it will take

15 longer but I can do it that way.

16 Q. Mr. Savic, that meeting which was not a member -- a meeting of the

17 Crisis staff as such but at which some members of the Crisis Staff were

18 present, were you aware that Mr. Zaric a few days after that travelled to

19 Belgrade with some members of the Crisis Staff, Mr. Simic, Mr. Tadic,

20 Mr. Ninkovic, Mr. Todorovic, and met Mr. Bogdanovic in Belgrade? Were you

21 aware of those details?

22 A. Believe me, I have no idea who went and who travelled with whom

23 and where they went. I have no idea.

24 Q. Were you aware of Mr. Zaric going to Belgrade several days after

25 the meeting with some members of the Crisis Staff at which Colonel

1 Djurdjevic told you he had been dismissed?

2 A. I don't think your question is clear. Please, if I may just ask

3 you, don't ask me about specific dates. It really was a long time ago the

4 whole thing and when I came here to testify I told Mr. Pisarevic not to

5 try to tie me down to any specific dates because really, I am doing my

6 best to forget the whole thing and leave it behind. I want to keep the

7 whole thing away. And that's why I may have forgotten some dates. Now,

8 as to when exactly Zaric went to Belgrade, I don't know. Maybe he went

9 several times. I know that he did go after the massacre at Crkvina but

10 that's all I know about.

11 MR. RE: Would Your Honour just excuse me for one moment?

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 [Prosecution counsel confer]

14 MR. RE:

15 Q. Mr. Savic, please don't think for a second I'm trying to tie you

16 down to specific dates from 11 years ago. We understand completely how

17 human memory works. Just within days, please just do as best as you can.

18 Now, this is a more general question I'm going to ask you. When you

19 signed that -- I'm sorry, you've given evidence of signing that letter

20 with the 12 other commanders in about November, December, 1992, in which

21 you severely criticised, that is you collectively, severely criticised

22 what had happened in Bosanski Samac, especially by the paramilitaries or

23 specials, after the 17 -- 16th, 17th of April, 1992.

24 A. If I may say, those were not commanders. Those were members of

25 the command. There is an essential distinction between those. So those

1 were members of the command, not commanders. And I signed that too. I

2 found myself in agreement with that.

3 Q. I will correct myself. When I said commanders, I -- it was a slip

4 of the tongue. I did mean other members of the command. What came from

5 that document was that the command, the members of the command, had

6 disagreed with many of the actions of the Crisis Staff and its leadership

7 following the 17th of April, 1992. That's a fair summation, just in terms

8 of the -- of going through the disagreement, isn't it?

9 A. My signature meant what Commander Beronja's signature meant and

10 the signature of other members of the command, what that meant was that

11 the document was accepted in its entirety by Commander Beronja, by myself

12 and other members of the command.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you proceed, Mr. Re, just to lessen the

14 confusion, could we just have the exhibit number of the document being

15 discussed?

16 MR. RE: P127, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

18 MR. RE: Thank you.

19 Q. You and the other members of the command had grave concerns about

20 the arrests, the rounding up of non-Serbs, the torturing of non-Serbs in

21 detention facilities, the isolation of non-Serbs, and the actions of the

22 Crisis Staff. That's a fair summary, isn't it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. From what you had seen, those people were pursuing policies

25 against the non-Serbs that could only be described as discriminatory, that

1 is arresting them, detaining them, torturing them because they were

2 non-Serbs?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that discrimination which you saw and heard about in Bosanski

5 Samac after the 17th by the people you criticised in that document, P127,

6 could really only be described as persecution against those non-Serbs in

7 that period, couldn't it?

8 A. Yes, you could say that.

9 Q. Of course, before the 17th of April, 1992, as a long-time resident

10 of the Samac municipality, you know that Serbs were less than 50 per cent

11 of the population of the then Bosanski Samac municipality, didn't you?

12 A. I was not in a situation to be familiar with the exact percentage,

13 but it strikes me as possible that Serbs were less than 50 per cent, yes.

14 Q. As far as you know, they certainly weren't in a commanding

15 majority, as in 60, 70, 80, 90, 95 per cent Serb?

16 A. Yeah. I can say you're certainly right, yes. I think about 50

17 per cent but I'm not sure.

18 Q. And a takeover with -- I withdraw that. Of course, before the

19 17th of April, 1992, the municipality of Bosanski Samac was multi-ethnic

20 and had been democratically elected by the electors of the Bosanski Samac

21 municipality in free elections in October, 1990, hadn't it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And after the 17th of April, 1992, that democratically elected

24 municipality government was no longer in force because its function had

25 been taken over by the Serbian municipality of Bosanski Samac?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. That in effect of course was a takeover by one ethnicity, that's

3 the Serbs, at the expense of the non-Serbs who could no longer participate

4 in the government of Bosanski Samac, wasn't it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The takeover by one ethnicity at the expense of the others and you

7 described in P127, that's the document with the 13 signatures on it

8 including your own about the discriminatory policies put in place, such a

9 takeover would not cause -- sorry, would cause interethnic conflict,

10 wouldn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And if the non-Serbs, as you've agreed, were actually in a

13 majority, the takeover could hardly be seen as a liberation, could it?

14 A. Yes. In our area, in daily correspondence, liberation is a word

15 that has become a colloquialism, a word we tend to use frequently, and

16 that's that.

17 Q. Dr. -- you've already said that you disagreed with the actions of

18 Dr. Simic and his support for the actions of the -- his and the Crisis

19 Staff's or War Presidency's support for the actions of the paramilitaries

20 following the events of the 17th of April. You agree with that? That's

21 what you've said. Yes or no.

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown 116 ter?

24 Q. While you're getting that, while these are being given to you,

25 Mr. Savic, you said liberation is a word used colloquially but it has --

1 when it's used it has -- it's used in a very positive sense, isn't it?

2 Just concentrate on me for the moment.

3 A. Yes, yes, something like that.

4 Q. And people who use it, Mr. Savic, just bear with me for a moment,

5 I'll come to the document in a moment, I'll come to that document in one

6 moment, the word "liberation" is normally used in a military context in

7 meaning the freeing of people from oppression, isn't it?

8 A. The word "liberation" means the freeing of territory that has been

9 taken by the enemy. It's a military term. Politicians often use the

10 term, especially lately, during their electoral campaign. It's a catch

11 word. They think they will garner more votes if they use the word often.

12 Now, as far as the first meaning of the term is concerned, that's a true

13 military term.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: From that explanation by the witness, Mr. Re, it's

15 no use pursuing this line of questioning on the meaning of the term

16 liberation. It won't help us at all.

17 MR. RE: Thank you.

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MR. RE:

20 Q. Sir, the -- from what you saw in 1992, 1993, and in particular in

21 your observations of the work of the Crisis Staff and War Presidency, you

22 would agree that the Crisis Staff had a significant role in working in the

23 defence of the territory of Bosanski Samac, wouldn't you?

24 A. What the Crisis Staff did and how much it did, I really didn't

25 know about. I did not have an insight into that. Your next question,

1 when you say 1993, already in 1992 I was in Pelagicevo. I would go --

2 occasionally, I was told someone was arrested and taken away from their

3 wives and so and so forth. I don't think the Crisis Staff knew everything

4 about the work of the police, at least that's what I believe that they

5 didn't know everything about the work of the police. I did not delve too

6 deep into that. That's merely my opinion.

7 Q. The word "paramilitary" is used -- has been used in these

8 proceedings. It's been used in documents which are in evidence here. A

9 paramilitary, could we agree on, say, a working definition from your

10 perspective of a paramilitary formation being a group of armed people

11 under a command, who are not within legitimate or formal government

12 structures?

13 A. I know about the military. Each member or a group, if they are in

14 the part of any formational unit, then it's a -- and they are not members

15 of the army, that's a paramilitary group. If any person is a member of

16 the police but they are not a regular member of the police, then they are

17 under the command of the police. This is how I see it.

18 Q. In your understanding, the term paramilitary, a group of

19 paramilitaries could be -- it could be a small group or it could be a

20 large group, it could be a group of several people, it could be a group of

21 10, 20, 50, 100 people?

22 A. It's possible. Everything is possible. Everything that is not

23 part of the formation is a paramilitary.

24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I have an intervention in

25 the transcript, this is page 21, line 13, 14, we heard that the witness

1 said, "If a group is not under the command of the police, then it's

2 parapolice." The way the sentence has been recorded in the transcript,

3 doesn't make too much sense. So I would ask my learned friend to clarify

4 that.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: It actually looks like lines 18 and 19 on the big

6 monitor.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I think you can just ask the witness to go over the

8 answer which he gave slowly so that the interpreters can pick every word.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. Mr. Savic, I just want to clarify something from your last answer.

11 The translation says if a person is a member of the police, but they are

12 not under a -- not a regular member of the police, then they are under the

13 command of the police. That is how I see it.

14 Can you just -- if that isn't what you said, can you just please

15 say it again and say what you did mean? Just that part of the answer.

16 A. In my opinion, as far as the military is concerned, everything

17 that is not under the command of the military, whether it was a group of

18 five or a larger group, for me, this is a paramilitary group, which is not

19 under the command. I think that in the same way, as far as the police is

20 concerned, if a police officer is not -- it's not known who is under the

21 command, if he is out of anybody's direct control, then according to me,

22 this is a parapoliceman. If his superior does not have any control over

23 him, then he is not a police officer but a parapolice officer. This is at

24 least what I think as far as the police is concerned. And as far as the

25 military is concerned, this is something that I know.

1 Q. The commandos or specials who came into Bosanski Samac in April,

2 1992, they were a paramilitary formation under your definition, weren't

3 they?

4 A. I know for sure that they were not in my unit and as far as I'm

5 concerned, they are not soldiers. I think this is how they presented

6 themselves, that they were specials, police officers, some of them would

7 say that they -- he was a soldier. I know that in my unit, there wasn't a

8 single member from that group that came to Samac.

9 Q. As far as you could see, they were a paramilitary formation that

10 had entered the municipality for whatever reason?

11 A. For me, this is the paramilitary and the parapolice, in my

12 opinion.

13 Q. And when they entered the -- entered it and after the takeover,

14 they carried out, according to P127, which is the document with signatures

15 on it, a campaign of -- a campaign of terror against innocent people in

16 the town, that is the non-Serbs?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And from the way they did it, and from what you saw and from what

19 you've said in that document, P127, you could conclude that they entered

20 the municipality in order to carry out this organised campaign of terror

21 against the innocent non-Serb population?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic?

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: I have no problem with the question truly but I

24 think it would be fair to the witness to have the document P127. I really

25 don't see the reason why my colleague hasn't given him this document.

1 This is not actually a test or something whether he remembers parts of the

2 document. I believe that it will be fair for him to have this document in

3 front of him so when you're referring to some part of document or

4 something like that, just it would be fair to the witness to take a look

5 at it.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness should be given the document.

7 MR. RE: I'm not referring to P127, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: You are no longer going to refer to it.

9 MR. RE: I'm not referring to P127 at all.

10 Q. My question was --

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, line 20, line 25, page 23.

12 MR. RE: I'm not referring to P127. I'm referring to what the

13 witness said in P127. I'm talking about something else altogether. The

14 fact that I've mentioned P127 so that it's on the transcript as a

15 reference point back to what the witness had earlier said doesn't mean

16 that I'm actually referring to that at the moment. It's just for the

17 clarity of the transcript.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no harm in giving the witness the document,

19 Mr. Re.

20 MR. RE: P127?

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Madam usher? Can the witness have the

22 document in front of him?

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. P127, sir, is the document which you signed with the other 12

25 members of the command and that's the one where you have drawn together

1 your conclusions about or drawn together your opinions about what the

2 paramilitaries or the specials or commandos were doing after the 17th of

3 April, 1992. Just to be clear that that was something I was referring to

4 in passing. You've got it there. My question was: I was asking you

5 about the organised -- you agree that there was an organised campaign of

6 terror or had to have been organised and then I asked you from what you

7 saw and what you have recorded in that document, you could conclude that

8 this paramilitary formation had in fact entered the municipality in order

9 to carry out that organised campaign of terror against the innocent

10 population. That's the non-Serbs. Couldn't you?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown P89 ter?

13 Q. Just read the first paragraph of P89 ter, please, which is headed

14 or which is a document which is called the decision of the introduction of

15 the state of emergency on the territory of the municipality. I'm just

16 going to read that paragraph slowly. It says, "Considering the difficult

17 situation on the territory of the municipality, particularly in the town

18 of Bosanski Samac, where a paramilitary formation entered the municipality

19 in order to carry out an organised campaign of terror, against the

20 innocent population in the town, and its surrounding area, the Crisis

21 Staff of Bosanski Samac municipality made a decision on the introduction

22 of a state of emergency on the territory of the municipality." Now that's

23 on the 19th of April, 1992. You see that, sir?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The Crisis Staff, of course, was not referring to the paramilitary

1 formation that you just agreed with me had entered the municipality in

2 order to carry out this organised campaign of terror, was it?

3 A. Most probably. I don't know what the Crisis Staff thought but I

4 can see what they wrote.

5 Q. I've finished with that document. Thank you.

6 Sir, you gave evidence over the last couple of days about the

7 takeover and the events of the 17th of April, 1992, and I think you said

8 people gathered or members of the detachment gathered at about 6.00 a.m.

9 the next morning, around 6.00 a.m. You couldn't be precise on times, of

10 course, it being so long ago and you said Mr. Zaric was there?

11 A. No. I said Mr. Zaric and Mr. Antic came later. No, no. Excuse

12 me. At 6.00 -- I came at about 3.00 or quarter past 3.00 a.m. on the

13 16th. Simo Zaric came later. If this is what you mean.

14 Q. I was referring to the later one at about 6.00 a.m. You said

15 there were two. There was one at 3.00 and there was a later one in the

16 morning.

17 A. They were already in Pelagicevo at the time, Simo Zaric and

18 Radovan Antic. I think I said that, if I remember it properly.

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, page 26, on line 13, it was 3.00 a.m.

20 On the 16th. This is what we read in the transcript and it's obviously a

21 slip of tongue so --

22 MR. RE:

23 Q. Sir, when you said the 16th, you meant the 17th, didn't you? You

24 said a quarter past 3.00 on the 16th. You actually meant the 17th, didn't

25 you?

1 A. Yes, yes. It was a slip of the tongue.

2 Q. On that night, after you woke up and went to the command,

3 Mr. Zaric went to Pelagicevo, did you see Mr. Tadic that night?

4 A. No. Zaric -- no, Tadic wasn't there then.

5 Q. When was the first time after you heard the firing of weapons in

6 the early hours of the 17th that you saw Mr. Tadic?

7 A. I think that he came in the afternoon, and I remember that Antic,

8 Radovan, ordered him to transfer the command to prepare the work of the

9 kitchen, to engage the quartermaster department, and this is what he

10 worked on. I know that he was also obliged to check the issuance of

11 weapons, to present the lists to the TO headquarters warehouse. This is

12 what I remember. I don't know what the timings were.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak closer to the

14 microphone?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Savic, could you please draw your chair nearer

16 the microphones?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

18 MR. RE:

19 Q. Mr. Savic, Mr. Pantelic asked you yesterday about the preparations

20 that -- the preparations of the 4th Detachment for the town's defence

21 around April, 1992. And your evidence was that there was a small unit of

22 people involved in that. How many people were in this small unit involved

23 in the preparation for the town's defence? I'm sorry, in preparing for

24 the town's defence?

25 A. I don't know what you are thinking of. I think that we are

1 talking about the patrols that we had. There were about five or six

2 patrols of mixed composition, of three members each, whose task it was,

3 and the tasks were issued by the commander of the detachment, and also by

4 myself when the commander wasn't there, just to observe everything that is

5 out of the ordinary in town, they were obliged to report about, and so on.

6 Q. What I'm asking you about specifically is an answer you gave to

7 Mr. Pantelic where he asked you about preparation for the town's defence

8 in a timely manner. It's at page 62 of yesterday's transcript, and you

9 said, "We did have a small unit that was involved in such tasks." What

10 I'm just trying to find out is how many people were involved in the task

11 of preparing for the town's defence in a timely manner. Is it two, three,

12 four, five? Whatever?

13 A. If you're thinking of the patrols, there were about five or six

14 patrols numbering three members each so it was around 20 people, if you're

15 thinking of the patrols. Before the outbreak of the conflict. They were

16 already engaged from -- as of February. So it was their daily activity to

17 walk around to see if there was anything unusual, and if there was

18 something unusual, they were to report about it.

19 Q. So is your evidence that the planning or preparation for the

20 town's defence was limited to these patrols, the five or six patrols of

21 three members, around 20 people, walking around the town at different

22 times of the day or night?

23 A. That was it.

24 Q. And from that, it's apparent that there was no -- the 4th

25 Detachment didn't see any major threat to the town's defences in April,

1 1992, because it only had several groups of three people patrolling the

2 town?

3 A. The 4th Detachment had information that Muslim forces, which were

4 well armed, and Croatian forces, as you say, regarding the preparation and

5 the way we did that, we thought that in the beginning, it was enough to

6 just conduct this observation, and all that we did was done in accordance

7 with the commands of the 17th Tactical Group. On the 17th, in the

8 morning, we had a couple of these people who had arrived, these groups, a

9 couple of them, and we started to call up the people and so on to see what

10 was happening. They were also coming by themselves. It was maybe about

11 6.00 in the morning, and at that point we had about 50 people, and then

12 these numbers grew later. That's how it developed.

13 Q. I'm not asking you about the 17th. I'm asking you about the

14 period leading up to the 17th, and you've said that the preparation and

15 planning was limited to patrols of two or three people, groups of maybe

16 five or six of those. Now, were they patrolling the town at the same time

17 or were they doing it in shifts, that is, two or three on and then two or

18 three off? How did it work?

19 A. Their tasks were issued by Commander Antic. At some point two

20 were engaged, sometimes there were three patrols engaged. I don't know.

21 This is something that he would know. He was the one who issued their

22 tasks. When he wasn't there, then I was in charge of that. I know that

23 Radovan was there for a day or two and then I was there or somebody else

24 on duty from the command would be dealing with this, and the reports would

25 be sent back. I don't understand you, in a way, these preparations.

1 Preparations. Besides the patrols that we had, we also had weapons issued

2 to us, not all of us, but people were arriving later and so on and so

3 forth. This also was a form of preparation.

4 Q. Sir, please confine yourself only to before the 17th of April.

5 Are you saying that as far as you're aware, in your role as deputy

6 commander, in April -- March and up to the 17th of April, 1992, there were

7 no more, as far as you are aware, of no more than three patrols of two or

8 three people patrolling the town or the municipality at the one time?

9 A. There were five or six. This would occasionally change. The

10 composition also of the personnel changed. I don't know what else I can

11 tell you.

12 Q. Were there -- on the nights of March and leading up to the 17th of

13 April, 1992, generally, as a rule, how many patrols did the 4th Detachment

14 have doing the rounds of Bosanski Samac and the municipality? That's each

15 night. Was it one? Was it two?

16 A. Five or six. I think that's how much it was.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have silence from the counsel's bench,

18 please?

19 MR. RE:

20 Q. Sir, on the night of the 16th -- withdraw that. The 4th

21 Detachment, you've already given evidence, was part of the 17th Tactical

22 Group, and was part of the JNA in April, 1992, leading up to the 17th of

23 April, 1992. You agree that's the evidence you've given?

24 A. The 4th Detachment was constantly under the command of the 17th

25 Tactical Group and part of the JNA, not only up to the 17th.

1 Q. Thank you. On the night of the 16th of April, 1992, was the 4th

2 Detachment -- were the only JNA soldiers in Bosanski Samac members of the

3 4th Detachment?

4 A. On the 16th of April -- could you please repeat the question?

5 Q. Were the only soldiers, JNA soldiers, in Bosanski Samac, on duty,

6 on the 16th of April, 1992, that's the night of the 16th of April, 1992,

7 from the 4th Detachment?

8 A. Those were the patrols, those patrols, the only ones. The members

9 of the 4th Detachment.

10 Q. As far as you know, there were no other JNA soldiers on duty in

11 Bosanski Samac on the night of the 16th of April, 1992?

12 A. No. The 16th of April was the same as the previous days. Nothing

13 in particular.

14 Q. How many patrols, if any, did you -- did the 4th Detachment have

15 patrolling Bosanski Samac on the night of the 16th of April, 1992?

16 A. The same as the previous days. I think that there were no

17 increases. It was the same as the previous days. It wasn't more or less.

18 I don't know whether it was four, five, six but it was the same. Their

19 tasks on the 16th were the same as those on the previous days. Nothing in

20 particular was different.

21 Q. There was no shelling from Croatia, the Croatian side, until after

22 the takeover on the 17th of April, was there?

23 A. I know that the shellings -- shelling started first when commander

24 Radovan deployed the people towards the Sava and Bosna rivers. One of the

25 people was injured, wounded right away. After that, the shelling ensued

1 and I heard the explosions for the first time and I understood that

2 shelling was unpleasant, that this was a settled area, inhabited area,

3 that buildings were damaged and so on and so forth.

4 Q. But that wasn't my question, sir. My question was: There was no

5 shelling from Croatia, that's across the Sava River, until after the

6 takeover on the 17th of April, 1992, was there?

7 A. There was no shelling in Samac before that.

8 Q. Were any of your 4th Detachment members sent for training in the

9 Serb Krajina in Croatia with the paramilitary forces who came to Samac

10 before April, 1992?

11 A. No, no.

12 Q. You're aware of some local men from Batkusa going to the Serb

13 Krajina in Croatia for training with those paramilitaries or commandos,

14 aren't you?

15 A. I heard that some men left the area of the municipality. I know

16 from my village, a couple of them were in that group, but there were

17 people from Batkusa or Obudovac. We heard that.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: We will take our break and continue at 11.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

22 MR. RE:

23 Q. Mr. Savic, before the break I was just asking you about the people

24 who went from Batkusa or other villages to train with the paramilitaries

25 in the Serb -- in the Krajina, Serb Krajina, in Croatia. Were any of

1 these people, to your knowledge, members of the 1st Detachment or 2nd

2 Detachment, that is the men who went to train?

3 A. Where they were deployed exactly, I don't know but it's possible

4 that they were in their own units.

5 Q. These men who went for training, they were Serbs, weren't they?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And they came from Serb villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. A takeover such as that which occurred on the 17th of April, 1992,

10 required some preplanning, didn't it?

11 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour, calling for speculation.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

13 MR. RE: I can ask him a number of questions leading up to his

14 expertise as a military person, in the reserve for X number of years, his

15 subsequent experience as a full time officer in the VRS for the last ten

16 years, his knowledge of military procedure, battle plans, what he was

17 doing during the war, and -- getting to that point.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re, only to a very limited point. This

19 witness is a fact witness. And he has not given evidence that he was one

20 of the people who were involved in the takeover so you can't ask him about

21 the -- whether or not it required planning.

22 MR. RE: I'm asking him on the basis of he was a person, a deputy

23 commander of the 4th Detachment, the next day, he was in the town. He was

24 there, he knew exactly what -- he knew what was happening he was receiving

25 orders or not receiving orders. He was aware of the paramilitaries, where

1 they were from, what they were doing, which vital facilities in the town

2 were being seized. It's a conclusion in my submission this witness must

3 be able to draw from the things he saw, that is the facts that he observed

4 in Bosanski Samac on the 17th. I was asking the shorthand way but I could

5 take him through each of those things and come to the same point, a

6 conclusion he as a deputy commander would have to draw from what he saw.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, from the facts -- from the facts known to him.

8 MR. RE: Yes.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

10 MR. RE:

11 Q. Mr. Savic, you heard what I -- the exchange between Their Honours

12 and myself about what you saw. Now, from your experience and what you saw

13 on the 17th of April, that is the paramilitaries, the seizing of the vital

14 facilities, the orders you received or didn't receive, it was apparent --

15 you could only draw the conclusion that the takeover by the paramilitaries

16 was, and of course their arrival in Batkusa in the week preceding, their

17 training and so on, you could only draw the conclusion from that that the

18 attack had to be preplanned, couldn't you? As an experienced military

19 officer, aware of military tactics, strategy and planning.

20 A. I'll tell you that I simply didn't know what the plan of the

21 Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality of Samac was. I didn't see any

22 of that. I didn't take part in that group. On the 17th and on the 18th,

23 the commander told me to stay -- ordered me to stay at the command for the

24 whole time. Therefore, I only heard about what had happened. The

25 intentions of our detachment and as far as our plans as you say were

1 concerned, we only had to bring manpower levels up, get infantry weapons

2 and await further instructions and orders. That was the intention and the

3 conviction of our detachment, to prevent the spill over of war from

4 Croatia into Bosnia by the HVO and so on and so forth.

5 MR. RE: Would Your Honours just excuse me? I just need to look

6 at the transcript for a moment.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Sir, what I was asking you was, as someone who was there on the

10 day and from what you observed of what the paramilitaries do, I didn't ask

11 you about the Crisis Staff nor any connection with them, just in military

12 terms, you agree that a takeover of the facilities in the town, in the way

13 that it was done would have required preplanning by those who did the

14 taking over? It wasn't spontaneous, was it?

15 A. That wasn't our plan. It was not the plan of the 4th Detachment.

16 Must have been someone else who planned it and who it was I don't know.

17 Q. What I'm just trying to get you to agree with me is there must

18 have been planning by someone for it to have occurred in the way in which

19 you observed it. I'm not saying the 4th Detachment did it. Whoever did

20 it, must have preplanned it. That's all I'm asking you about. Because

21 the degree of organisation and the way it was carried out would lead to

22 you conclude as a military person that there must have been a degree of

23 preplanning involved. That's all.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, again objection. I mean, it is

25 multi-barrelled question. It's very general in nature. I believe it's

1 confusing the witness with -- maybe my learned friend could be more

2 specific. To ask this witness what is his personal knowledge about a plan

3 issued by certain organ or certain person in Samac on that day at that

4 time, otherwise he's trying to elicit an answer for a general question

5 which cannot be held for this proceedings. Thank you.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic, the question of counsel is quite

7 clear and the witness can answer that.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. You followed the question? Based on your observations of what you

10 saw, the degree of planning -- sorry, the way it was carried out, I'm not

11 saying the 4th Detachment did it, I'm just suggesting that as a military

12 officer there on the ground it was obvious to you, the only conclusion you

13 could have drawn was that someone must have preplanned that attack which

14 took over the town, whether you know who it was or not?

15 A. I don't know. It's possible that there was a plan but I don't

16 know of any plan.

17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Savic, I think this is a question of

18 military strategy. When a group takes over a certain area, and takes over

19 vital facilities, do they have to have information on where those vital

20 facilities are? I think the gist of counsel's question seems to be based

21 on your knowledge as a military person, as well as being a person on the

22 ground, as a matter of military strategy would there have had to be a plan

23 that these paramilitaries weren't just going to descend into Bosanski

24 Samac and just do it, as Mr. Re said, spontaneously? So I think in case

25 you perhaps were not fully understanding, I think that's the gist of

1 Mr. Re's question.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Firstly, none of us knew that any

3 group of commandos would be arriving. We had never been in touch with

4 those people. Personally, I knew nothing about any of their plans, nor

5 did any members of the command know about those. It's possible that there

6 had been plans, it's just that I don't know this for a fact.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. Nothing from what you saw being there on the 17th could have led

9 you to conclude that this takeover by the paramilitaries was a spontaneous

10 random act of people who just dropped in from no where, could it?

11 A. I can only assume what it was. I can assume that someone had

12 ordered them to come, that there was an agreement for them to come, that

13 they were told what they should do. But please believe me, I don't know

14 whether this was planned in advance or not. I personally did not see, nor

15 did anyone from the command see, anything. We just heard that they

16 stormed the SUP building, the municipal building, that they took a number

17 of facilities and institutions. The memorial centre with the radio

18 station we heard that they had entered the PIK factory premises and I

19 can't remember whether any other buildings or institutions. We merely

20 heard that. All of us who were present at the headquarters of the command

21 at that time. How they did this, I really don't know. I did hear later

22 on about what had happened but at that point, I didn't personally witness

23 any of this. I didn't see it with my own eyes. I merely heard.

24 Q. What did you hear later on about how the attack was planned or how

25 it was carried out? And who from?

1 A. I heard from two men who were part of a patrol. I heard that they

2 had come for them to show them around, to point out the various buildings

3 and facilities, just like that. And we only heard at a later stage that

4 they had already entered the SUP building and the MUP building.

5 Q. You agreed earlier with me when I asked you some questions of the

6 effect of the takeover by the Serbs, that is one ethnicity, was at the

7 expense of the other Serbs who could no longer participate in the

8 government of Bosanski Samac, was a discriminatory act. You've already

9 agreed with that, earlier this morning. What that means is that the

10 takeover which you saw by Serb forces over territory in which the Serbs

11 were not a majority, was a forcible takeover on discriminatory or ethnic

12 grounds, wasn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. On the morning or -- on the night or the early hours of the

15 morning of the 17th of April, 1992, when you and other members of the

16 command of the 4th Detachment, that's Radovan Antic, found out about it,

17 you of course and you've given evidence of this, went -- communicated

18 straight away with your commanding officer in the 17th Tactical Group,

19 didn't you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You did so because you wanted to find out what the -- I withdraw

22 that. You did that because you needed to know what the 17th Tactical

23 Group's commanding officer wanted you to do. That is you, the 4th

24 Detachment, which you've already said were the only soldiers, JNA

25 soldiers, in Bosanski Samac. That's the reason why you called command

1 called Nikolic, wasn't it?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. I think you gave evidence to Mr. Pantelic, I don't want to repeat

4 it, but you agreed that the 17th Tactical Group and the 4th Detachment

5 were of course much, much larger than the paramilitaries or commandos who

6 were in Bosanski Samac on the night or early hours of 17th of April,

7 1992?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was your estimation of the number of paramilitaries, was it 30 or

10 50 or something like that? What number do you give?

11 A. About 30.

12 Q. The large numbers in the -- the thousands of armed troops in the

13 17th Tactical Group could have easily overwhelmed those 30 paramilitaries

14 had they been so ordered to do, couldn't they?

15 A. Well, first of all, this part, if you're asking me about the

16 territory of the 4th Detachment, I'll tell you but what the orders for the

17 command were, for the brigade were, what orders the command gave to the

18 brigade, I really don't know. To overwhelm a group of people like that

19 would have entailed the use of armoured vehicles. The use of specially

20 trained people for combat against such groups. That's what it would have

21 entailed in my opinion. Destruction, casualties. It was a big question

22 how many people from the HDZ and from the SDA were actually armed and how

23 you could distinguish those groups. We really didn't know at the time. I

24 think that would have been very difficult.

25 Q. Sir, maybe there is a misunderstanding?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, it doesn't help us at all to start

2 speculation as to what would have happened if they had planned it this or

3 that way. We better stick to facts.

4 MR. RE: I am, Your Honour I'm sticking to orders which the JNA

5 did or didn't give on that night.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's better to stick to the orders which they

7 gave.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. All right. Sir, the -- the orders that -- I withdraw that. From

10 your knowledge of subordination and command and control in the JNA in

11 1992, Nikolic was subordinated to another officer in a higher corps. I

12 think that was, was it Jankovic or was there someone in between?

13 A. I think it was Jankovic but I'm not sure. I'm not sure who his

14 superior was. My level was up to the Tactical Group. That means up to

15 Nikolic. Now, who he received orders from, whether Jankovic or one of the

16 generals, I didn't know.

17 Q. Your knowledge of subordination and your position in the hierarchy

18 in 1992 based upon that, you know that Nikolic would have had to have

19 received orders from someone up the chain and on the night of the 17th of

20 April, 199 -- or the morning of the 17th of April, 1992, the orders that

21 Nikolic communicated to the 4th Detachment from the chain of command in

22 the JNA were to do nothing to prevent the paramilitaries from continuing

23 with their takeover of the town.

24 A. When we contacted Nikolic and informed him about what had

25 happened, he called Simo Zaric and Radovan Antic to come there

1 immediately. I can assume who he had received orders. I really can't

2 speculate about that, who ordered him for someone to come to Samac if

3 that's what you had in mind but I'm not sure, please try to specify when

4 you ask me questions.

5 Q. I'm not asking you to specify. I'm asking you about your

6 knowledge of subordination and the way it worked in the JNA in April,

7 1992. That orders that Nikolic gave to you had to have come from further

8 up the JNA hierarchy, the orders that Nikolic communicated to the 4th

9 Detachment. Based on the way the army worked in April, 1992.

10 A. The commander of the Tactical Group, that level, an officer of the

11 same level, according to his own assessment is authorised to make a

12 decision. However, in times of war, he is faced with a situation where he

13 has to take a decision on his own, with his assistants, or he informs the

14 superior command, the higher commanding level, and appeals for assistants,

15 help, advice, in relation to occurrences.

16 Q. The effect of the orders that Nikolic communicated to you and

17 Mr. Antic as -- and Mr. Zaric as members of the command of the 4th

18 Detachment was to allow the paramilitaries to continue to seize control of

19 Bosanski Samac, wasn't it?

20 A. We never received any such order. He was as shocked as we were by

21 the arrival of those paramilitaries.

22 Q. I'll go back a step. Paramilitaries arrived, the command of the

23 4th Detachment contacted Nikolic; correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Nikolic sought orders from somewhere else in the JNA, higher up,

1 as to what he should do, as to what orders he should give you and the

2 ground; correct?

3 A. I don't know if he did. Sometimes he would make a decision on his

4 own.

5 Q. Whether he got them from higher up or not, Nikolic communicated

6 back to you, the command -- ordered the command of the 4th Detachment not

7 to prevent the paramilitaries from taking over the town?

8 A. No.

9 Q. I'll stop you there. Nikolic ordered the JNA, the 4th Detachment,

10 to see -- to defend the perimeters of the town; correct?

11 A. Yes. To be deployed along the perimeters of the town and nothing

12 more and to prevent enemy forces from crossing the rivers Sava and Bosna.

13 Q. Nikolic did not order, and he was the highest person who you or

14 Antic spoke to, did not order you as the 4th Detachment and the only JNA

15 soldiers in Bosanski Samac, to take action to prevent these paramilitaries

16 from Serbia, the locals, from seizing control of the town, did he?

17 A. No, no. He didn't order that, which means yes, that's correct.

18 Q. The paramilitaries were allowed by Nikolic order for to you do

19 nothing, were allowed to continue their taking over of the town of

20 Bosanski Samac by seizing the vital facilities, weren't they?

21 A. Members of the 4th Detachment were not entrusted with taking the

22 town but rather the only task they received was to deploy themselves along

23 the fringes of the perimeter of the town.

24 Q. Nikolic's order for the 4th Detachment to do nothing to prevent --

25 non-order, put it in the negative, if you like, to prevent you, the 4th

1 Detachment, from stopping the paramilitaries going about their business of

2 taking over the town, in effect allowed them to continue doing it, didn't

3 it? Because there was no interference from the JNA; correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct. Because Nikolic told Radovan, "Leave this

5 job to the organs of the civilian authorities and the civilian police." I

6 clearly remember that. He told us not to interfere, that he would contact

7 someone from the authorities and that that would be like that.

8 Q. The effect of this was -- the effect of JNA non-action was to

9 allow the paramilitaries and the civilian authorities to seize control of

10 Bosanski Samac on an ethnic basis, wasn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The effect of this was that it allowed the paramilitaries and the

13 Serbs -- Serb police or whoever to install a Serb government, a Serb-only

14 government, over a municipality that had a non-Serb majority; correct?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. And the JNA's non--- sorry, inaction, the 4th Detachment's

17 inaction, based upon Nikolic's order, allowed the Crisis Staff or the

18 civilian authorities and the paramilitaries to consolidate their control

19 over Bosanski Samac, over the next few days, didn't it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And everyone in the 4th Detachment command was aware that the

22 effect of the JNA's inaction was that an ethnic-based takeover was allowed

23 to occur in Bosanski Samac?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. When I say everyone, I mean that's you, Mr. Antic, Mr. Zaric,

1 Mr. Tadic, everyone who was in the 4th Detachment command, whether it's

2 logistics, intelligence, the deputy commander, or the commander, everyone

3 was aware of the effect of the JNA's ordered inaction, weren't they?

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, now the witness is really

5 being asked to speculate as to what other people were aware of. I think

6 the witness can only tell us about his own opinion but we can't really ask

7 the witness to speculate as to what other people may or may not have been

8 aware of.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: He has confined his question to the 4th

10 Detachment -- the members of the 4th Detachment command. And that's -- as

11 far as the Trial Chamber is concerned, there is nothing wrong with that.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were dissatisfied with the way

13 that this was done, and believe me, they did not have support with us,

14 from the 4th Detachment, any national party, and even less the work being

15 committed in this way, we didn't agree with that, but we didn't have any

16 influence.

17 MR. RE:

18 Q. I'll just take you back to my question. My question was about the

19 knowledge, the awareness. Everyone in the command of the 4th Detachment,

20 and you've said people disagreed with what happened, that is you,

21 Mr. Antic, Mr. Tadic, Mr. Zaric, and anyone else in the command was aware

22 at that time that's April, 1992, that the effect of the JNA's inaction was

23 to allow the installation of a new regime on discriminatory ethnic

24 grounds?

25 A. We knew that.

1 Q. Earlier you described the liberation of a territory, when I asked

2 you about liberation, as these are the words you used, "freeing of

3 territory taken from the enemy." That's what you said earlier this

4 morning.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Meaning the capture of territory -- the capture of territory from

7 an enemy? Meaning land.

8 A. Territory, land, yes, that's what it means.

9 Q. The capture of territory in the Bosanski Samac municipality by the

10 paramilitaries and others could not have been or was not a positive

11 liberation for the non-Serb majority that was living there, was it?

12 A. I will say no.

13 Q. And everyone on the 2nd Posavina Brigade who signed the document

14 you had there earlier, that's P127, including yourself, was aware that

15 this liberation, being the capture of territory taken from the enemy, was

16 not a positive liberation for non-Serbs; correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And when you signed that document, you were all aware, all of you,

19 every one of you who signed that document, that there was no positive

20 liberation of that territory from the non-Serbs; correct?

21 A. That's correct, but we didn't know in which direction this would

22 go. The resettlement, transfer, arrests, this is what I'm talking about,

23 in the previous period none of us knew how it would go.

24 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown P127 ter?

25 Q. Now, sir, you said in the previous period. You signed the

1 document in November or December, 1992, and it sets outs in great detail a

2 lot of the horrific things that had been happening in Bosanski Samac since

3 the 17th of April, and you've agreed those things were committed by Crisis

4 Staff and paramilitary on ethnic, that is discriminatory, grounds.

5 A. Yes. I said that.

6 Q. So at that point, it was obvious that the direction in which

7 things were going was not a positive one for the non-Serbs who had been

8 arrested, detained, tortured, had their possessions looted from them,

9 wasn't it?

10 A. That's right. And it wasn't even positive for the people in my

11 detachment.

12 Q. Sir, I want you to turn to -- I'm not quite sure if you have the

13 same page number as I do -- could you just tell me to assist, how many

14 pages do you have on that document? I have ten on my English translation.

15 How many do you have?

16 A. Ten, ten.

17 Q. The first page, please, the third paragraph or maybe it's the

18 fourth paragraph. Do you see the words, "This group played"? You see a

19 paragraph headed "first," and then there is a paragraph headed "second."

20 There is a paragraph headed "third." In between second and third.

21 A. I don't have those indications here but I will try to find it in

22 the text, if you just give me a little bit more.

23 Q. Where I want you to go to is in the part under "second" can you

24 see the words Todorovic and Mijak?

25 A. Yes, I see it.

1 Q. Immediately under that, is the sentence, "This group" that's

2 referring to the paramilitaries above, "Played an indisputably positive

3 role in the liberation of Samac as a part of the Special Battalion" and it

4 goes on to say, "In fighting at Vidovice, Kornica, Garevac and Kladari, in

5 the liberation of the corridor to Brcko," and so on. You see the words,

6 "This group played an indisputably positive role in the liberation of

7 Samac as part of the Special Battalion"? My question is: Do you see the

8 words there?

9 A. Yes, I do. I see them.

10 Q. From what you've just said and the questions and answers in the

11 last few minutes, what that really means, doesn't it, is this group played

12 an indisputably positive role in the military takeover on ethnic grounds

13 of Bosanski Samac and the installation of a Serb-only government? That's

14 really what it means, isn't it?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: This is calling for speculation, what they meant.

17 It is quite obvious what it says in the information. They were -- I mean

18 from the paragraph that my learned colleague has just read that as a

19 member of Special Battalion that there is this sentence also so --

20 MR. RE: The witness has already answered yes and he's an author

21 of the document. He signed the document. He's already said yes.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed.

24 MR. RE:

25 Q. The word liberation occurs twice more in this document. I'm

1 just -- if you turn to the page where it says -- the second page where it

2 says, "Fifth, the fact that criminals of a Yugoslav calibre were hiding

3 among the 'Serbian commandos' who had come to train the Serbian people it

4 was revealed by their behaviour a few days after the liberation of Samac."

5 You see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. And also?

8 A. I found it.

9 Q. I'm sorry, you found it? Have you read it? I just want you to

10 indicate whether you've read it and whether I read out correctly what it

11 says.

12 A. You would have to repeat that to me.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could the document please be

14 placed on the ELMO?

15 A. If we are talking about the text, then I agree this is a part of

16 the text, yes.

17 MR. RE:

18 Q. Sir, turn to the sixth page, could you possibly put it on the

19 ELMO? That's the --

20 A. For me it's easier this way.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the witness wants -- can only read it

22 if it's before him.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. Can you lean to your left and read that there? Is it possible?

25 Can you see it?

1 A. Yes, yes, it's possible.

2 Q. All right. About a third of the way down the page, in brackets,

3 after the brackets, "The fate of hard currency acquired in this way should

4 be explained. What I want to you concentrate on is what is suggested by

5 the disappearance of a huge quantity of weapons collected during the

6 liberation of Samac and some other places populated by Croats. Especially

7 hunting weapons, which disappeared over night and were transported to

8 Serbia?" Have you found that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You've now seen the context in which the word liberation appears

11 twice more in the document, Mr. Savic. You've agreed that in the --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You've agreed that in the first context, I showed you, it should

14 be read to mean or what was meant there was liberation meaning the

15 military takeover on ethnic grounds of Bosanski Samac and the installation

16 of a Serb-only government. That same meaning you just agreed with applies

17 equally to those two other references to the word "liberation" in that

18 document, doesn't it?

19 A. That's right.

20 MR. RE: Thank you. I've finished with that document for the

21 moment. It can be left there because I may refer to it again.

22 Q. And so when I asked you about liberation earlier, and you said in

23 military terms it was the capture of territory, that is ground, from the

24 enemy --

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. You couldn't really describe the non-Serb Muslim and Croat

2 majority population of Bosanski Samac in April, 1992, as the enemy, could

3 you?

4 A. Only the armed part, illegally armed part. That part, not all of

5 them, but a significant number of Muslims and Croats were armed. They

6 were our opponents, as far as we were concerned.

7 Q. Colonel Pedisic in the 17th headquarters command, did you know him

8 at the time? That's P-e-d-i-s-i-c.

9 A. I didn't know that man with that last name.

10 Q. The command of the 4th Detachment of which you were a member was

11 sending reports to your, that is the detachment's commanding officer,

12 Nikolic, as to what was happening on the 17th -- 16th, 17th and 18th of

13 April, weren't you?

14 A. Yes. The 17th, the 18th and the period after that.

15 Q. And military procedure in the JNA at the time was reports of

16 things such as civil disturbances or attempted rebellions or armed

17 rebellions would have been or should have been sent from that level of

18 command to the next and the one after that and the one after that and

19 should have been sent all the way up the command; correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Any reports which Nikolic or the command of the 17th Tactical

22 Group was making could only have been based upon, as far as you know,

23 information that you, being the only soldiers, the 4th Detachment, the

24 only JNA soldiers in Bosanski Samac, were sending them?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. If there had been a clash between 3.00 and 4.00 a.m. on the

2 morning of the 17th of April between the Territorial Defence and MUP of

3 the Serb municipality and the SDA, TO, you would have known about it,

4 wouldn't you?

5 A. I don't understand the question.

6 Q. Had there been a clash between Serb TO in Bosanski Samac and SDA

7 TO on the morning of early hours of the morning of the 17th of April, you

8 would have been aware of it, wouldn't you? Because of your patrols going

9 around the town.

10 A. That was not the Serb TO. I knew that there was an earlier TO

11 staff where there were a lot of superior officers there but this was

12 earlier, when we are talking about the -- this time, this was a regular

13 unit of the 4th Detachment. I don't know what time period you're talking

14 about. If there had been any kind of conflict of any kind, we would be

15 obliged to inform our superior command.

16 Q. Were you aware of any clash between 3.00 and 4.00 in the morning

17 of the 17th of April, 1992, between members of the Territorial Defence and

18 MUP of the Serb municipality of Bosanski Samac, with the SDA's Territorial

19 Defence and MUP?

20 A. I don't remember any such information.

21 Q. Is that because it didn't happen?

22 A. Had it happened, I would have probably known about it, but I

23 really don't remember.

24 Q. You would have known, based upon the information coming from your

25 patrols in the town, of any forces coming across -- coming from the

1 Republic of Croatia attempting an infantry attack across the bridge on the

2 Sava River, wouldn't you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. There were certainly no forces from the Republic of Croatia

5 attempting an infantry attack on the town of Bosanski Samac in the early

6 hours of the morning of the 17th of April, were there?

7 A. There was an attempt of an attack from Prud but I told you that on

8 the 17th, Radovan took a part of the unit out to their positions and that

9 one of our members was wounded and that's when the shelling started from

10 Prud and from Slavonia, from Croatia, the shelling of Samac.

11 Q. My question was directed to forces coming from the Republic of

12 Croatia, not Prud, on the 17th of April, there were no forces coming from

13 the Republic of Croatia on the 17th of April, attempting an infantry

14 attack across the bridge, were there?

15 A. No, there were no such forces.

16 Q. And because?

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re you should be winding up now. You should be

18 winding up.

19 MR. RE: There are several areas which are quite important for the

20 Prosecution case which I wish to cover with the witness.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Which were not covered with Mr. -- the previous

22 witness?

23 MR. RE: Well --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Radovan Antic?

25 MR. RE: Radovan Antic was the commander up until 23rd or 4th of

1 April.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can you indicate then how much more time.

3 MR. RE: Probably about an hour, I think, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, Mr. -- Because you've been cross-examining

5 since 9.00. The Trial Chamber will give you half an hour.

6 MR. RE: Can I just say we received no indication of a time limit.

7 This morning I received a telephone message a telephone call from chambers

8 which we got at about 9.40 indicating a time limit but we had never

9 received one before and I had prepared my topics on the basis of a

10 reasonable time to cross-examine, not a limited time, based upon a witness

11 who is giving very important evidence for Mr. Zaric and has done so for

12 two hours. I was just asking if possible if I could be given a reasonable

13 time to finish and I just don't think I can finish and do justice to the

14 Prosecution case in half an hour.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re, the Trial Chamber is of the view that

17 if you can concentrate on the period when this witness was the commander,

18 because we've heard all the evidence when Radovan Antic was in -- was the

19 commander and you did sufficient cross-examination with him.

20 MR. RE: At the moment I was asking him about -- there is an error

21 in the transcript before where it says has done so for two hours. I

22 actually meant two days, he'd been giving evidence for two days.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Re, you know very well how many hours he

24 took.

25 MR. RE: I'm just correcting the transcript. I think I said two

1 hours. I meant he had given evidence for two days, to Mr. Zaric and in

2 cross-examination for Mr. Pantelic. That was just an error I was trying

3 to correct there. The areas I was asking the witness about now were when

4 he was the deputy commander on the 17th, 18th and 19th and reports which

5 were made of what happened and the effect of what is in these reports. He

6 was the deputy commander. It's just before the period when he was

7 appointed commander but there are areas in which he can give evidence on

8 which Mr. Antic wasn't cross-examined because the Prosecution had time

9 limits there with Mr. Antic so we weren't able to go over all areas in

10 relation to those documents so if I could possibly ask for leave for that

11 period before the 23rd which relates directly to the takeover which the

12 Prosecution said and this witness agrees was on an ethnic persecutory

13 basis.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, but please do not keep on one point for

15 too long like has been happening in the past.

16 MR. RE: Certainly, Your Honour.

17 Q. What I asked you a moment ago was about forces coming across the

18 river and you said it didn't happen. That being so, the Territorial

19 Defence of the Serb municipality couldn't have successfully repelled an

20 attack that didn't happen, could it?

21 A. The Territorial Defence of the Serb municipality did not exist.

22 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown P19 ter?

23 [Prosecution counsel confer]

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Could this be a bit magnified because we cannot

25 read it.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: What were you saying?

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Microphone not activated]

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

4 MR. RE:

5 Q. Have you read the document, Mr. Savic?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You've heard the questions I've just asked you and based upon

8 that, the information in the first sentence is, the first paragraph, is

9 untrue, isn't it? I'm sorry, the first sentence. Not the first

10 paragraph.

11 A. I'm sure that in Samac, there was no other unit other than the 4th

12 Detachment, and that was not the TO. It was actually a unit of the JNA.

13 This is the first time I'm seeing this document and I have no idea who is

14 the author of this document.

15 Q. It's a military document?

16 A. I can see that, but I don't know who signed it. It was signed by

17 a certain Pedisic whom I don't know. This is the first time that I'm

18 seeing this.

19 Q. I'm just asking you about the truth of the information contained

20 in the document. Just accept it's a JNA military document in evidence in

21 this trial. The first sentence is -- it's clearly incorrect, isn't it?

22 A. For me, it's incorrect.

23 Q. The second sentence, where it says members of the Territorial

24 Defence and MUP of Serb municipality took control of the MUP, the silo and

25 the bridge, those facilities were taken over but not by those bodies;

1 correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And likewise, the sentence about the forces coming over from

4 Republic of Croatia we've just spoken about, that too is incorrect?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. The next sentence, sorry, the next paragraph, "A part of the

7 Tactical Group 17 is in Bosanski Samac and the artillery have taken up

8 positions in order to prevent anyone crossing the Sava River from the

9 Republic of Croatia"; is that correct?

10 A. No. I did not have artillery as part of the detachment, not even

11 a -- the smallest mortar of 60 millimetres. There can be no question of

12 having any artillery. It was not there in the town, nor was it a part of

13 my detachment.

14 Q. Thank you. I've finished with that document.

15 Sir, could you please --

16 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown P23 ter?

17 Q. While the document is coming, Major General Savo Jankovic, he was

18 the commander of the 17th Corps command; is that correct, at that time, in

19 April, 1992?

20 A. It's possible, it's possible. I didn't know those very

21 high-ranking people. I never had an opportunity to meet them, to see

22 them, to listen to them. I was in the reserve force. Who was occupying

23 the top positions, I really didn't know. I did hear a couple of names but

24 I didn't know the people.

25 Q. Please have a look at the document and I just want to you look at

1 the first paragraph, you can see that it's a JNA military document on its

2 face. Have you read the first paragraph, Mr. Savic?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. This purports to be a document of Major General Savo Jankovic, the

5 command of the 17th Corps, of the 17th Corps command?

6 A. Yes, yes. This is the first time I see this document.

7 Q. The way that intelligence or reports worked in the JNA at that

8 time was orders were sent, as we said before, up the command to him, and

9 he would have received information, you would assume, upon which he would

10 have written this report?

11 A. Yes. I never laid eyes on this document before, and the title is

12 daily operations report, and this kind of document, I'm not talking about

13 this specific document, but very often this kind of document would contain

14 information delivered in a timely manner but then this information would

15 be trimmed in the manner of speaking but I've never laid eyes on this one

16 before and I believe I know for a fact that this is not true. It may have

17 been the case that someone was a bit late informing whoever needed to be

18 informed that someone from the administration section forwarded the wrong

19 information. Whatever the case may have been this information here is not

20 true.

21 Q. That is the information that on the 18th of April, armed forces of

22 the Republic of Croatia were not active against units within the zone of

23 jurisdiction of the corps. Are you saying that's the information which is

24 not accurate?

25 A. This information is not accurate at least, as concerns Samac. I

1 don't know about the other sections of the corps.

2 Q. You turn to the second page, the paragraph that says, "On the

3 17th, 18th of April, Serb TO units, police and a part of the Tactical

4 Group 17 units engaged in activities against paramilitary groups in

5 Bosanski Samac. On 18th of April, 1992, until 1100 hours, the said forces

6 established control or total control over Bosanski Samac." Next

7 paragraph, "The town is peaceful, the civilian authorities are

8 consolidating and establishing their power. Tactical Group 17 received

9 orders to secure what had been achieved and not to continue with offensive

10 steps." You've read that?

11 A. I couldn't really find my feet because you read very fast. I

12 wasn't able to find it. I can't find that particular section of the text,

13 the one which you've just read out. Item 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, which item are

14 you referring to?

15 Q. It's in item 3, and it should be the third paragraph?

16 A. Three?

17 Q. 17th April. Yes, 3. On 17 April, Serb forces, Serb TO units, et

18 cetera.

19 A. Oh, right, yes, yes, I can see it now.

20 Q. You've read that? Have you read that paragraph?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And the next paragraph that says, "The town is peaceful, civilian

23 authorities are consolidating and establishing their power. Tactical Group

24 17 received orders to secure what had been achieved and not to continue

25 with offensive steps."

1 A. For me, this is simply not true, because we did not take part in

2 any activities whatsoever apart from occupying the perimeter of the town.

3 Q. Sir, it says "To secure what had been achieved." Secure may mean

4 leave in place what has been achieved, guard the perimeters of the town

5 and not interfere with the paramilitary takeover.

6 A. It can mean that, yes.

7 MR. RE: Thank you. I've finished with the document.

8 Q. After the takeover, the JNA participated in the collection of

9 weapons from people in the municipality of Bosanski Samac. You've already

10 testified as to that occurring.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you said that Mr. Zaric and

13 Mr. Tadic were entrusted with supervising the collection of weapons in

14 Bosanski Samac?

15 A. Yes, yes, in addition to other people. There were other people

16 who had the same task but they stayed at the command.

17 Q. It was a sensitive job and it had to be done properly according to

18 the orders you received?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And as the deputy commander, you and Mr. Antic would only or were

21 only prepared to trust this sensitive and important task to people you

22 trusted to do the job properly?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. You didn't personally take part -- or participate in collecting

25 the weapons yourself; is that right?

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Where did -- where were Mr. Tadic and Mr. Zaric ordered to take

3 the weapons that had been given up by the citizens to?

4 A. Their task was to record all the weapons collected and to take it

5 to the TO warehouse, which was at the TO headquarters.

6 Q. Were they ordered to give receipts to people they had taken the

7 weapons from?

8 A. No.

9 Q. You know --

10 A. They merely had to record the serial number of the rifle. I'm not

11 sure what they wrote down eventually but their orders were to control this

12 activity, to monitor the course of the activity. I remember that Miroslav

13 Tadic was entrusted with a task, along side with someone else helping him,

14 to record all the weapons, to draw up lists, and take the weapons to the

15 storage, to the warehouse at the TO HQ.

16 Q. This was an order you gave -- the command gave to them -- that you

17 gave to them after receiving it from Nikolic after he had informed you

18 that he was aware that the Crisis Staff had participated in the takeover,

19 wasn't it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Of course, the effect of collecting weapons from anyone who may

22 have had them in Bosanski Samac, the effect of that was to prevent anyone

23 attempting to organise against the new government and new authorities

24 controlling Samac, wasn't it?

25 A. What I know is that by doing that, by performing that activity, we

1 had a number of people who were in charge of military tasks from the

2 detachment, now whether this made it possible for organs of authority, for

3 bodies of authority to continue functioning normally, that is a political

4 issue. Perhaps so but I don't know.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: The answer that the witness gave was not properly

6 recorded in --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe that the witness said that the main task

9 was to prevent people to shoot on their own personal -- for members of the

10 detachment, and this is not the way I see it recorded here in the

11 transcript. Said we had a number of people who were in charge of military

12 tasks from the detachment. But it doesn't make much sense, yes it's

13 obvious that they had a lot of soldiers in the detachment but not -- the

14 real meaning of the answer was not recorded.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness repeat his answer? Slowly.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Collection of weapons was performed

17 for the personal safety of people from the detachment who had been

18 deployed along the lines of defence, to prevent people from a house in

19 whatever situation in possession of weapons to endanger the people

20 deployed along the lines, and we didn't know or we were not willing to

21 secure the proper functioning of authorities in such a way that we were

22 not really in favour of and they didn't favour us much either.

23 It's possible that it happened by virtue of that very fact. I'm

24 not really an expert in that point, in the political point.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. What I'm asking you is the -- you've agreed that the effect of the

2 JNA's inaction was to allow the paramilitaries to consolidate their

3 takeover of the town. That was an order not to interfere. In tandem with

4 that, Nikolic ordered you to order Tadic and Zaric or whoever to collect

5 weapons, to go through the town collecting weapons. The effect of these

6 two orders together, don't interfere but collect weapons, was to assist

7 the paramilitaries and the Crisis Staff in the takeover or sorry in their

8 consolidation of power in Bosanski Samac immediately after the night of

9 the 16th of April, wasn't it?

10 A. That's your opinion. I will repeat: The purpose of the

11 detachment, I've said it over 100 times here, should I have a go at that

12 again? We didn't have anything -- we didn't know that this or that

13 government would come. We simply carried out our tasks as they were

14 ordered to us.

15 Q. That's not my question. My question is as to the effect based on

16 what you saw and what you've agreed to already, what you've testified

17 about already, the effect of those two orders or non-orders, don't

18 interfere but collect weapons was that the JNA, the 4th Detachment,

19 whether it wanted to or not, was assisting consolidation of power by the

20 Crisis Staff and the paramilitaries in Bosanski Samac.

21 A. Now, I see that because that's what it looked like. We did not

22 know about that previously but we did as we were ordered to do.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please be asked to repeat the

24 last part of his answer a bit more distinctly?

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Could you just repeat the last part of your answer? The

2 interpreters didn't hear it. More clearly.

3 A. Perhaps by carrying out our orders, perhaps I say, we did make it

4 possible in that way to make possible for the organs of authority or

5 bodies of authority to do their job. Perhaps. Let me say. That was not

6 part of the order. The only thing that was in the order is not to

7 interfere and to stick to our job.

8 Q. You testified about a meeting at Pelagicevo on about, not the

9 precise date, but about the 22nd of May, 1992, at which Colonel Djurdjevic

10 gave a positively-received speech after he'd been appointed the commander.

11 You said Mr. Zaric was there, you said Mr. Simic was there, and

12 Mr. Todorovic was there. Was Mr. Tadic there? That's Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

13 Was he there too?

14 A. No. As far as I remember, no, he wasn't.

15 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Pantelic, and I think Mr. Lazarevic -- sorry,

16 Mr. Pisarevic as well, asked you about the JNA and Mr. Pisarevic

17 specifically asked you about its structure and when you -- when you joined

18 the VRS. Do you remember that testimony over the last couple of days?

19 A. I was first in the reserve force of the army, until 1997, and then

20 I was transferred into active military service. I'm really not sure what

21 you're asking me. Was I in the army? Was I not in the army? When was I

22 in the army?

23 Q. You were asked about what you did in 1992 and -- 1992 following

24 the dissolution of the Federal -- Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

25 and the transformation of the JNA in Bosnia into the VRS, and you going

1 from one into the other and the changing of the names of the brigades

2 following the transfer from the JNA to the VRS. That's what I'm referring

3 to.

4 A. Yes. The question is a bit enigmatic to me, I must admit but I'll

5 try to answer that. The Army of Republika Srpska was established on the

6 12th of May, 1992. Up until the war broke out in Samac, I had been a

7 member of a unit in Derventa, also the JNA, but that was a war unit.

8 Q. I'm not asking you this. I was just referring to what you said

9 before so I could ask you something, to direct your mind back to the

10 questions you were asked.

11 A. Can you please ask this question again, if you can? But keep it

12 brief. The questions are too long, I can no longer keep track.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, can we get on track? We are taking too much

14 time on this.

15 MR. RE: Only in fairness to the witness was I taking him back to

16 his previous answer so I could direct him there rather than go through it

17 all again.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: The evidence is already on record. He has explained

19 how he moved from one army to the next, to the next post. So all you do

20 is put the question you want to put to him.

21 MR. RE: I'll do that. I'm just trying to remind him of it so we

22 don't go backwards and forwards over the whole thing again.

23 Q. Sir, what I'm simply asking you is: After you lost -- after you

24 were removed from the command in 1992, your evidence was you carried out

25 the duties of a clerk in the training and operations department. What did

1 you do? What were your precise duties? And where were you based?

2 A. I stayed in Samac as a clerk for general affairs, in the

3 detachment which later became the 5th Battalion until the 1st of

4 September, 1992. From the 1st of September, I was transferred to

5 Pelagicevo, to the brigade command, to work there as clerk for the

6 training and operations department. I stayed in that post for many years.

7 Q. Sir, my question was: What were your precise duties? What did

8 you do when you were working as a training and operations clerk? What did

9 your job entail? What did you do every day?

10 A. Are you talking about the brigade or the battalion? I was not the

11 clerk for general affairs in the brigade. That was in a lower ranking

12 unit, in a battalion.

13 Q. In 1992 and 1993, when you were working as a clerk, all I'm asking

14 you is what did you do? What were your duties? What did you do every

15 day?

16 A. Again, are you talking about the battalion or the brigade?

17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think we can just clear this up a little bit

18 quickly if we say, as in the witness's answer, he was the clerk for

19 general affairs in the 4th Detachment which later became the 5th

20 Battalion, until the 1st of September, 1992. So we could hear from you,

21 Mr. Savic, what you did until the 1st of September, 1992, and then after

22 the 1st of September, you went to the brigade command in Pelagicevo -

23 sorry. I didn't pronounce it correctly - and that's where you were clerk

24 of the training and operations. You have the two jobs. Maybe you can

25 explain what you did in the first job, what did you in the second job.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As clerk for general affairs in the

2 4th Detachment, which was later battalion, I kept records for all members,

3 records of woundings, of members getting killed, family visits. We

4 organised, also that was part of my remit for the burials. We would go

5 and see the families of our wounded members, to hospitals. I mainly

6 organised these things. I didn't travel much. I mostly stayed put. I'd

7 always find friends or acquaintances who had their own vehicle who could

8 go and make the visits, convey our greetings, so those were general

9 affairs within the administration. And that's what I did as clerk in the

10 battalion.

11 Then the brigade, I was clerk for operations and training. My

12 duty was to do everything as ordered of my direct superior, who this time

13 was the Chief of Staff, because I was at the staff of the brigade, which

14 implies the command. I kept records again, duty rosters, training plans,

15 training programmes, with young soldiers, recruits, sometimes I was the

16 trainer, I performed the training, I would visit the front lines, the

17 soldiers, the trenches, again, I kept records as to who and when got hurt,

18 what the enemy operations were and so on and so forth. There was a lot to

19 be done. We were two or three people working on that.

20 MR. RE:

21 Q. Were you responsible for ordering or the purchase of any

22 equipment?

23 A. No, no.

24 Q. You said something a bit earlier about compensation. When you

25 were working as the training and operations clerk and the general clerk,

1 how were you being paid?

2 A. Salary in times of war was insignificant. It was merely symbolic.

3 Q. Were you receiving a salary?

4 A. A very small sum. We almost would have been better off getting no

5 money at all.

6 Q. The salary you were receiving was being paid by the Federal

7 Republic of Yugoslavia, that's Serbia and Montenegro, wasn't it?

8 A. No. We, members of the army who were never part of Yugoslavia's

9 army, that is, we were not active-duty, as we call it, reserve officers

10 and the army from the area, we were receiving a small remuneration which

11 was almost no money at all. Only those officers who were from Yugoslavia

12 received their salaries, their remunerations and so on and so forth.

13 Q. Are you saying there were officers from Yugoslavia working with

14 you after -- in November -- sorry, in 1992 and 1993?

15 A. Officers of Yugoslavia left Bosnia and Herzegovina before the 19th

16 of May, and only the people who had been born there stayed. Officers when

17 had been JNA officers previously but they now stayed in our army, the Army

18 of Republika Srpska. They were receiving some sort of financial

19 compensation or remuneration but I don't know exactly what it was.

20 Q. Now, with the -- when you were -- I'm sorry, following, from

21 mid-April through to mid-May, when the VRS was formed, you said the 12th

22 of May, the JNA remained in and your detachment remained in Bosanski

23 Samac, didn't it? It's a yes or no.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. It didn't withdraw or place itself under the authority of the

1 government of the Republic of Bosnia or disband, that is, your JNA unit,

2 did it?

3 A. That's right. It didn't disband. It stayed there. And very

4 quickly it was called the battalion. It wasn't a detachment any more.

5 Q. It certainly didn't place itself under the authority of the

6 government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina between mid-April and the

7 12th of May, did it?

8 A. No.

9 MR. RE: It's 12.30, Your Honour. I am almost finished, I can

10 assure you of that. There are just several areas I need to cover.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we'll take our break and continue at 12.50.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

15 MR. RE: Your Honour, you will be pleased to know I have no

16 further questions for the witness.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, counsel? Any other counsel before the final

18 re-examination?

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, my learned friend is finished

20 with his --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. PANTELIC: He is, thank you so much. Your Honour, could I

23 have just a few seconds to get my papers and to place myself there?

24 Because of the communication with the bench and with the witness? I'm

25 thinking to facilitate --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes, you can move.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you.

3 Further cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

4 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Savic?

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. We are seeing each other again today. My learned friend the

7 Prosecutor asked you today about the role of the 4th Detachment in the

8 tasks -- about their tasks and you answered about this in detail to me, to

9 my colleague, Mr. Lazarevic, to the Prosecutor. I just wanted to ask you

10 something briefly about that. The 4th Detachment, as part of the 17th

11 Tactical Group, and the JNA, acted on behalf of what state?

12 A. On behalf of the state of Republika Srpska. This is what I

13 think.

14 MR. RE: Can we clarify when?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the period being covered.

16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. You've heard the Prosecutor. Could you please tell us when?

18 A. After the 12th of May.

19 Q. So you're talking about, to be precise, it was no longer the 4th

20 Detachment but it was the 5th battalion; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The 5th battalion, as part of the 2nd Posavina Brigade; is that

23 right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Very well. But the 4th Detachment was established by order of the

1 commander of the 17th Tactical Group in January, 1992; is that right?

2 A. Yes, it is.

3 MR. RE: As I understand it, the re-examination or the re-cross,

4 for Mr. Simic is limited to matters arising from the cross-examination

5 that affect the interests of Mr. Pantelic's client. He asked these

6 questions in his own cross-examination. Nothing so far has popped up in

7 the last few moments which to me any way seems to have -- relate to

8 something affecting the interests of his client. Otherwise we will be

9 here for a long, long time.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I will clarify that. I am just

11 trying to find out because it was some misunderstanding when my learned

12 friend intervened with regard to the time period of 4th Detachment so that

13 was the question I would like to clarify. My line of questions is based

14 on the fact that we have to establish here a clear evidences and basis

15 what was the role of my client, Dr. Blagoje Simic, in the events,

16 allegedly in the charges in the indictment, where the subparagraph,

17 subcharge 1 of Count 1 of the indictment is forcible takeover. The

18 position of the Defence of Dr. Blagoje Simic is that he was not in any

19 sense connected to the military operations issues or other acts of 4th

20 Detachment, 17th Tactical Group, JNA, volunteers, Serbian police, et

21 cetera, et cetera. So in order to properly present the defence of my

22 client, Dr. Blagoje Simic, I have to establish inter alia on behalf of

23 which entity 4th Detachment acted in the period of January 1992 up to the

24 19th of May of 1992. So this fact is of the importance for the Defence of

25 my client and that is the reason why I'm asking very simple question of

1 this witness, to get his response on behalf of which entity or state or

2 institution acted, 4th Detachment acted in the period between the date of

3 his establishment of formation up to 19th of May, 1992, in order to

4 precisely get a position of my client in all these events.

5 MR. RE: Well, Mr. Mr. Pantelic of course won't object if the

6 Prosecution then tenders into evidence the Security Council resolutions

7 and the general assembly resolutions relating to the and made the order to

8 or the call to immediately disband the JNA on Bosnian territory as of

9 April, mid-April, 1992. He won't object to me tendering Security Council

10 resolutions saying there should be disbanded, withdrawn, or subordinated

11 to the government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that what's

12 coming from this? That I should be allowed to reopen to do that? This

13 has already been covered.

14 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

16 MR. PANTELIC: This is a fact witness.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: What I'm trying to say here is that you did put

18 questions to this witness.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Before the cross-examination of the Prosecution, and

21 most of what you're trying to say here was covered during that period. So

22 this is not a time to repeat what you did then. This is a time to only

23 ask questions of this witness on something that has not been covered or

24 that was raised during the cross-examination of the Prosecution which

25 pertains to the role of your client.

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. That is exactly my point and if

2 you allow me to ask a question, you will see that that's the basis of my

3 line of questioning, please. Can I?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you go ahead.

5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Savic, the 4th Detachment of the 17th Tactical Group, in the

7 period from January, 1992, until May, 1992, acted on behalf of whom? On

8 whose behalf did you act?

9 A. On behalf of the Yugoslav People's Army with the aim of preserving

10 the then Republic of Yugoslavia, up until that period.

11 Q. Were you operating on behalf of the Serb municipality and

12 Pelagicevo under formation and on behalf of the Crisis Staff of that

13 municipality?

14 A. We existed there.

15 Q. Did you act in their name?

16 A. No.

17 Q. This is all I wanted to ask you. Nothing more than that.

18 The Crisis Staff of the Serbian Municipality of Samac and

19 Pelagicevo, did it ever issue you any order to act on behalf of the

20 Serbian Municipality of Samac and Pelagicevo in the period that you

21 existed as the 4th Detachment?

22 A. No.

23 Q. The Prosecutor asked you today or he tried to construct something

24 about your personal position on the indictments against certain leaders of

25 the SDS. He mentioned Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Krajisnik, Mrs. Plavsic and so

1 on.

2 MR. RE: Don't answer. I object. I didn't and Your Honour

3 stopped me going down that track which I wasn't going to go down any way.

4 This doesn't arise. He said he respected the work of the Tribunal. I

5 said these people had been indicted. Bang. I wasn't asking for his

6 opinion nor trying to construct anything in relation to his opinion of

7 those indictments.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: That's when the Trial Chamber stopped that line of

9 questioning.

10 MR. RE: I wasn't going there but yes, I was stopped.

11 MR. PANTELIC: He already answered so I'd like to move to strike

12 all these portions -- all this part of the transcript, of this morning,

13 relating to that or otherwise I just have one question with regard to

14 that, nothing more.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, just go ahead with your questions.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Savic, are you familiar with the fact that

18 there are no judgements of this Tribunal against Karadzic, Krajisnik and

19 the other SDS leaders?

20 A. I know only about Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, I don't know about the

21 others.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, if you want to be allowed to ask this

23 witness questions, you have to deal with what I've directed you to deal

24 with, matters concerning your client, which arose from the Prosecution's

25 cross-examination only.

1 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Savic, could you please tell me when you were discussing the

3 document P127 this morning, this is the document with the 13 signatories,

4 could you please tell the Trial Chamber, if you know, what was the basis

5 for the arrest of a number of people in those initial few days after the

6 17th of April, 1992? What was the -- what were these people suspected of

7 so that they were arrested?

8 A. Which people are you thinking of?

9 Q. I'm thinking of the Muslims and Croats in Samac.

10 A. What do I personally think about that?

11 Q. No, not what you personally think about that but what were the

12 suspicions based on which they were arrested?

13 A. I think that it was because most probably they were Muslims and

14 Croats.

15 Q. Do you have any information about whether they were in possession

16 of any weapons or whether any proceedings were initiated against them

17 regarding this matter?

18 A. A number of them did possess weapons. I know this.

19 Q. The Prosecutor asked you today about the percentage of Serbs in

20 the municipality of Samac and you said that before the -- before 1992,

21 based on the 1991 census, there were fewer than 50 per cent of Serbs in

22 Bosanski Samac. You remember you talked about that?

23 A. Yes, that's right.

24 Q. And that the Serbs were in a minority?

25 A. I said that I wasn't sure. I think that's how it was.

1 Q. What I'm interested in now, since you've already replied to this

2 question, and I would like to clarify this because of the transcript, and

3 for the Trial Chamber, when the municipality of Samac was practically

4 divided into two parts, into the Serb municipality of Samac and the

5 Samac-Domaljevac part which was part of the Federation, the Serbian part

6 of the municipality, in that part, were the Serbs in a majority or in a

7 minority? So I'm talking about the Serbian part of the pre-war

8 municipality of Bosanski Samac.

9 A. After the events, Domaljevac was no longer part of our

10 municipality, with a large number of villages and a large number of Croats

11 which means that in the municipality of Samac, the larger -- the Serbs

12 were left in a minority. There was a greater number of Serbs left in that

13 part.

14 Q. The Prosecutor in the -- his formulations which correspond to his

15 view of this case, talked to you about the establishment of the new regime

16 based on discriminatory foundations in Samac and so on. So now I would

17 like to ask you, first, before the 17th of April, 1992, were all the three

18 peoples in Bosanski Samac constitutive peoples, Croats, Muslims and Serbs?

19 A. Yes.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, before you go on, just to clarify the

21 answer of Mr. Savic which is on page 75, line 8 to line 11, I think for

22 the sake of clarity, you need to ask the question again, because the

23 answer has not -- as transcribed, makes little or even no sense. As you

24 can see if you just read through it. I won't bother quoting it.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I will clarify that. Thank you, Your Honour,

1 for your assistance and intervention.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Because of the transcript, the precision of the

3 transcript I would like to ask you this question and could you please

4 respond to that? The pre-war -- and when I say the pre-war, I'm talking

5 about the municipality before the 17th of April, 1992, the pre-war

6 territory of the municipality of Bosanski Samac was divided, yes or no?

7 A. I don't know about that.

8 Q. Wait, wait, please just take your time?

9 A. What do you mean divided?

10 Q. Wait, wait, please. We were talking over the past few days about

11 the formation of Samac-Domaljevac within the federation and here in

12 Republika Srpska, the municipality of Samac remained so you remember what

13 we were talking about?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Please could you wait until I finish? You said before this

16 Chamber, Domaljevac, Prud and all of these things remained in the

17 Federation. Please listen to what I'm asking you. We have a territory of

18 the municipality of Bosanski Samac before the 17th of April, 1992. As

19 part of that territory, that territory includes Samac, Domaljevac, Prud;

20 is this correct?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. On the 17th of April, since the military front was already being

23 formed in the surrounding area, the territory of Bosanski Samac was

24 divided, is that so?

25 A. Yes, it is.

1 Q. Was a second municipality then formed called Samac-Domaljevac

2 which was under the control of the Croat authorities?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. Also Prud was not under the control of the Serbian municipality;

5 is that right?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. My direct question to you is: What remained of that municipality,

8 this Serb municipality? Were the Serbs in a majority or a minority on

9 that territory?

10 A. They were in a majority.

11 MR. RE: This is just historically factually wrong. What my

12 learned friend is putting to the witness. There was a municipality with a

13 democratically elected government in force as of the 17th of April, 1992.

14 There is no evidence before this Trial Chamber that there was a divided

15 Serb municipality or the government of a Serb municipality in Bosanski

16 Samac, democratically elected according to the constitution of the

17 Socialist Republic of Bosnia or the Socialist Federal Republic of

18 Yugoslavia. And my questions were not directed to that. My questions

19 were directed to the ethnic division, demographic division of the

20 municipality of Bosanski Samac as constituted by the legitimate government

21 of Bosnia, the Socialist Republic, within the democratically elected

22 boundaries. Not this other stuff. I don't know where this is coming

23 from.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, we have plenty of evidence, Your

25 Honour, may I explain just -- we have plenty of evidence before this Trial

1 Chamber that the pre-war territory of municipality of Bosanski Samac were

2 divided as of 17th of April, 1992, and up to now, according to the Dayton

3 Peace Accord and all other regulations, still is divided. Two

4 municipalities. One part of the municipality is related to Muslim Croat

5 Federation the other for the Serb side. So when my learned friend asked

6 this witness to say where the Serbs were majority or minority in

7 municipality of Bosanski Samac, I just want to know on which part, because

8 evidently, as of 17th of April, 1992, we have two parts, we have two

9 separate municipalities, of Bosanski Samac municipality.

10 MR. RE: Your Honour, my questions were only before the 17th, not

11 afterwards.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, this is what I'm trying to say. The question

13 related to the period before the takeover.

14 MR. PANTELIC: In that case, in that case, I can agree with the

15 fact that the Serbs were less than 50 per cent.

16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Savic, could you please tell me, now we are

17 talking about the period before the 17th of April, 1992, was there also

18 under 50 per cent of the Croats, if you remember?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. What was the percentage of Muslims, approximately, if you

21 remember?

22 A. There were Muslims only in the town of Samac itself. There were

23 no Muslims living in the areas around the town.

24 Q. What is your personal knowledge, since we are talking about the

25 ratio of Muslims, of Croats and Serbs, prior to the outbreak of the

1 conflict in the municipality of Bosanski Samac, what was the ratio of

2 Muslims and Croats in relation to Serbs in the social life,

3 decision-making, in company policies and so on, what is your information?

4 A. You're talking about the period before the war?

5 Q. Yes, that's right.

6 A. Immediately before the war, I'm talking about 1992 now.

7 Q. Yes, 1992.

8 A. With the arrival of national parties to power, there were

9 divisions that came about. There was separation. Everybody wished to

10 state that they were a Muslim, a Serb or a Croat and so on. What I'm

11 trying to say is that these relations were tense, which up until then

12 were, let's say, all right. So these relations were somewhat disrupted.

13 Q. When we are talking about all of this, at the time, did you have

14 information about -- at the time on the 17th of April, 1992, that there

15 was a municipal -- a Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac and

16 Pelagicevo? Did you know about that?

17 A. I heard about that, yes, and I even said --

18 Q. No, no. Just tell me whether you heard of it or not. Please

19 don't explain anything.

20 A. Yes, I did hear of it.

21 Q. So these relations between the ethnic groups --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated]

23 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, I will take care of it.

24 Q. Mr. Savic, please, no long expanded answer, just say yes, no, I

25 remember, I don't remember, so that we can speed things up, and please

1 take it slowly. The last question regarding this topic: Your personal

2 knowledge about this, the Serbs in the municipality of Samac, were they

3 allied together with the Muslims against Croats? Were they allied with

4 Croats against the Muslims or what were these divisions like? Could you

5 please give me your explanation, your assessment of these interethnic

6 relations before the 17th of 1992.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ... in his

8 examination-in-chief sufficiently. I think we are wasting time going over

9 this again.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I agree. I will move on, yeah.

11 Q. [Interpretation] When the Prosecutor asked you about this

12 information, this is document P127, with the 13 signatories, and he

13 concluded that you were criticising the civilian authorities here for the

14 persecution, so I'm asking you directly: In your opinion, and based on

15 your knowledge, if there were certain acts of persecution, do you ascribe

16 that to the civilian authorities or to some other bodies?

17 A. To the civilian authorities.

18 Q. When you say civilian authorities, do you mean the police and the

19 volunteers or do you mean the Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac?

20 A. I think that the Serb police was mostly involved in this.

21 Q. The Prosecutor then asked you about the terms paramilitary,

22 parapolice and so on and you provided your explanations based on the way

23 you think that it was. I'm asking you as an experienced officer, a man

24 who has a certain level of education, if there were a written order of the

25 military command to members of the paramilitary units, as you say, I'm

1 thinking specifically of Lugar, Crni and the others, how would you define

2 that? Would they still be members of the paramilitary or would they have

3 any kind of role now? Could you please explain that to the Chamber?

4 A. If I were to receive such an order, but I did not, we didn't get

5 it.

6 Q. No, no, stop, stop. You didn't understand me. If you as

7 commander of the 4th Detachment were to give a combat order or an order to

8 Lugar, Crni and the others whom you described as members of the

9 paramilitary, would they then become regular soldiers as part of the --

10 otherwise why would you issue the order at all? So could you please

11 explain that in this context? If you were to issue an order to them?

12 A. I don't understand your question.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: The question doesn't make sense at all. Besides

14 your asking the witness to speculate. Move on.

15 MR. PANTELIC:

16 Q. Specifically Mr. Savic on the basis of your knowledge as a reserve

17 officer?

18 A. I don't understand your question.

19 Q. Please let us proceed.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic --

21 MR. PANTELIC: I'm going to another topic, Your Honour.

22 Q. [Interpretation] You have spoken about paramilitaries and

23 parapolice when asked by the Prosecution you provided your opinion, your

24 view?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. My question now is: Did you know that members of those

2 paramilitary units, Lugar, Crni and the rest of them, received any orders

3 from the superior command, that is the 17th Tactical Group, please just

4 say what you know about that if you know anything?

5 A. No, they never received any orders.

6 Q. Furthermore, page 41 of today's transcript, lines 12 through 17,

7 the Prosecutor asked you about the roles of certain commanders about the

8 military doctrine. My question now is: The military commander, does he

9 act, does he assess the situation, or does he wait for orders from the

10 superior command in a situation, in an emergency? Can you please just

11 explain what happens in that case. What's the role of the military

12 commander on the ground?

13 A. He assesses the situation.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Rephrase the question because even it is not clear

15 enough to me, what means military commander? On what level? On the level

16 of a unit on the level of a brigade, of the level of an army or what

17 level? Because it makes sense to me that --

18 MR. PANTELIC: I can clarify that.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic, if you actually go back

20 to what you're referring to on page 41, lines 12 through 17, I think the

21 answer of Mr. Savic is quite clear. He's talking about the commander of

22 the Tactical Group, and I think he's talking -- the commander of the

23 Tactical Group, that level, an officer of the same level, and then he goes

24 on to say he's authorised to make a decision.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And then he goes on and says when he's faced with

2 a situation where he has to take a decision on his own, with his

3 assistants, then he informs the superior command and maybe appeals for

4 assistance or help or advice. I think the answer is perfectly clear.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Regarding two, yes, Your Honour, regarding to the

6 17th Tactical Group but now my question is focused.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I beg to differ, Mr. Pantelic. He talks about

8 the commander of the Tactical Group, that level, an officer of the same

9 level, implying in other command groups. At least that's my

10 interpretation of Mr. Savic's answer.

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. You've heard what Judge Williams said. I want to know if the same

13 applies to the command of the 4th Detachment?

14 A. No. That's a lower level, without authority to make important

15 decisions, unless people deployed along the lines are in danger. Then

16 certain steps can be taken to remedy the situation.

17 Q. Very well. Further, you were asked by the Prosecutor today about

18 certain moments of an operation, what they refer to as the attack on

19 Samac, by a number of military and paramilitary groups. The defence takes

20 the opposite view. Tell me please, you said there was no Serbian TO,

21 isn't that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Your assistant, Simo Zaric, for you was a reliable person, someone

24 you trusted, and he had valid information; isn't that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. He had his own channels, intelligence channels, up and down the

2 chain of command?

3 A. By all means, yes.

4 Q. You had no reason to doubt his assessment or the information he

5 provided?

6 A. No reason at all.

7 Q. You had no reason to doubt the judgement of Commander Nikolic,

8 commander of the 17th Tactical Group who had all the information coming in

9 from the ground and who would then provide his own assessment?

10 A. That was at least the way it was supposed to be.

11 Q. You see, Exhibit number P16, it's a videotape, an interview

12 released to Novi Sad TV. Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic states the following.

13 It's page 2 of the transcript. "Well over the last three or four days, we

14 have been engaged in combat with members of the 1st Brigade of the ZNG.

15 After their attempt to break into Bosanski Samac and after they were

16 shattered by the Serbian TO." Specifically what I want to know now, if

17 Commander Nikolic claims that, and he is your superior after all, what did

18 he mean by Serbian TO? What did he refer to? How did he arrive at that

19 conclusion?

20 A. Perhaps you should be asking him that question.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... this point.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: That was going over the interpretation. Can you

23 repeat what you said?

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. I apologise. I believe that it was a purely

25 asking for speculation of this witness, what Colonel Nikolic meant by

1 saying that -- using these particular words.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, what Mr. Pantelic is asking the witness is --

3 because Nikolic is mentioned the Serbian TO, which the witness had said,

4 the Serbian TO did not exist at that time. So he wants to find out from

5 the witness how come Commander Nikolic mentioned the Serbian TO.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe we will just wait for redirect of ours.

7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Maybe to speed this up a little. You have no reason to doubt that

9 Colonel Nikolic was lying nor telling the truth when he was saying this?

10 A. He can say whatever he likes but not that that's something that I

11 should know. You should ask him.

12 MR. RE: Clarification on the transcript, it says you have no

13 reason to doubt that he was lying nor telling the truth. It's a

14 contradiction. Maybe it wasn't interpreted. Maybe the translation went

15 astray.

16 MR. PANTELIC: I will repeat that.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Savic, I've just read out to you what the

18 colonel said?

19 A. Yes, I can hear you now.

20 Q. I'll repeat this. What I've just read out to you, the statement

21 by Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt the truth or rather the

24 authenticity of his words?

25 A. I don't believe -- I don't know which TO he was speaking about. I

1 don't know.

2 Q. Likewise, Simo Zaric in that same interview, P16, we are talking

3 about the videotape transcript, page 3, stated the following: "All

4 operational information over the last couple of days indicates that this

5 town and this people are in for something, for a disaster." You do agree

6 with this, don't you?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. It goes on to state the following: "It is in that framework that

9 the 4th Detachment of the Territorial Defence prepared for something like

10 that. And all I can say on the basis of the documents that we have, after

11 the war operations in this town, it only would have taken three or four

12 hours for the HOS members and for the Green Berets to take the town and to

13 transform it into a war-torn town, to massacre the Serbs and the Muslims

14 in the town, who worked together to establish this Territorial Defence."

15 You do agree with what Simo Zaric said?

16 A. Yes, I do, but without the TO bit.

17 Q. What do you mean? What's wrong with the TO?

18 A. I don't understand this TO. TO? This was no such thing as TO.

19 Q. This is something that your assistant for security said?

20 A. Yes, he can say whatever he likes but that's the only slight bit

21 that I do not agree with. The rest is okay.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, can we stop here? We have some

23 procedural matters to deal with.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness be led out of the courtroom?

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the Trial Chamber would like to continue with

3 the Rule 92 bis statements already submitted. Regarding those submitted

4 on behalf of Mr. Miroslav Tadic, that is Exhibit 184/3, by Mr. Djordje

5 Tubakovic, that will be admitted under seal. However, paragraphs 11 to

6 14, which discuss the acts and conduct of the accused are struck off.

7 Paragraph 9 is also struck off as irrelevant. In paragraph 19, from the

8 sentence beginning "I know that until he was arrested," up to the end of

9 that paragraph is also struck off. In paragraph 21, the last words, "Nor

10 was such an order ever issued" are struck off. And in paragraph 22, the

11 first two sentences, which discuss the acts and conduct of the accused are

12 also struck off. This witness will come and give viva voce testimony in

13 closed session for 40 minutes dealing with the matters raised in those

14 paragraphs which are struck off. He will be open to cross-examination,

15 also limited to the same time of 40 minutes. The next statement is that

16 by Stojan Damjanovic which is Exhibit 185/3.

17 Paragraphs 7 to 11 will be struck off. Otherwise, the statement

18 is admitted into evidence. This witness will also come to give viva voce

19 testimony for half an hour on those paragraphs that are struck off and

20 cross-examination will also be limited to half an hour.

21 The statements submitted on behalf of Mr. Simo Zaric, Exhibit

22 D43/4 by Niko Pavic, paragraphs 27, 28, are struck off, as well as the

23 last sentence of paragraph 23. The rest of the statement is admitted into

24 evidence. There will be no cross-examination.

25 The statement D45/4, by Mato Antunovic is a character witness. It

1 will be admitted into evidence except that paragraphs 24 and 34 --

2 paragraphs 23 and paragraph 34 will be struck off. This witness will not

3 be cross-examined.

4 The next statement is Exhibit D46/4, the statement of Dzemo

5 Jasenica. This statement is admitted except for paragraph 28 which is

6 struck off. There will be no cross-examination.

7 The next statement is D47/4, by Stevan Nikolic. Paragraphs 30 and

8 32, and paragraphs 39, 41, 42, and 44 are struck off, and the first

9 sentence of paragraph 40 is also struck off. I'll repeat that so that

10 it's clear. It's paragraphs 30, 32, 39, 41, 42 and 44, and the first

11 sentence of paragraph 40, that are struck off. The witness will come and

12 give viva voce testimony for 40 minutes. Cross-examination will be

13 allowed for one hour.

14 The statement of Nizam Ramusovic, we don't have a number for it

15 yet. Perhaps we can have a number now for identification purposes.

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, it was a draft statement. It wasn't

17 signed. So this was the reason why we don't have a number for it.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because you had said that you wanted an

19 indication so that --

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, and then according to the ruling, we could

21 organise the certification of the statement.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can still have a number for identification

23 purposes.

24 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise but I don't have access to the Word

25 documents at the moment, so --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So you are unable. All right. We will deal with it

2 later, then.

3 In this statement, subject to certification, in paragraph 17, the

4 last sentence will be struck off, and in paragraph 24, starting from the

5 words "my brothers" until the end of that paragraph, that is paragraph 24,

6 will be struck off. Otherwise, the statement will be admitted, subject to

7 certification, and we'll get the number later.

8 Mr. Pantelic, we were supposed to receive your -- you're supposed

9 to submit the rest of your 92 bis statements.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, I was -- my intention

11 was yesterday to inform the Trial Chamber, but since we were adjourned, we

12 didn't have enough time. Yes. The situation is the following. I'm

13 trying to obtain from the translation unit a number of statements which

14 are already probably translated, and as soon as I get it, maybe this

15 afternoon, I will give the copies to the friends from the Prosecution, and

16 accordingly, next trial day, it will be submitted to the Trial Chamber

17 through the Registrar. So I will -- as of yesterday, I didn't have clear

18 information from the Registry and from the interpretation, translation

19 unit. They are overloaded, so -- this afternoon I will find out the exact

20 situation with regard to the rest of 92 bis statements in -- on behalf of

21 Mr. Blagoje Simic. I believe that certain number of them were already

22 translated. That was unofficial information that I get yesterday.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the last statements were supposed to have

24 been recorded during the week beginning 17th February, and the Trial

25 Chamber is wondering why there has been so much delay in submitting them.

1 MR. PANTELIC: I will check with the Registry and with the

2 translation unit. I'm sure that a significant number of documents are

3 translated now, so I believe on Monday we shall have that clarified and

4 solved. That problem will be solved.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We hope to receive them before the end

6 of Monday, but at least give information to the Registry and to the legal

7 officer before the end of today.

8 MR. PANTELIC: I will do that, yes. By the end of today, I will

9 do that, yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I wanted to find out from the Defence of

11 Mr. Simo Zaric, the Trial Chamber was informed that there were witnesses

12 who I think by today have already travelled. How many are those?

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. We already have two witnesses

14 here that are waiting to give their testimony, and besides these two

15 witnesses, we have four witnesses who are now in Belgrade and are supposed

16 to come to The Hague.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Those are witnesses who were initially intended to

19 give their testimony by depositions, so these are witnesses who will not

20 testify for some long time, so we will have for next week two witnesses

21 that are originally supposed to give their viva voce testimony here and

22 four more witnesses who were meant to be on depositions but actually they

23 will come here viva voce. So I believe that we can complete and fulfil

24 the next week for the Trial Chamber with our witnesses.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask

1 permission to address the Court regarding the schedule for witnesses. I

2 have the following proposal. I understood that your view was for the

3 other Defences to be ready if a pause should be made in the Defence of

4 Mr. Zaric. I don't know what the final decision will be, whether

5 Mr. Zaric's defence will be interrupted or will it continue until his

6 operation, until his treatment begins, but Mr. Zaric's Defence has

7 informed me that after the following four witnesses, they have another

8 four witnesses, four viva voce witnesses altogether, to come.

9 As I've informed you, my witnesses could start coming in the week

10 that begins on the 31st of March, but I have additional two witnesses now,

11 so I wanted to propose the following. If we continue with Mr. Zaric's

12 witnesses, once they finish testifying live in the courtroom, then my

13 witnesses could come. If there is a different decision, then I would be

14 interrupting Mr. Zaric's Defence, splitting it in half. If they only have

15 four witnesses now, in terms of live testimony, then it would seem logical

16 to me that those be completed, that those testimonies be completed, and

17 then the 92 bis testimonies and then probably Mr. Zaric himself after his

18 recovery. I think our Defence would like to have all seven witnesses to

19 come grouped in one single group. I'm not sure I can secure all of them

20 for the 31st, and if not, we can just continue.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: What I understand, Mr. Lukic, is that you're

22 interested in having the remaining witnesses for Mr. Miroslav Tadic to

23 come as a group, so that once we start one, we finish them. Okay.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] With the proviso that I also proposed

25 -- excuse me. My proposal was that they should testify once all of

1 Mr. Zaric's testimonies, viva voce, are finished, if they have only eight

2 remaining witnesses, and all of these are supposed to be brief, as far as

3 I know, or rather a total of ten witnesses to come, Mr. Lazarevic has just

4 informed me.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but Mr. Simo Zaric will still have the -- some

6 of the Rule 92 bis witnesses who have been ordered to come. So that won't

7 complete his witnesses.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I didn't mean to interrupt the

9 proceedings before the 92 bis witnesses. I thought the logical thing to

10 do would be to complete all viva voce testimonies and then to have all the

11 92 bis statement witnesses. I think Miroslav Tadic's Defence is filling

12 the space now, in a manner of speaking, although first we should have

13 Mr. Simic's 92 bis and then Mr. Tadic's 92 bis and then Mr. Zaric's. We

14 interrupted Mr. Tadic's statement. He was put on the witness stand, and

15 then we had videolink testimonies for his Defence, although I didn't think

16 that was the intention. And now, if it's feasible, and for the benefit

17 of Mr. Zaric's health, if we could only have all the viva voce witnesses

18 at once, and then after that, the 92 bis witnesses as ordered by the Trial

19 Chamber.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I was just informed by my client that

22 he doesn't have a problem with this proposal of Mr. Lukic.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but the point is that that will not complete

24 the witnesses for Mr. Simo Zaric. That's the problem. What the Trial

25 Chamber is trying to do is to complete the witnesses for Mr. Blagoje Simic

1 first, and then move to Mr. Miroslav Tadic after these who are already

2 travelling have come for Mr. Simo Zaric, and then go back to Mr. Simo

3 Zaric. So Mr. Blagoje Simic's witnesses who are to come, and as soon as

4 the statements are delivered, they will come after the group that is

5 coming for Mr. Simo Zaric. When we finish them, then we will move to Mr.

6 Miroslav Tadic. After that, then we will go back to Mr. Simo Zaric's

7 witnesses, the viva voce ones, the Rule 92 bis ones, and then himself at

8 the end.

9 Are there any other matters?

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm speaking on behalf of all of my

11 colleagues, all of the participants. What we would really like to have,

12 and I hope we can agree on that, it's a problem for us to tell our

13 witnesses, "You're supposed to be here in three or four days." We need

14 ample time to inform them and to secure their arrival. But I hope we can

15 agree now to know exactly when they are finishing, because it's not a

16 problem for me, when my witnesses are coming, to know exactly how long

17 they are going to last, but I can't predict how long Mr. Zaric's testimony

18 is going to take and then Mr. Simic's and then mine, but I hope we can

19 deal with this smoothly, agree in order to preserve our continuity,

20 because that's an interest we share.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because after the -- after this witness on the

22 stand, the next two witnesses, which are the full viva voce witnesses for

23 Mr. Simo Zaric, the rest of the witnesses are timed, so one can calculate

24 roughly how long they will take, so that shouldn't be a problem.

25 Yes, Mr. Re?

1 MR. RE: Two matters. Firstly, just a clarification from Your

2 Honour's orders in relation to the 92 bis statements and

3 cross-examination. The 40 minutes, is that also 40 minutes

4 cross-examination for other counsel of the witnesses of the other accused?

5 Is it 40 minutes each? Is what I'm asking.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. It's for the Prosecution only. That is

7 the timing that has been given by the Trial Chamber. The other point is,

8 most of these witnesses who are coming will be discussing matters which

9 have already been discussed by other witnesses, so that's why there is

10 this short timing.

11 Yes, Mr. Re?

12 [Prosecution counsel confer]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think what we should clear is that in case

14 the other counsel wish to examine the witnesses, you were asking whether

15 that 40 minutes includes them?

16 MR. RE: No. Your Honour's order said 40 minutes for

17 cross-examination for the Prosecution.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: By the Prosecution, yes.

19 MR. RE: My query was: Does that mean each of the others also get

20 40 minutes?

21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. It doesn't mean that.

22 MR. RE: It's on a case-by-case basis.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

24 MR. RE: The second matter, Your Honours was, we were informed --

25 the Prosecution was informed by the Chamber's legal officer that you

1 wanted oral argument today, being Friday, on the joint Defence motion,

2 leave to assign a new military expert witness pursuant to Rule 94 bis,

3 filed on the 17th of March.

4 Does Your Honour still want it today or is another -- or on

5 another occasion?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm informed that we have a new trial starting in

7 this courtroom. Maybe we can have the oral arguments on Monday, first,

8 before we continue with the witness.

9 We will adjourn now and continue our proceedings on Monday.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

11 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

12 the 24th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25