1 Wednesday, 2 April 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Zaric not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 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 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber notices that Mr. Simo Zaric

11 is not in court.

12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Zaric has a

13 minor dental surgery today. He signed his waiver yesterday, and he waived

14 his right to be here today. And we can proceed without his presence.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: We can proceed without him. Okay.

16 It was cross-examination, I think. Mr. Re.

17 MR. RE: Thank you.

18 WITNESS: DJORDJE TUBAKOVIC [Resumed]

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Re: [Continued]

21 Q. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Tubakovic. Can Mr. Tubakovic be

22 provided with a statement of his --

23 A. Tubakovic.

24 Q. Tubakovic. Sorry. With a copy of his statement in B/C/S. It's

25 D184/3.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, please be polite to the witness.

2 MR. RE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I was trying to correct my

3 pronunciation.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You better be civilised. That's all. Please

5 continue.

6 MR. RE: I'm sorry if it came across that way. It certainly was

7 not intended in any uncivilised way, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, do you have your statement there in front of you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Now, yesterday just before we broke I was asking you

11 about a statement you made in paragraph 23 in which you said, "There were

12 no telephone lines for a long time and I know this myself because I wanted

13 to send a fax in connection with work." Just have a look at that, please.

14 That's what's in your statement.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right. Now, you agreed with me yesterday you didn't know

17 whether the phones were working at the SUP, the civil protection, the

18 municipal building, or the Crisis Staff, you just didn't know. That was

19 your evidence yesterday. Do you agree with me there?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You have positively asserted in your statement that telephones

22 were out of operation for all citizens, haven't you? It's a positive

23 assertion.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Mr. Tubakovic -- sorry, I'm going to have difficulties with his

1 pronunciation. I just wish to say I'm going to have some difficulties in

2 pronouncing it, and I'm not in any way attempting to denigrate the

3 witness by -- if I hesitate or pause in my pronunciation. It's just a

4 difficulty I'm going to have.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's understandable. You're not familiar

6 with the names, but Tubakovic.

7 MR. RE: Tubakovic; is that correct? Tubakovic?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It's maybe easier if I call you "sir." Tubakovic.

10 A. That's better perhaps.

11 Q. It's a positive assertion there, sir, that the telephone lines

12 were out of order for everyone, but you of course didn't work at the

13 telephone exchange, did you, sir?

14 A. I did not work at the telephone exchange, but in my building and

15 in town the citizens did not have any telephones.

16 Q. And, sir --

17 A. I am not trying to say that some authorities did not have any

18 telephones. Most probably they did. My secretariat, the Secretariat for

19 National Defence, did not have any telephone lines. Because of these

20 telephone lines --

21 Q. Stop. My question was: You didn't work at the telephone

22 exchange? Okay? The answer to that is no. And of course when you --

23 when your telephone line was reconnected --

24 A. Well, no.

25 Q. When your telephone line was reconnected, you of course didn't

1 telephone everyone in town to find out whether their line was working, did

2 you?

3 A. Well, when the telephone exchange is operating, then I know that

4 lines are connected. I did not talk to all citizens, but those citizens I

5 did talk to had telephones. I talked to my neighbour Mehmed Avdibegovic

6 and Muhidin Halilovic, they had telephones.

7 Q. Sir, on the basis of talking to two people you can't say that the

8 lines were cut for everyone, can you? That's all I'm saying.

9 A. Other citizens also said that they did not have any telephone

10 lines.

11 Q. I'll move on, sir. In paragraph 20 of your statement you refer to

12 your wife having a work obligation. I just want you to briefly tell us in

13 as few words as possible, what was your wife's work obligation?

14 A. She's a salesperson. She was manager of a shop.

15 Q. That was her -- the work obligation she received during the war,

16 was it, sir?

17 A. All citizens were assigned to --

18 Q. No, sir, I'm asking you to --

19 A. Yes. That was her work obligation.

20 Q. For the entirety of the war? That's what I asked you. Was that

21 your wife's work obligation during the war? Just answer that one, please.

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. You also referred in your statement to Mr. Tadic -- I'm sorry, you

24 gave evidence of Mr. Tadic going to the communication centre and talking

25 to Mr. Mijo Matanovic. Do you remember that evidence; yes or no?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You heard him speaking over the radio to Mr. Matanovic. Was that

3 in relation to the exchange of people from one side to the other?

4 A. I assume that that is the reason why Mr. Tadic spoke.

5 Q. Did you hear Mr. Tadic discussing with Mr. Matanovic the exchange

6 of civilians and prisoners of war?

7 A. Well, I was not at the communications centre often. This is

8 separate from my office. These are different premises. But on a few

9 occasions I had the opportunity of seeing that.

10 Q. Can you answer my question, please. My question -- please don't

11 answer a different question. The question I asked you was: Did you hear

12 Mr. Tadic discussing with Mr. Matanovic the exchange of civilians and

13 prisoners of war?

14 A. Yes, I heard about that. Yes.

15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Re.

16 MR. RE: Your Honour.

17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Maybe we could just clarify. The witness's

18 answer was, "I heard about that." Did he hear it himself or did he hear

19 it from other persons? It's a little bit ambiguous there.

20 MR. RE: I will clarify that, certainly.

21 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, you said you heard about that. Are you saying you

22 heard about it from hearing what Mr. Tadic was saying to Mr. Matanovic,

23 that they were discussing the exchange of prisoners of war and civilians?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you also overhear Mr. Tadic talking to representatives of the

1 1st Krajina Corps, such as Milutin Grujicic about the exchange of

2 prisoners of war and civilians?

3 A. I did not hear that. No. At that time I was not at the

4 communications centre.

5 Q. What about Mr. -- did you see Mr. Tadic discuss the exchange of

6 prisoners of war and -- soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians with

7 Mr. Velimir Maslic or Mr. Svetozar Vasovic?

8 A. Neither Velimir Maslic nor Svetozar Vasovic came to the

9 communications centre. I did not hear that.

10 Q. Your evidence yesterday was of Mr. Tadic coming to your block of

11 apartments with a soldier called Micic [Realtime transcript read in error

12 "Mikic"]. That's what you told the Court yesterday, wasn't it?

13 A. I did.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I looked at the

16 transcript. I think that the testimony said that first the soldier came

17 and then Mr. Tadic.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that that is what the

20 transcript says. If this is put to the witness, then I think it should be

21 put correctly.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt, but again,

23 the name was misspelt on page 6, line 11. It's Micic and not Mikic, with

24 C. M-i-c-i-c.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you for the correction.

1 Yes. You've understood Mr. Lukic's point.

2 MR. RE: I understand the order of how they came in.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

4 MR. RE: It was a summary of the two, but I will put it in a

5 completely more precise way.

6 Q. Sir, please don't look at your statement. Mr. Tubakovic, thank

7 you, sir. I'm asking you about what you said yesterday in court. You

8 said a soldier called Micic came downstairs, banged on the door, and

9 Mr. Tadic came a few minutes later, and then Mr. Tadic and the soldier

10 came up to the -- came up to the door of your apartment.

11 A. Yes. Yes. First the soldier came, this Micic.

12 Q. Your evidence was --

13 A. All right. All right.

14 Q. Your evidence was there was one soldier who accompanied Tadic.

15 That was your evidence yesterday, wasn't it? Or one soldier who came

16 before Mr. Tadic. That was your evidence yesterday, wasn't it?

17 A. Yes. Yes.

18 Q. And Mr. Tadic came to you -- came to the flat or the entrance to

19 the flat, spoke to you, and people there, and he and the soldier Micic

20 left shortly afterwards. That was your evidence yesterday, wasn't it?

21 A. Yes. Yes.

22 Q. Sir, in your evidence yesterday you said that -- I withdraw that.

23 And your evidence yesterday was that there were only two of them.

24 That was Micic and Mr. Tadic who came to your flat.

25 A. Yes. At that time, when they came, yes.

1 Q. Yes. Thank you, sir. Now, your evidence yesterday was that

2 Mr. Tadic -- Mr. Lukic asked you yesterday about whether or not Mr. Tadic

3 was armed. The question was -- this is at page 80: "Do you remember" --

4 at line 4 -- "if he had any weapons on him?" And your answer was, "No, he

5 didn't. The soldier Micic did, but Tadic did not. He didn't have any

6 weapons. He wasn't carrying a weapon in his hands or was it slung on his

7 shoulder." That was your evidence yesterday, sir. You have your

8 statement in front of you, sir. You agree that was your evidence

9 yesterday, don't you?

10 A. Yes. Yes.

11 Q. Please look at your statement, sir, paragraph 11 of your

12 statement.

13 I'm sorry. This is under seal, Your Honour. Could it just be

14 taken off the ELMO.

15 Could you just turn it over, please.

16 MR. RE: Wait a minute. It's redacted. I apologise. He's

17 looking at something which has been redacted. I meant to show him the

18 unredacted, which is D184/3. My error. And it is actually redacted, so

19 I'd ask that --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No. For the paragraphs that were struck off, that's

21 why they are redacted, so you can't refer to them. This is why the

22 witness came to give viva voce evidence. On the basis of a prior

23 statement, Your Honour, I will read to him what he said or I will show to

24 him what he said.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Not a redacted paragraph, please.

1 MR. RE: No, not in open session, Your Honour. That's the point.

2 It's only redacted because of the person's name, not because of the

3 contents. I'm putting something to him on the basis of a prior and

4 consistent statement. The evidence he gave yesterday is different to what

5 was in the statement he gave. Whether it's redacted or not has nothing to

6 do with -- is irrelevant for the purposes of impeaching a witness as to a

7 prior and consistent statement.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, the Trial Chamber is of the view that you

10 can't refer to anything in a paragraph which was struck off.

11 MR. RE: Is Your Honour telling me that I cannot cross-examine a

12 witness as to his credibility based upon a prior statement he has made,

13 signed, sworn, before a registry officer, which contains different

14 evidence to the evidence which he gave yesterday? Yesterday he said

15 something which is completely different to what is in the signed

16 statement. I'm putting it as to his credibility under Rule 90(H) only on

17 that basis.

18 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Re, I think maybe we're just under a little

19 bit of a misconception here. This -- these paragraphs are not redacted to

20 protect any protected witnesses and so on. The Trial Chamber struck out

21 these paragraphs when we analysed all of the 92 bis statements. And as

22 our Presiding Judge Mumba has indicated, when we said which paragraphs

23 were being struck out, it was because they referred specifically to the

24 accused persons directly with respect to the indictment. So they

25 shouldn't have been there in the first place. So we have not redacted

1 them. We have struck them out and have allowed, therefore,

2 examination-in-chief on those paragraphs, and obviously -- not on those

3 paragraphs but on the issues contained in those paragraphs.

4 MR. RE: Your Honour, maybe there's a misunderstanding or

5 confusion. I used the word "redacted" wrongly. I didn't mean redacted,

6 and I withdraw that.

7 The statement he made, that is, a prior statement. Whether it

8 contains -- no matter when it was made, he has made a statement out of

9 court which is different to the evidence he made in court. It is no

10 different to a witness making a statement which the witness is entitled to

11 be cross-examined on as to a different version of the same set of events.

12 For the cross-examination -- for the Prosecutor to cross-examine this

13 witness properly, because there is a conflict between the evidence of this

14 witness and others as to his reliability and his veracity, the Prosecutor

15 must be able to put to him a version he gave which is different a few

16 weeks ago to the version he's given in court as to several very distinct

17 matters. It is no different, in my submission, to the statement of any

18 Prosecution witness which was given earlier and not in oral testimony

19 which is different as to the acts or conduct of the accused. And I --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, you've been overruled. That is all. The

21 Trial Chamber has overruled you.

22 [Prosecution counsel confer]

23 MR. RE: Well, if that's the case, I want to make an offer of

24 proof on the transcript that the Trial Chamber has made a ruling which has

25 prevented the Prosecution from cross-examining the witness as to

1 inconsistencies between a prior version and the version given in court,

2 and the Prosecution is unable to put its case or cross-examine the witness

3 properly under Rule 90(H)(ii) as to the witness's credibility because the

4 statements which were provided and were ID give a different version to the

5 version given in court and the Prosecution will be unable to submit the

6 witness -- anything in relation to the witness's veracity based upon that.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: You see, Mr. Re, when they were given numbers for

8 identification purposes only, they were not admitted into evidence.

9 MR. RE: I'm just preserving the Prosecution's position for --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: At the time -- yes. At the time that the statements

11 were admitted into evidence, the paragraphs that were struck out were

12 recorded.

13 MR. RE: I understand that. I'm just --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: So that that is no longer evidence which can be

15 referred to.

16 MR. RE: I understand it's not evidence, Your Honour. I am

17 putting on the record for the purposes of appeal to preserve the

18 Prosecution's position that the Trial Chamber permitted the Defence to

19 cross-examine witnesses on prior inconsistent statements made out of

20 court, prior statements, but has not allowed the Prosecution to

21 cross-examine a witness as to a prior inconsistent statement. I would

22 like that on the record.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: That is not correct. You are dealing with

24 Prosecution witness statements that were recorded by investigators.

25 MR. RE: These were recorded by -- by lawyers on the other side.

1 They asked questions. They asked the witness questions. The witness

2 answered questions in relation to -- it was only last month -- in relation

3 to issues before the case. And the witness gave different answers in his

4 statement in -- than he gave in evidence yesterday. There are striking

5 differences.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we are wasting time. You have made your

7 point. It is on record. Please proceed. Yes, Mr. Re, you can continue.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Sir, your evidence is that only one soldier came with Mr. Tadic.

10 It wasn't two, three, four, five, or more soldiers. That's your evidence,

11 sir, in this court?

12 A. As for the entrance into -- my entrance into the building, first

13 the soldier came, Micic, and then Mr. Tadic. I'm not saying that in the

14 yard there weren't any more soldiers. They went to different entrances

15 into the building to ask people to return the weapons they have, those

16 people who have illegal weapons.

17 Q. All right. Well, how many soldiers came into the building, apart

18 from Micic, when Micic and Tadic were talking to you? How many other

19 soldiers did you hear going through the building, sir? Because there was

20 more than one, wasn't there?

21 A. I did not see any other soldier, because I did not go out into the

22 street or into the yard, but I think that there were soldiers who went

23 from one entrance to the other.

24 Q. How many soldiers did you hear going through the -- going through

25 the block of flats when Mr. Tadic was talking to you, sir? How many sets

1 of footsteps did you hear on the stairs going up and down?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, how can a witness answer that?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: If you just hear footsteps, how do you know whose

5 footsteps they are? These are apartment where is the tenants were

6 residing.

7 MR. RE: Yeah, all of them in his flat at the same time, he said,

8 with the door locked downstairs because --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. But even then you cannot tell those are

10 footsteps of the soldiers. I will not allow the question.

11 MR. RE:

12 Q. Did you hear anything outside when you were talking to Mr. Tadic?

13 Did you hear anything that suggested other people were in the building,

14 sir?

15 A. No. Mr. Tadic, while he was in my building, except for Micic,

16 there was no other soldier at my entrance into the building, in my

17 stairwell. When Mr. Tadic said goodbye to us, I saw them off into the

18 yard and there in the yard I saw two soldiers, and I know who they are.

19 They are soldiers from my building, Dragan -- or rather, Slobodan Antic

20 and Ilija Ilic. They were in uniform. I saw the two of them in the yard.

21 Q. What about the soldiers who searched the flat of Vera Avdic? Who

22 are they? Who are the soldiers who searched her flat, sir?

23 A. As for the apartment of Vera Avdic, I don't know who entered it,

24 because I didn't see that.

25 Q. But you're aware that some soldiers entered on that day, aren't

1 you, sir?

2 A. Well, it's not some soldiers. They were soldiers who were looking

3 for weapons. Only Micic was at my apartment in my stairwell, and

4 Mr. Tadic. I did not go to the other entrances. The building has eight

5 entrances. I saw Mr. Tadic off to the door, and I went to sit with my

6 neighbours because there was still shooting outside.

7 Q. All right. You said you didn't know who entered Vera Avdic's

8 apartment because you didn't see it. The fact is, you were told or you

9 were aware that some soldiers or a soldier had entered Vera Avdic's

10 apartment on that day looking for weapons, weren't you?

11 A. Possibly. I don't know.

12 Q. You also a moment ago just said there were soldiers looking for

13 weapons, not some soldiers -- you said, "Well, it's not some soldiers.

14 There were soldiers who were looking for weapons." You said soldiers,

15 more than one. You mean by that, don't you, sir, that more than one

16 soldier came to that apartment block looking for weapons on that day,

17 don't you, sir?

18 A. I am telling you once again that at my entrance into the building

19 and at my stairwell there was only Mr. Tadic and that soldier, Micic.

20 Q. When you said "there were soldiers" looking for weapons, what did

21 you mean by that, sir, if not there were soldiers looking for weapons in

22 the building? What did you mean?

23 A. Well, soldiers are the ones I saw when I was seeing off Mr. Tadic.

24 These were soldiers who were in the yard of the building, in the yard of

25 the building.

1 Q. Looking for weapons, as far as you know?

2 A. Well, I don't know what they were doing, because I did not go to

3 the first or fifth or seventh or third entrance to the building. My

4 entrance to the building is entrance number two, and that's where these

5 two gentleman were.

6 Q. Well, why did you say there were soldiers looking for weapons if

7 you weren't sure, sir? That's what you said a few moments ago. Why did

8 you say that if you weren't sure?

9 A. Well, if a soldier walked into my entrance to look for weapons, I

10 assume that the others went to look for the same thing. And that's what I

11 said.

12 Q. When was the first time that you were asked to remember what

13 happened on that date, sir, and write it down? When was the first time

14 you were asked to tell someone about what happened on that day or to write

15 it down? Was it this year, last year?

16 A. When was it? Let me try to remember.

17 Q. Sir, don't look at your statement.

18 A. I can't remember what year this was when I made this statement. I

19 really can't. Last year a family member of mine died, and I barely

20 remember anything any more.

21 Q. Sir, you made this statement in February of this year if that

22 assists. Was that the first time that anyone had asked you to remember

23 what happened when Mr. Tadic came to your flat?

24 A. Well, it wasn't the first time. Other people asked me that too.

25 Q. Was that the first time Mr. Lukic asked you or any of the

1 accused -- was that the first time lawyers, or investigators for any of

2 the accused, had asked you to remember about the time Mr. Tadic came to

3 your flat, sir? This year. Don't look that way. Look this way, please.

4 A. Yes. Yes. This year.

5 Q. And when they spoke to you, did they ask you what happened on the

6 18th? Is that what they said to you: What happened on the 18th of April,

7 1992?

8 A. Well, they asked me what I stated, and I told you that. I didn't,

9 anything else.

10 Q. I'm asking you about the date. Did they ask you when they spoke

11 to you: What happened on the 18th, Mr. Tubakovic?

12 A. They did, yes.

13 Q. Was that the first time that you had any reason to connect or to

14 associate the 18th with the time that Mr. Tadic came to your flat, that

15 is, being asked 11 years later?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And what happened on the 17th, sir? Are you able to tell us now

18 what happened on the 17th?

19 A. On the 17th, what happened then?

20 Q. Are you able to tell us -- I don't want you to tell --

21 A. That 17th --

22 Q. Are you able to tell us what happened on the 17th? Can you

23 remember what happened on the 17th is what I'm asking you.

24 A. I do.

25 Q. What about the 19th, sir, the 20th, the 21st, the 22nd, the 23rd?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, you are harassing the witness.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember it all.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I will not

4 allow this to continue.

5 MR. RE: I'm not allowed to test his memory. He's given evidence

6 about a specific date. Your Honour is not allowing me to ask him about

7 the 20th?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. This type of questioning amounts to

9 harassing the witness. That's all.

10 MR. RE: Could I ask --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: It is the view of the Trial Chamber just go ahead

12 with other questions. Don't harass the witness.

13 MR. RE: I understand what Your Honour is saying. Could I ask for

14 directions as to how I could ask the witness to test his memory as to

15 other events in the remainder of the week, for example, as to the

16 reliability of his memory as to a certain date? Could Your Honour suggest

17 as to a way I could ask the witness.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: You're supposed to cross-examine him on the evidence

19 he has given.

20 MR. RE: Your Honour, his evidence is of a specific date.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: And you also seek any other evidence that may be

22 supporting your case, but not harassing the witness in this way.

23 [Prosecution counsel confer]

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I? May I say to the Court the

3 Prosecutor is trying to test the witness's memory, bearing in mind your

4 decision. But desires of confirming the veracity of this witness. May I

5 say something? I've had long conversations with this witness.

6 Could you please move away a little bit. Could you please move

7 away.

8 I fully agree with my learned friend asking him about the date.

9 Let him ask it and so we shall see how well this witness remembers. I

10 think the Prosecution should really see how good this witness's memory is,

11 but he indeed had a major tragedy in his family. On the other hand, the

12 Prosecution had 40 minutes. Yesterday, today, we've been discussing

13 things. But we've spent almost -- more than an hour on the

14 cross-examination of this witness. I mean, yesterday he testified for

15 half an hour. Then we spent time debating, and now he's been testifying

16 35 minutes and 40 minutes have been approved.

17 MR. RE: I went for 22 minutes yesterday, Your Honour. I've

18 checked it on the transcript. The remainder, the balance at the very end

19 was related to an objection which was overruled and there was about 10

20 minutes in that.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The balance was -- for today you're supposed

22 to have 35 minutes.

23 MR. RE: I'm sorry? I mis --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Today you're supposed to have 35 minutes,

25 because I recorded the time you started your cross-examination.

1 MR. RE: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: But because of the interventions, that is why you're

3 being allowed to take a few more minutes.

4 MR. RE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, the Secretariat for National Defence in which you

6 worked, it was responsible for mobilisation, was it?

7 A. It was, yes.

8 Q. In your statement, at paragraph 25, you refer to a mobilisation

9 of -- I'm sorry, you referred to inviting several hundred Muslims and

10 Croats to attend a meeting at the memorial centre for the purposes of

11 mobilising and reinforcing units. Now, what happened there, sir, was that

12 your organisation, the Secretariat for National Defence, issued

13 mobilisation summonses to hundreds -- to hundreds of Muslim and Croat men

14 who still remained in Bosanski Samac at about that time, didn't you?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And of course at that time, that was in August 1992, the VRS was

17 at war with the HVO, the HV, and the multi-ethnic army of the state of

18 Bosnia, the ABiH, wasn't it?

19 A. Yes, that is true. But from the command, we received the order to

20 summon military constraints of Muslim, that is, Croat ethnicity, to see

21 which one of them would join the Serb army of their own will. Several

22 hundred were summoned. I believe around 450 military conscripts were

23 called.

24 Q. And of course, sir, at that time the Serb -- the Serb specials and

25 paramilitaries had been arresting, detaining, beating up hundreds of Croat

1 and Muslim men and detaining them in facilities in Bosanski Samac, hadn't

2 they?

3 A. At that time, after we received the order, we summoned military

4 conscripts. I won't go into who did what apart from me. I'm saying what

5 we did. We received an order. We carried it out. We summoned military

6 conscripts. They were waiting for people from the command, that is, from

7 senior officers, to come and talk with them. They didn't come that day.

8 And --

9 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, please, that's not what I'm asking you. By that

10 stage in Bosanski Samac the Serb specials, paramilitaries, police, had

11 arrested and detained hundreds of Croats and Muslim men over the previous

12 few months and detained them at the SUP, the TO, and the two schools, and

13 were beating and torturing them. That had happened over the previous few

14 months, hadn't it, before August 1992 when you --

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. You were living in Bosanski Samac during the war, weren't you,

17 sir, and working at the Secretariat for National Defence? When you say

18 you don't know, is it that you didn't know then or you can't remember now?

19 A. I didn't know what they were doing then. I repeat, we summoned

20 those men to voluntarily see which ones of them would care to join the

21 Serb army, because before that in the 4th Department [As interpreted] we

22 had the -- in the 4th Detachment we had people of Muslim and Croat and

23 Serb ethnicity.

24 Q. Thank you. At that stage in August 1992, Bosanski Samac

25 municipality was under Serb military rule, wasn't it? The VRS, the

1 paramilitaries, the police, and the Crisis Staff had imposed military

2 control over Bosanski Samac.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And of course there was no reason and in those circumstances with

5 Serb military control you wouldn't think that Muslims or Croats would want

6 to join an army that was fighting the HVO or the HV or the ABiH, would

7 you, sir?

8 A. I don't know what they had in mind. We summoned them.

9 Q. Of course, when -- when these people didn't answer their

10 summonses, they swam across the river, didn't they, to get away from Serb

11 military rule and the threat of imprisonment for not obeying the

12 summonses? Didn't they, sir?

13 A. Military conscripts or Muslims, that is, Croat ethnicity,

14 responded to the summonses, responded to it. But they were not admitted

15 into the army because nobody from the army came to take them on, apart

16 from the 30 men who volunteered to join the army, and they did.

17 Q. I'm sorry, sir, if I misled you slightly. They -- what I suggest

18 is they responded to the summonses and -- and as a result of being told

19 that if they didn't join the army they would be imprisoned, they swam

20 across the river to get away from Serb military rule. That's what

21 happened, wasn't it?

22 A. No.

23 Q. And when they swam across the river, sir, their wives and children

24 who were left behind were isolated and taken to Zasavica by the Serb

25 military and civilian authorities, weren't they?

1 A. No. No, that is not how it was.

2 Q. Well, how was it, sir? When they swam across the river, what did

3 happen to their wives and children, sir, in August 1992? What happened to

4 their wives and children?

5 A. Military conscripts of the Muslim, that is, Croat ethnicity, whom

6 we had summoned and who responded to the summons, came to the place where

7 they were summoned to report to, were waiting, and we waited with them for

8 somebody from the army to come and talk to them. But nobody from the army

9 turned up. Nevertheless, those 30 or so soldiers said that they would

10 join the Army of Republika Srpska. After that I do not know who swam and

11 went into the Sava, as said. However, their families, wives, and children

12 were not detained because of that. They were isolated because the HVO

13 troops and those other Croat troops had attacked Serb troops in the

14 village, in Novo Selo, and on that occasion several Serb soldiers were

15 killed, and that was why women and children were isolated, as you put it.

16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Jelena Kapetanovic, who lived

17 in your apartment block, was taken to Zasavica --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, you should be winding up. Your time is up.

19 MR. RE: Can I just ask him one area, that's the labour system in

20 which he was working, relating to paragraph 9 of his -- of his statement,

21 Your Honour?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. But your time is up.

23 MR. RE: The Prosecution has had some difficulties with the places

24 on the -- with the time limits which have been imposed upon the

25 Prosecution.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not going to discuss that. The Trial Chamber

2 did say the opportunity for cross-examination on the similar issues has

3 already been taken.

4 MR. RE: Your Honour, what I wish --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wind up.

6 MR. RE:

7 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, in relation -- in your statement you referred to --

8 you referred to work obligation being within the framework of the

9 Secretariat for National Defence. Now, the way that worked was that civil

10 protection needed labour; correct?

11 A. The work obligation was the responsibility of the Secretariat for

12 People's Defence outside the building of the Secretariat, and this was

13 done by two employees of the Secretariat for People's Defence. And they

14 replenished the civil defence for those structures which expressed the

15 need for labour. What they did, where did they go, I didn't follow them.

16 And when it comes to Jelena Kapetanovic or former Stanisic, all that she

17 said, that woman, was not telling the truth. I can swear on the life of

18 all that I hold dear.

19 Q. I just want to ask you, sir, about the labour obligation and your

20 work in the Secretariat for National Defence. You said you were

21 responsible for raising military conscripts for the 2nd Posavina Brigade.

22 Were you or your section also responsible for coordination of civil --

23 coordination of labour which the military required in its work, either on

24 the front lines or behind the lines?

25 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.

1 Q. And the labour which you obtained to assist the military with

2 their work on the front lines or behind the lines, the civilian labour,

3 did you obtain that through coordination or speaking to civil protection?

4 Where did you get the labour from, to assist the military -- the civilian

5 labour to assist the military with their work on the front lines or behind

6 the lines?

7 A. Well, the civil work obligation was prescribed by law. And those

8 who were to be assigned were kept on their record at the Secretariat, and

9 that record also said where they should go to work and what they should

10 do.

11 Q. What I want to know is where -- if you received a request from,

12 say, the 2nd Posavina Brigade for some civilian labour, where did you,

13 sir, obtain the labour from? Who gave you the list? You gave you the

14 names? Who physically arranged for these people to go and help the

15 military either at the front or behind the lines?

16 A. Our secretariat had the roster of the military conscripts and

17 other citizens who were supposed to and were under work obligation. And

18 pursuant to an order from the command, my two colleagues, who were engaged

19 in that particular aspect of work, we issued them orders and they sent

20 people where they had been asked to go.

21 MR. RE: Can I just clarify who the command was? This is an

22 important part for both cases.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Re. This is going on for too long.

24 MR. RE: Is the Trial Chamber clear on the links between the two

25 based on that witness's evidence?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: You cannot ask that question, Mr. Re. We've got so

2 much evidence on this question of where the labour -- who organised the

3 labour, for what purpose.

4 MR. RE: If Your Honour --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you sit down.

6 Yes, re-examination.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

8 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tubakovic, we won't keep you much longer

10 here, but we need to shed more light on some of the answers that you gave

11 the Prosecution. When you were asked about telephones today, you

12 mentioned - and that is on page 4, that is how I recorded today - that

13 when telephone lines were re-established, that you talked with Mehmed

14 Halibegovic [As interpreted] and you also mentioned another last name and

15 said that you also talked to that man.

16 A. Yes. Halilovic and Avdibegovic.

17 Q. Will you just tell the Chamber what is the ethnic origin of those

18 two men that you talked with over the telephone.

19 A. Their ethnicity is Muslim.

20 Q. You also mentioned when the Prosecutor asked you today about the

21 arrival of Tadic and Micic to your building, and you said that later on

22 when you came out in front of your yard that you also saw your neighbours

23 Slobodan Antic and Ilija Ilic. That is how I recorded it. Were they also

24 wearing military uniforms and were they also your neighbours or your

25 co-townsmen? That is what I'm asking you, witness.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you perhaps know whether they were members of the 4th

3 Detachment? Do you know that?

4 A. They were wearing uniforms and they were members of the 4th

5 Detachment.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please break

7 between question and answer.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, can you pause in question and answer,

9 please.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm about to finish my last witness,

11 and it seems that I haven't learned over this past year and a half to

12 examine correctly. My apologies to the interpreters once again.

13 Q. Mr. Tubakovic, do you recall the day when Tadic came, when they

14 searched for weapons, whether that day, whether in the course of that day

15 whether anyone else came again to look for weapons in your building?

16 A. No.

17 Q. And I have only one more question. The Prosecutor asked you about

18 that, about that rally in front of the memorial centre, and you mentioned

19 in paragraph 25 of your written statement. Do you remember who was there

20 with you present in front of the Secretariat?

21 A. Yes, I remember. There was the head of a department, Bozo

22 Ninkovic.

23 Q. And let us clear up another question which you were asked by the

24 Prosecution in relation to those persons and those summonses. Did any of

25 you who was at that rally, I mean both you, Bozo Ninkovic, or somebody

1 else, if there was somebody else representing the authorities of the Serb

2 municipality, that is, the Secretariat for People's Defence, did any one

3 of you say on that occasion to those hundreds of Muslims and Croats that

4 they had to respond to the summonses or else they'd be detained?

5 A. Why, no. Had we wanted to detain them, we could have done that

6 earlier.

7 Q. Did you say that something else unpleasant could happen to them if

8 they didn't respond to the summons?

9 A. No.

10 MR. RE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... there's a

11 document in evidence, D37 -- sorry, 34/3, which is what I was referring

12 to, and I think Mr. Lukic knows that. It was a document tendered by, I

13 think, Mr. Lukic, of a summons. That's what I was questioning the witness

14 about, the summons. And it lists exactly the penalties, and we've heard

15 evidence as to what happened -- what they were told would happen.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: But I thought that -- if any Defence witness is

17 contradicting other Defence witnesses, that would be ammunition for the

18 Prosecution.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I was particularly interested to learn

20 about the question, that is what I asked, whether this was mentioned at

21 that rally, whether at that particular rally anyone said that somebody

22 might be arrested or that something bad may happen to him, that he could

23 come to harm if he failed to respond to the summons.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

1 Questioned by the Court:

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. Mr. Tubakovic, I have a few questions which

3 I would like to pose to you based on what you said yesterday and a few

4 things this morning. The first question concerns something with respect

5 to yesterday. And for the sake of counsel, I'll refer you to the page I'm

6 thinking of on the LiveNote of yesterday, page 83, line 10.

7 Mr. Tubakovic, you mentioned yesterday that a combat vehicle - I

8 believe it's called an ACV - was going along the other side of the street

9 from your building on Edvarda Kardelja, I apologise for my pronunciation,

10 number 62. And it said in the transcript - at least, this is the English

11 translation - that the barrel, presumably one of the barrels on this

12 vehicle, was pointing at your building. And I'd like to ask you: If you

13 know, why was this barrel of this combat vehicle, ACV, pointing towards

14 your building? It seems rather a threatening gesture. If you have no

15 knowledge, just say that. But I'm just interested to know your reaction.

16 A. The ACV which was going down the Edvard Kardelj Street and turned

17 right to Sokolusa Street, that is, to the south of our building, and it

18 had come precisely because there'd been gunfire opened from the building.

19 Yesterday I said about referring to this [redacted], that there was a

20 general opinion and that people knew that [redacted] had a sniper in his house,

21 and he used that weapon. However, yesterday when I said that Mr. Tadic

22 invited him to turn down his weapon, he said that he didn't have one, and

23 at that time he didn't have it at home. But later on it turned out that

24 this sniper was being brought by his sister-in-law from another street,

25 that she would have it under her kitchen coveralls and that they would

1 open fire and that woman could take back that weapon back to her

2 apartment, and that is why this vehicle came and of course the barrel was

3 pointed and we watched it, all of us, all the tenants were watching it

4 from my flat.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you. My second question -- sorry.

6 Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise that I'm interfering, but

8 perhaps because of the names, perhaps the transcript should be redacted

9 where the names that the witness mentioned.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes, of protected witnesses.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So Mr. Tubakovic, thank you for that

12 clarification. My second question concerns your apartment building. I

13 wonder whether you can remember whether the soldier who came on the 18th

14 or Mr. Tadic or any other soldier who came later on ever told you or the

15 other tenants, if you know, whether you had to keep your apartment doors

16 unlocked at all times.

17 A. I affirm it most emphatically that nobody ever said anything with

18 regard to the doors, whether the flats should be locked up or unlocked.

19 Before the combat operations started, the door was already broken because

20 it was made of glass and then we organised ourselves and we all made tin

21 plate doors in the -- as our front doors, and those doors were locked up

22 at 10.00 every night. And when combat operations started, this Micic, who

23 came on the 18th, I opened the door for him personally and he was very --

24 he reacted very noisily, "Why this door locked?" And I told him, "Keep

25 your voice down. I opened it." And Mr. Tadic came after him and said,

1 "What's this about, neighbour?" And I said, "Well, this one is making

2 too much noise." Nobody had ordered anyone or said that door should be

3 locked or unlocked.

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you for that answer. But that clearly is

5 the front door to the series of apartments that you had one of. I'm not

6 just thinking of the front door down below, or at the ground level, but

7 I'm thinking of the individual apartment doors, for example, your

8 apartment, that of Jelena Kapetanovic, and others, the individual

9 apartment doors is what I'm thinking of. Was anybody told, that you're

10 aware of, including yourself, that you had to not lock your door day or

11 night, of your own individual apartment?

12 A. No. No.

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: That's --

14 A. No one told us.

15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Thanks very much. Just moving on, because

16 I do have two or three other short questions. From what you said

17 yesterday it's clear that apart from yourself, in this whole number 62

18 building with its various entrance ways, that Mr. Tadic - Miroslav Tadic,

19 that is - and Dr. Blagoje Simic also had apartments in this same complex.

20 No? I see Mr. Lukic is standing up.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for suggesting, but he

22 said Simo Zaric and Blagoje Simic had it in that building, while Tadic

23 lives next to his cafe.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. I apologise, Mr. Tadic. I realise from the

25 photographs. I have a visualisation of your premises.

1 Yes. Mr. Zaric and Dr. Blagoje Simic also lived in the same

2 apartment complex. My question, Mr. Tubakovic, is: During the period

3 before April 17th, 1992 and subsequent to that, did you ever see

4 Mr. Tadic, Mr. Zaric, and Dr. Blagoje Simic going together to visit in

5 Mr. Zaric's apartment?

6 A. No. I've never seen them there.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Now, going just on to this

8 morning. You said - and for sake of counsel, this is LiveNote page 7,

9 line 25 - the question to you was whether there were only two persons came

10 to your apartment, I think it was the 18th, and that was the soldier,

11 Micic, and Mr. Tadic. And your answer on line 25 was, "Yes. At that

12 time, when they came, yes." Now, it strikes me just from that answer

13 where you say "at that time" that there must have been other times as

14 well. Were there any other occasions when soldiers or Mr. Tadic or both

15 together visited your section of number 62?

16 A. Once the Sule Micic and Mr. Tadic left, no one from the Army of

17 Republika Srpska came to visit. The members of the internal affairs

18 police did come because for a long period it was thought that from that

19 very entranceway, from that floor, the shots were fired, and the police

20 came to look into that.

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you. And just my last and very brief

22 question is concerning - and again, for counsels' sake, this is page 21,

23 lines 24 and following - and this is concerning the question by the

24 Prosecutor, Mr. Re, with respect to persons swimming over the River Sava

25 and the relatives being placed in isolation in Zasavica. Now, obviously,

1 Mr. Tubakovic, you know, from your statement and so on, you know

2 Mrs. Jelena Kapetanovic very well. And my question to you is, based on

3 what you said to Mr. Re earlier on this morning, I just wonder, being that

4 you know her so well, why or do you know why she was sent to -- first of

5 all, to Crkvina, and then to Zasavica?

6 A. I really don't know why she was sent there, but I do know her

7 very, very well, this woman, and I know that whatever she said in her

8 statement, that 99 per cent of that is not true.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. In fact, my follow-up question is: Based

10 on your answer this morning, and now you've repeated it, where you say

11 this morning at lines 13 to 15 on page 23, that "All she said, that woman,

12 was not telling the truth." I'm just wondering how you know what she said

13 in her statement and how you know that she was not telling the truth

14 before this Tribunal. I mean, are you aware of the testimony that she

15 provided to us here?

16 A. I don't know how she testified here, but I know that Mr. Lukic

17 told me approximately what she had said, and that is why I'm here, to deny

18 that.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And last but not least: Do you know whether

20 Mrs. Kapetanovic's then-boyfriend, now husband, swam across the River

21 Sava, was one of those 30-odd men who took off to Croatia and swam across

22 the Sava?

23 A. I don't know. I really don't know. I know this boy -- well, he

24 was born in 1969. His name is Ersef. As far as I remember, it is quite

25 possible that he left as well. I know that his uncle, his father's

1 brother, and his two children went across Sava.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you very much.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Mr. Tubakovic, I'll catch the opportunity and

5 hook up on a question posed to you by Judge Williams and also touched upon

6 by Mr. Lukic and concerning the search for weapons, about which you have

7 told us repeatedly that it happened in the way that a soldier by the name

8 of Micic came to your entrance, followed after a while by Mr. Tadic. And

9 at that time almost all of the inhabitants in your entrance were gathered

10 in your apartment. That's so, isn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE LINDHOLM: And there's been some indications or, let's say,

13 questions pointing to the possibility that there was perhaps further

14 searches for weapons. And now I am asking you: Do you know a person by

15 the name Naser Sejdic, also nicknamed Sahara [phoen]?

16 A. Naser Sejdic?

17 MR. RE: Cakara, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Cakara. Yes. Naser Sejdic.

19 A. Naser Sejdic, also known as Cakara, yes, I know him.

20 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. Close to those events, around the 17th and

21 the days after that, did he perhaps ever enter your entrance together with

22 other soldiers?

23 A. Naser Sejdic was a policeman and not a soldier. He was a

24 policeman.

25 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. But did you ever see him close to those

1 days together -- as a policeman, but together with other persons in

2 military uniforms, camouflage uniforms, for instance?

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

4 JUDGE LINDHOLM: And nobody told you about a visit by him and a

5 group of five other uniformed men in your entrance?

6 A. Once Tadic and Micic left the building, I cannot remember whether

7 it was the same day or the day after that Naser Sejdic, the policeman, and

8 another man who I know came. They called him -- what's his name? Let me

9 remember. Ibrahim is his first name. His nickname -- he has a very nice

10 nickname, but I can't remember. They came to the building only to go into

11 Porobic's apartment. His nickname is Caba, Ibrahim's nickname. And that

12 was on the 19th. Yes, that's right. And he dropped by my apartment

13 because the other, Ibrahim, also nobody as Caba, he married a daughter of

14 one of my relatives, so I called him as my son-in-law, so I asked him,

15 "Well, what happened? Where were you?" And he said, "Well, we were up

16 there at Cuka's and they told us again that somebody was opening fire

17 there."

18 JUDGE LINDHOLM: But they weren't systematically searching for

19 weapons at that time.

20 A. No. They were following orders, because the -- when the army

21 passed on the 18th, nobody came afterwards to search for weapons -- well,

22 at least, nobody came to my building.

23 JUDGE LINDHOLM: And they were all only two persons, not a group

24 of five or six?

25 A. No. There was Naser and Ibrahim was in my apartment.

1 JUDGE LINDHOLM: No further questions. Thank you. Thank you so

2 much.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Tubakovic, for giving evidence. We

4 are now finished with you. You may leave the courtroom.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 MR. RE: Your Honours, while the next witness is brought in, as a

8 result of this witness's evidence, the Prosecution -- I appreciate Your

9 Honours will be against me -- wishes to move into evidence those portions

10 of the 92 bis statement D184/3. I'm doing this formally for the purposes

11 of the record, D184/3. I anticipate Your Honours will be against me, but

12 I -- I offer the -- I give the following offer of proof in relation to the

13 matters which the Prosecution would have cross-examined the witness on and

14 his anticipated answers so that it's on the record. I would have

15 cross-examined the witness as to his statement in paragraph 11 that:

16 "Soldiers entered the building before Miroslav Tadic and were seeking

17 weapons. And apart from the flat of Vera Avdic, who told them she did not

18 have any weapon, did enter any of the other flats from the tenants that I

19 could see." I would have cross-examined him on his statement that, "I did

20 not see whether Miroslav Tadic was armed on that occasion," and in

21 consistency with his evidence --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, what are you doing? You are still going

23 back to the paragraphs that were struck off.

24 MR. RE: Your Honour, this is an offer of proof. For the record

25 for appellant proceedings, I am putting on the record what we would have

1 cross-examined the witness on. So it's on the record. It's not part of

2 the evidence. And finally that he said: "Soldiers who had come into the

3 block heard this too and were searching the flats in the build." I would

4 have -- let me just finish.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I oppose. He is

6 dictating into the record everything that the Honourable Judges actually

7 struck out.

8 MR. RE: I'm not. I'm not. This is an offer of proof. You're

9 professional Judges.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, can you sit down.

11 MR. RE: Your Honour, it was just my submission. I was just

12 trying to make a legal submission.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you sit down, please.

14 MR. RE: Yes. I've finished my legal submission. It's an offer

15 of proof.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I respond? Your Honours, if I may

18 address you, based on this request by the Prosecution, I would ask the

19 Court that the whole part explaining the facts underlying the request be

20 struck from the transcript because in this way there is an attempt to put

21 to the Chamber something that has not been the basis of the case. We know

22 that when the witness was in the courtroom I was able to clarify certain

23 facts, but the Chamber forbade me to actually put questions on some

24 issues. Now, if the Prosecution has some sort of a legal problem, then

25 this is how it should be formulated and not backed by facts. I will

1 remind the Chamber when we were talking about the telephone interview with

2 Mr. Tadic, the Prosecution first gave you the interview and then gave the

3 legal request. I think they should first present a legal request instead

4 of presenting facts.

5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could I comment on this, please?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we've heard enough.

7 MR. WEINER: Okay. I just wanted to explain an offer of proof is

8 used in a number of different jurisdictions around the world. I'm not

9 sure if it's used in all of --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner --

11 MR. WEINER: Just in fact --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we've heard enough of this.

13 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber rules that there is a

16 misunderstanding on the procedure of Rule 92 bis. As far as the Chamber

17 is concerned, paragraphs that are struck off in any of the statements

18 submitted are not supposed to be resurrected by being referred to at all.

19 There are situations where some paragraphs have been struck off and the

20 Trial Chamber has decided that the witness will not come, either for

21 examination-in-chief or for cross-examination. And this ought to be the

22 same regarding the statements where witnesses have been allowed to come

23 either for viva voce or for cross-examination. The application by the

24 Prosecution is misconceived and is, therefore, denied.

25 Yes. We have another witness.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Please make the solemn declaration.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

5 WITNESS: STANKO BOJIC

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Please sit down.

8 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I have

10 copies of the redacted statement of this witness, so I would kindly ask

11 the usher.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You may proceed.

13 Examined by Mr. Krgovic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. Could you just for the record

15 state your name.

16 A. Stanko Bojic.

17 Q. All the events that you explained in your statement have entered

18 the record, apart from paragraphs 11 and 12, so I won't be asking you

19 specifically about that but I will ask you about the part of your

20 testimony related to your stay in Cafe AS in the night -- on the night

21 between the 16th and the 17th of April, 1992.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So I kindly ask you, when I will be asking you questions, to be

24 focussed on these issues so that I don't have to put to you leading

25 questions.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I would kindly ask you when you hear my question to pause for a

3 few seconds and then give your answer. This is due to the interpreters,

4 so that there would be no overlapping.

5 A. All right.

6 Q. Mr. Bojic, you were in the Cafe AS in the night of the 16th of

7 April. Could you briefly tell us when you arrived, how long you stayed

8 there, and could you simply tell us everything that happened that night.

9 A. Well, I arrived in the evening, around 8.00. That is the place

10 where we mostly gathered, played cards, shot pool. Somebody would watch

11 the TV, if there was a football match on. There was this group of people

12 that I met on a daily basis and socialised with. We used to stay very

13 long in the night. And then that particular evening there was maybe ten

14 of us Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. There was Avdo; there was Nenad.

15 Q. It isn't necessary for you -- you should go back to the period

16 when you heard shots.

17 A. All right. That was around 2.30 when we heard an explosion, first

18 one explosion then a second one as well. We were frightened a bit, and

19 those whose houses were nearby went home and we stayed there. We were

20 friends with Mr. Tadic's son and Mr. Tadic asked us, since my house is a

21 kilometre and a half away from the cafe, he offered us to stay overnight

22 so that nothing would happen to us.

23 Q. Mr. Bojic, who stayed, apart from you, in that -- on that evening

24 in Mr. Tadic's house?

25 A. Nenad Tomasovic stayed with me. He was a friend of mine who came

1 from Sombor.

2 Q. Who else was there? Was there Miroslav Tadic as well?

3 A. Yes, Miroslav Tadic, his son, and Mrs. Mirjana, Miroslav Tadic

4 wife.

5 Q. Did you stay at the cafe, or did you at a certain point go into

6 the house?

7 A. Well, first we stayed in the cafe. Mr. Miroslav Tadic tried to

8 reach someone on the phone to see what was going on; however, the phone

9 was down, the communications were done. And then he told us to go

10 upstairs where his son -- his son's room was. And Nenad and I were in one

11 room and his son was in the other.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this is an

13 appropriate time for a break.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll continue at 11.00 hours.

15 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

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

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Mr. Bojic, before the break, you said that after Miroslav Tadic

20 locked his cafe, you went upstairs and you indeed went upstairs. You were

21 near the rooms where Mr. Tadic's son lived. Tell me, Mr. Bojic, what

22 happened afterwards?

23 A. And when the shooting abated, we went to bed and fell asleep. In

24 the morning, I work up. I went out to the terrace in my underwear to

25 stretch out a bit, but somebody fired a bullet and the bullet went right

1 by me, and I fled into the room. In the room, we got ready.

2 Q. Mr. Bojic, we'll get to that. But I just wanted to ask you: Do

3 you remember approximately what time that was when you got up and when you

4 went out onto the terrace?

5 A. It was about 8.00, 7.30, something like that.

6 Q. Did you see where this first shot came from, the shot that went at

7 you?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Please proceed.

10 A. And then we got ready, all three of us. We went out onto the

11 terrace, and in the distance we saw some soldiers and we saw that they

12 were wearing some kind of camouflage uniforms, and we recognised some of

13 the young men who were from the neighbouring villages. They first got

14 into the health centre, and they drove out the doctors and nurses, lined

15 them up by the fence of the soccer -- football club called Borac, they

16 frisked them, and then they returned them. When they got about 50 or 60

17 or 70 metres away from us, then they opened fire against us. These were

18 bursts of gunfire, and we lay down immediately. Then Mr. Miroslav Tadic

19 ran up to us. He was carrying a white sheet, and he also took a big stick

20 and then he made a make-shift white flag, and that is how they stopped

21 shooting at us.

22 Q. I beg your pardon. We'll get to that. In relation to the first

23 time you appeared on the terrace, when you were shot at, when did this

24 other event occur, this second round of shooting that you just described?

25 A. It was around 9.00 or 10.00.

1 Q. Please proceed. Where did these soldiers go after that?

2 A. They went down the street by Miroslav Tadic's. One of them went

3 towards the -- one group of them went towards the embankment and another

4 group went towards the post office. Afterwards we went downstairs into

5 the cafe, and then I went back to my own home.

6 Q. Tell me, Mr. Bojic, the health centre and Miroslav Tadic's house,

7 are there any buildings between the two that block the view, or is there

8 just an empty area between the two?

9 A. There's just an empty area between the two. Until the present

10 day, there have been no buildings there.

11 Q. These people you've just described, you said that they were

12 multicoloured. What did you mean by that?

13 A. I meant they wore camouflage uniforms.

14 Q. Did you see these people later?

15 A. Yes, yes, yes, we did. All the time, for part of the war. Later

16 on they left.

17 Q. Who were these people?

18 A. These people were from Serbia. At least, that's what they said,

19 or that's what I was told.

20 Q. Was Miroslav Tadic's house damaged visibly then?

21 A. Yes. They hit the bricks, the glass, also the wood panelling

22 behind us, then on the terrace there were parts of concrete that were

23 ripped.

24 Q. Approximately how many gunshots were fired this second time to the

25 best of your knowledge?

1 A. About 100.

2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

3 questions of this witness.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Cross-examination?

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks.

6 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio

7 Q. Mr. Bojic, my name is Di Fazio. I have a few questions for you.

8 Hopefully we'll be very brief. You were a member of the 4th Detachment,

9 weren't you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The purpose of the 4th Detachment, you agree, was to defend the

12 town from outside attack?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. All right. The second objective of the 4th Detachment was to

15 prevent inter-ethnic strife?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And to protect the people and the property of Bosanski Samac and

18 that area?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In the months leading up to April 16, the 4th Detachment armed

21 itself - in other words, it distributed arms to its members.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You knew, didn't you, that the purpose of arming individual

24 members of the 4th Detachment was so that they could carry out those

25 objects -- objectives, I should say, of defending the town from outside

1 attack, preventing inter-ethnic strife, and protecting people of all

2 ethnicity and protecting their property. That's the reason why they were

3 given guns.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And the members of the 4th Detachment who were given guns kept

6 those weapons at home.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you had your own 4th Detachment weapon issued to you which you

9 kept at your home.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And do you know if Mr. Tadic kept his own 4th Detachment weapon at

12 the Cafe AS?

13 A. I don't know. I don't think he did at the cafe. Perhaps

14 somewhere in the house.

15 Q. The house is downstairs, isn't it? It's part of the Cafe AS

16 complex or building.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Did you have your own personal weapon? I mean, one

19 not given to you by the 4th Detachment.

20 A. Never.

21 Q. You were required to attend training sessions in the period of

22 time leading up to April 16, 1992?

23 A. Well, this was just some training in marksmanship, not more than

24 that.

25 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. And the 4th Detachment was divided up

1 into structure -- into various structures, companies, and further units?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And clearly, what you've testified just now, regarding the objects

4 and purposes of the 4th Detachment and preparations it made to carry out

5 its mission, was known to all 4th Detachment members?

6 A. Would you repeat that?

7 Q. Sure. I'm sorry. I didn't -- I was waiting for your answer. I

8 didn't realise you hadn't heard me. All the -- the evidence you've just

9 given regarding the purposes, the objectives of the 4th Detachment, and

10 all the preparations it made, training, organising itself into various

11 units, and so on, all of that was clearly known and understood by every

12 member of the 4th Detachment.

13 A. Well, probably.

14 Q. All right. Can you tell the Chamber what your orders were in the

15 event of an attack?

16 A. Well, in the event of an attack, I received call-up papers to

17 report at my platoon and then we should go to the embankment.

18 Q. Thank you. I believe you're describing what in fact happened,

19 aren't you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I'll get to that later. I'm not asking you about what in fact

22 happened. I want to know what your orders were in the event of an attack

23 on Bosanski Samac. In the event of an attack on the personal property of

24 the residents of Bosanski Samac or in the event of inter-ethnic strife or

25 in the event that the town was attacked from outside, what were your

1 orders? What were you to do if that event happened?

2 A. Well, how should I know? I don't really remember these orders

3 very well.

4 Q. Are you saying that there were no orders for just such a

5 contingency?

6 A. Well, the town was supposed to be defended. That meant from an

7 external enemy. Because in the detachment, there were people of all

8 ethnic backgrounds. We did not expect a war from the inside. Because

9 people were talking about the fact that there would be an attack from

10 Croatia, Slavonia, from Prud, as a matter of fact.

11 Q. All right. Just tell the Judges, tell the Trial Chamber what the

12 4th Detachment was expected to do if the Croatians came streaming across

13 the bridge armed to the teeth and shooting guns. What was the 4th

14 Detachment to do? Please tell the Chamber. Because that was your

15 purpose, you see, and that's what I want to know. What were your orders

16 to do in the event of an attack?

17 A. To protect the town and the people in town.

18 Q. I know that. I understand that. I'm not quarreling with you, and

19 I understand that perfectly well. I know what your objectives were, and

20 you've already told us what the objectives were. What I want to know is

21 what were the orders for you to do in the event that shooting started,

22 bombing started, an attack on the town started? Did you have any orders

23 for that contingency?

24 A. Well, I told you just a while ago that we were supposed to go to

25 the embankment and protect the town.

1 Q. I see. So that was a -- perhaps I misunderstood you. That was an

2 order that was issued to you long before the 16th and 17th. It was an

3 order that was issued to you to go to the embankment well before the 16th

4 and 17th.

5 A. No. No. I did not receive this order. The commanding officers

6 got that order. I was an ordinary soldier. When they convened us, then

7 they sent us to the embankment.

8 Q. Thank you. I understand that, and I'm grateful for you to have

9 told us and informed us of that. Can we just move away, though, from what

10 you actually did. And just for the last time, if we can, go back to the

11 period of time, weeks and days, before the 16th. Okay? Do you understand

12 me?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, in those weeks and days, the object of the 4th Detachment was

15 to protect the town against attack; correct?

16 A. Yes, probably.

17 Q. Thank you. Not probably. You've told us that that was one of the

18 objectives; correct?

19 A. Well, yes, correct.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. But I'm not the one who was actually deciding. I was just a

22 soldier. I've already said that.

23 Q. Yes, I understand that. I understand perfectly well. You weren't

24 a commander, were you?

25 A. Of course not.

1 Q. Okay. So we're talking about the period of time before the night

2 of the 16th and 17th. Now, the purpose of the 4th Detachment was to

3 protect the town against attack. Attacks are sudden events. What were

4 your instructions or standing orders in the event of such an attack? For

5 example, hordes of Croatians crossing across the river. What -- did you

6 have any standing orders?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that the

9 witness has already answered this question and that he does not recall any

10 such orders. He's an ordinary soldier. He already said that when giving

11 evidence in response to the Prosecutor's question that he did not recall

12 such orders before the 16th of April, 1992.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: May I adopt Mr. Krgovic's suggestion and language.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. DI FAZIO:

16 Q. There were no orders, were there, for you common soldiers in the

17 4th Detachment relating to a surprise attack, were there? You didn't know

18 what to do, did you?

19 A. Well, somebody would have probably informed us.

20 Q. All right. Thank you. We'll leave that topic.

21 On the morning of the 17th, on the morning of the 17th, did you

22 see a combat vehicle with a group of masked soldiers with automatic rifles

23 escorting it?

24 A. Yes, I did. I saw a small TAM truck with a machine-gun on the

25 top.

1 Q. Okay. Now, just tell the Chamber what a TAM truck is exactly,

2 please.

3 A. It's a little truck.

4 Q. All right. Okay. But is it an armoured truck? Does it have

5 special military features?

6 A. What do you mean "military features"?

7 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this: On top of this small truck there was

8 a heavy calibre powerful submachine-gun; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was the truck armoured? Did it have extra armour?

11 A. It didn't.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. It's a truck. In our part of the world, it was mostly used for

14 smuggling peppers. That's the kind of small truck it is.

15 Q. Was it an army-issue truck?

16 A. I think so [As interpreted]. Well, maybe it was actually. I have

17 no idea who it belonged to.

18 Q. I'm not asking you --

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. The answer was "I don't think so,"

20 not "I think so." This is what we heard from the witness, "I don't think

21 so." This was the answer on page 49, line 13. First he said "I don't

22 think so. Well, maybe it was."

23 MR. DI FAZIO:

24 Q. Okay. Your answer was when I asked you if it was an army-issue

25 truck, your answer was "I don't think so. Maybe it was actually. I have

1 no idea who it belonged to." Is that correct? Was that your answer? Was

2 that your testimony?

3 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Did the truck have any markings on it?

5 A. No special ones. I don't remember. I don't think it had any.

6 Q. This truck that you saw was taking over the town, wasn't it, and

7 it was surrounded by armed masked, camouflaged men? Is that correct?

8 A. They didn't have any kind of masks. Well, they weren't taking

9 over. I think they were going around, disarming these paramilitary

10 Muslims, as we call them, those who had received weapons.

11 Q. That's on the morning of the 17th; correct?

12 A. I think so. Yes, it was the morning of the 17th.

13 Q. They did that throughout the day and on the 18th as well?

14 A. Well, I think so, because I was not in town on that day, on the

15 18th. I was there just for a little while. I was at the embankment.

16 Q. So they were doing the same thing that the 4th Detachment was

17 doing, disarming the population?

18 A. Well, the 4th Detachment was doing less of the disarming. It was

19 at the embankment. And I don't know what other units were doing. I know

20 about my own platoon.

21 Q. You know, don't you, that the 4th Detachment participated in the

22 seizure or the taking or the collection of weapons from the population of

23 the town on the 17th and 18th of April, 1992?

24 A. This was probably done by another part that was in town, but I was

25 at the embankment.

1 Q. Very well. You know, don't you, that another part of the 4th

2 Detachment was engaged in taking or seizing or collecting weapons from the

3 population of the town of Bosanski Samac?

4 A. I've already said to you a short while ago that I was at the

5 embankment and what these others did, I don't know.

6 Q. Are you testifying to the Chamber that you don't know of any order

7 issued to the 4th Detachment on the 17th of April, 1992 that weapons were

8 to be collected from the population? You don't know of any such order,

9 never heard of it, never reported to you, never informed of it?

10 A. I heard that these weapons were being collected and that this was

11 probably being done by the many-coloured ones, and we were done there at

12 the embankment and we were not interested in that.

13 Q. All right. So the result is that you don't know of any order

14 issued to the 4th Detachment to collect weapons. You never heard it.

15 You're not aware of it.

16 A. Well, the detachment had several companies and platoons. My

17 platoon did not receive these orders.

18 Q. Thank you. However, you can tell us that the Sareni, the

19 camouflaged ones, the ones with the machine-gun and truck, were going

20 around collecting weapons. Can you answer my question? I didn't hear

21 your answer.

22 A. Yes, somebody told us down there at the embankment that they were

23 also collecting these weapons in town.

24 Q. All right. Just so that we can get this done a bit faster,

25 witness, if you answer my questions -- you have to answer my questions so

1 it's recorded and then a transcript is made. So there's no point not

2 saying anything. You have to answer my questions, say something at least,

3 so it's recorded. Okay?

4 A. Well, I think so.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: My colleague, I believe I found out what was the

6 problem. At the end f every question maybe he should say is that right,

7 is that correct, or something like that, otherwise, the witness is waiting

8 for the end of your question and he just doesn't receive it.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: All right. I'll do that. I'm sorry if that's

10 what's been happening. I'll make it clearer that I'm in fact asking you

11 questions. All right?

12 Q. In the early -- in the morning of the 17th, you'd heard explosions

13 in the town, the sound of gunfire, and Mr. Tadic's cafe had been fired

14 upon, bullets narrowly missing you. You and Mr. Tadic and the others in

15 the house, I assume, were all desperate to know exactly what was going on;

16 is that a fair comment?

17 A. Well, I think so, yes.

18 Q. And it was apparent to you, as a member of the 4th Detachment,

19 that the town was under attack. That's a fair comment as well, isn't it?

20 A. Well, depends.

21 Q. On what? What --

22 A. Perhaps had the Croats come in, then perhaps yes. But they were

23 not killing anyone, so it wasn't. What kind of an attack on the town was

24 it? Nobody got killed.

25 Q. Explosions in the town, men walking around with armed automatic

1 weapons shooting at houses. You say that the town is not under attack?

2 Are you serious?

3 A. There were no casualties in the town. That's what I said.

4 Q. None that you knew of at that time. But it was -- casualties or

5 otherwise, it was overpoweringly obvious to you, wasn't it, overwhelmingly

6 obvious to you that the town was under an attack?

7 A. Well, we were three of us there under attack on the terrace.

8 Q. Yes. But you could hear fighting in the distance, couldn't you,

9 shooting around the town and explosions?

10 A. Well, there was no gunfire or explosions in daytime.

11 Q. Oh, I see. Right. So the town didn't have -- you didn't see

12 anything that gave you the impression that the town was under attack.

13 A. Why, no.

14 Q. And did Mr. Tadic -- sorry, let me withdraw that.

15 Did you and Mr. Tadic and the other people who were there in the

16 Cafe AS on this morning of the 17th, 1992 discuss the question of whether

17 or not the town was under attack?

18 A. No, we did not.

19 Q. Well --

20 A. Now, that Mr. Tadic was down there, a floor below with his

21 mistress [As interpreted], and we were sitting upstairs.

22 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity at all on that morning

23 to -- to share any views with any other people in the house as to whether

24 or not the town was under attack?

25 A. But of course.

1 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... with who?

2 A. With Mr. Tadic's son and Nenad.

3 Q. And did you satisfy yourselves that the town was not under attack?

4 A. We were waiting for information. We were waiting to hear from the

5 command to tell us what to do, but nobody did, and I went home, and it was

6 only when I got there I found the summons to report to the site.

7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Your

8 Honours --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Unfortunate interpretation could cause a lot of

11 problems for Mr. Tadic. So I would like to correct it. It's on page 53,

12 line 19. He said he was a floor below with his madam. This is what he

13 said. Meaning his wife. And he says with his mistress, and this is just

14 not what the witness said.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I didn't think that was a likely meaning of the

16 witness, if Your Honours please, and I accept what Mr. Lazarevic says.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That can -- yes. That can be clarified by the

18 witness.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: All right.

20 Q. Earlier you told us where Mr. Tadic was. He was downstairs with

21 his wife; correct?

22 A. At the mezzanine, because there is the coffee bar on the ground

23 floor and there are two floors above that.

24 Q. Yes. With his wife, his wife, the woman he is married to?

25 A. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1 Q. All right. Now, following the -- your conclusion that the town

2 was not under attack, it was clear that there was some hooligans at work

3 because they had shot at the house of Mr. Tadic. Did you go and report it

4 to the police or try to report it to the police?

5 A. I've told you that I had gone home.

6 Q. Thank you. Let's move to that issue, then. You went home and you

7 received a message to report to the 4th Detachment; am I correct in that?

8 A. Received the call-up summons to report to the call-up meeting

9 point.

10 Q. What call-up meeting point?

11 A. Slijvak, the plum orchard.

12 Q. Was this a standing instruction, some order that you had that

13 existed prior to the 16th and 17th that there was a meeting point called

14 the plum orchard?

15 A. No.

16 Q. So you were only told to meet at the plum orchard on the 17th?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. And about what time did you receive your orders to go to

19 the meeting point at the plum orchard?

20 A. Well, sometime in the afternoon, around 2.00 or maybe 3.00.

21 Q. Okay. So you got your gun, your automatic weapon, and you walked

22 out of your house with your automatic weapon, and you went down to the

23 plum orchard; am I correct?

24 A. Yes, you are.

25 Q. And when you got to the plum orchard, you saw assembled other

1 members of the 4th Detachment also carrying their automatic weapons.

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. And were they in uniform or some of them in uniform?

4 A. Well, some were, but most of them were wearing civilian clothes.

5 Q. And about how many men gathered in the plum orchard?

6 A. Well, we were about 20 at that time, about 20.

7 Q. Okay. Can you tell the Chamber if you had or experienced any

8 difficulties in walking with an automatic rifle from your house to the

9 plum orchard. You didn't come across, for example, the likes of Lugar, or

10 Laki, or any of the other Serbian paramilitaries by any chance?

11 A. No, I didn't, because my house is at the very end of the town and

12 this plum orchard, where we were to meet, is about halfway to the centre

13 of the town.

14 Q. Fine. And in that time, you had no difficulties in -- with any

15 paramilitaries that you -- that you're aware of; is that correct?

16 A. It is.

17 Q. And can you tell the Chamber if any of the other 20 or so men who

18 had arrived armed at the plum orchard experienced any difficulties with

19 the paramilitaries.

20 A. Well, I suppose had they had any, they wouldn't have come.

21 Because this is mostly my neighbourhood, my area, one house next to the

22 other almost.

23 Q. Okay. You know, don't you, that a number of paramilitaries,

24 consisting of local people and also some men from Serbia, came into the

25 town, basically took over the town on the night of the 16th and 17th of

1 April, and that a Serb Crisis Staff suddenly appeared and took control of

2 the town? That all happened on the night of the 16th, 17th, and in the

3 days following. You know that, don't you?

4 A. No, I don't.

5 Q. You're not aware of there being a Serb Crisis Staff in Bosanski

6 Samac in the days following the 16th and -- sorry, the 17th and 18th of

7 April, 1992?

8 A. I heard about it, but much later on. I didn't know. And there

9 wasn't -- I didn't really want to know anything.

10 Q. Tell me, have you ever heard of something called the Serbian

11 Municipality of Bosanski Samac? Have you ever heard of such a body?

12 A. Yes. Yes, I have.

13 Q. Did you hear about that around April of 1992?

14 A. Well, I think it was towards the end of April.

15 Q. Did you know that the Serb police under a man named Stevan

16 Todorovic took control of the police station and that paramilitaries took

17 control of vital points and facilities around the town on the night of the

18 16th and 17th? Have you ever heard of that happening?

19 A. Yes, I heard that they had been taken over, I mean, these vital

20 facilities taken that evening, 16th and the 17th.

21 Q. Okay. Let's return now to the issue of the meeting at the plum

22 orchard. You see, the town was crawling, wasn't it, with paramilitaries,

23 these people who had taken over the town? They were driving around in

24 their armoured truck with machine-guns on it; they were all armed to the

25 teeth; a good number of them were men you didn't know or recognise or

1 weren't known or recognisable to other members of the 4th Detachment

2 because they came from Serbia. That is so, isn't it?

3 A. Well, you know, it isn't.

4 Q. Did you see any paramilitaries at all on the 17th? Did you see

5 any of them?

6 A. Later on, when I went home and I returned, and I didn't see

7 anyone.

8 Q. That's on the 17th?

9 A. Yes. Perhaps it was the next day when I saw it, but not that day.

10 Q. All right. So they -- you saw armed paramilitaries on the 18th?

11 A. Well, I did.

12 Q. And when you saw them, you were armed.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what your instructions were in the event

15 of an encounter between members of the 4th Detachment and armed Serbian

16 paramilitaries.

17 A. I didn't have any instructions.

18 Q. Why didn't you shoot them? I mean, these are armed men, and

19 you're protecting the town, you don't know who they are, you've got no

20 instructions, they're not recognisable as members of the 4th Detachment.

21 Why not do something about them?

22 A. Would you fire and then get killed?

23 Q. Fortunately, I wasn't there. But you were, and you were a member

24 of the 4th Detachment. So I'm asking you: Your job was to protect the

25 town. Here are armed men. You don't have any instructions. Why didn't

1 you take action?

2 A. Because I wasn't given orders from the command, that is, from my

3 superior.

4 Q. Did anyone in the command at any time tell you who these men were

5 and how you were supposed to deal with them?

6 A. I wasn't in the command, and I don't know what they were saying

7 there, talking about.

8 Q. Okay. So I take it that no, you never received any instructions

9 from your commanders on how to deal with these paramilitaries, what to do

10 in the event of an encounter.

11 A. We didn't.

12 Q. That's because you were cooperating with them in the takeover of

13 the town, isn't it?

14 A. I don't know.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MR. DI FAZIO:

17 Q. All right. Okay. Let's move to another topic. Now, you had to

18 wear white ribbons, I think, for a few days. Am I correct?

19 A. You are.

20 Q. And was that very soon -- well, let me withdraw that.

21 Was that on the 17th that you were issued with that order?

22 A. I think so. Yes, in the afternoon, when we got together there, at

23 that place. That's when they told us to put on those white ribbons.

24 Q. All right. The -- all the members of the 4th Detachment were

25 locals, weren't they? They were all from --

1 A. Yes, by and large.

2 Q. In fact, am I right that they were all in fact from the town

3 itself, not actually the municipality but all from the town itself of

4 Bosanski Samac?

5 A. Well, they were also from around the town, from villages. They

6 were not all from the town.

7 Q. Okay. Thank you. And one thing is for sure: All of you

8 recognised each other and knew each other well; right?

9 A. Could you repeat the question. I didn't hear it.

10 Q. You all knew each other well. You had worked together, trained

11 together. It was required that you knew who was a member of the 4th

12 Detachment.

13 A. Why, we couldn't all know everything about everybody who was

14 there. Everybody knew more or less his platoon, his company, and those at

15 the other end of the town knew their own.

16 Q. Did anyone give you any explanation as to the purpose of your

17 wearing white ribbons?

18 A. Well, it was kind of identification. But everybody wore those

19 ribbons, the civilian population, Serbs, and Croats, and Muslims,

20 everybody.

21 Q. Thank you. Did anyone give you the explanation for members of the

22 4th Detachment being ordered to wear white ribbons on the 17th in the

23 afternoon?

24 A. Nobody. Just "Put those white ribbons on."

25 Q. Up until that point in its operations, the 4th Detachment had not

1 worn white ribbons, had it?

2 A. Could you repeat?

3 Q. The 4th Detachment --

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]

5 MR. DI FAZIO:

6 Q. Sorry.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise, if Your Honours please.

8 Q. Up until that time, up until the afternoon of the 17th, the 4th

9 Detachment hadn't worn white ribbons.

10 A. No.

11 Q. It had carried out its business, its training exercises, its

12 patrols at night --

13 A. There were no patrols or training except for these firing

14 exercises in Potocari, which is a village above Brcko. That's where we

15 were practicing firing. But that was all the training that we had.

16 Q. Didn't the 4th Detachment have reconnaissance squads, patrols at

17 night?

18 A. Well, perhaps yes, but I don't know. I was in the house.

19 Q. What did that mean "perhaps yes, but I don't know"? Tell us. If

20 you know something, tell us clearly. If you don't know something, tell us

21 clearly. But --

22 A. Like this --

23 Q. So --

24 A. I worked for Uniglas and I worked on three shifts, so that I had

25 those obligations for the company, so I said those people who had less

1 obligations, perhaps they used it, perhaps they patrolled.

2 Q. Let me just clarify this. Before the 16th and 17th of April,

3 1992, did the 4th Detachment conduct patrols in and around the town of

4 Bosanski Samac? If you know they did, tell us. If you don't know, tell

5 us that you don't know. Okay? But just be clear about your answer, if

6 you could. Thank you.

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. All right. Okay. Thank you. Now, as far as the white ribbons

9 are concerned, before the 16th and 17th the 4th Detachment never wore

10 them, did it?

11 A. Never.

12 Q. The purpose of the white ribbons on the 17th of April, 1992 was to

13 make the 4th Detachment recognisable to these paramilitaries who had taken

14 control of the town. That was its purpose, wasn't it?

15 A. I don't know. I know that the civilians had those ribbons and

16 cars had them on their aerials. Everybody had those white ribbons. The

17 town population by and large.

18 Q. All right. So one thing you are sure about is that you got an

19 order to go off down to the Bosna and the Sava, or the Sava, and set up a

20 position on the embankment. Am I correct?

21 A. There you are correct.

22 Q. Good. Thank you. And how long were you there in your position on

23 the river bank?

24 A. Well, I was -- what do I know? A couple of days? Changing,

25 somebody comes, you go back home, then you return and they stay behind,

1 and that's how we took shifts.

2 Q. Okay. And -- excuse me, did the shifts sometimes occur at night

3 so that you might be finishing one shift on the bank, another company

4 coming in to take over, and you going -- walking home at night to go home?

5 A. No, never at night. That was in the beginning. On a voluntary

6 basis largely, some good terms with him and then he takes over. It wasn't

7 really well organised. There were no official shifts or nothing, but

8 where it comes up.

9 Q. So the result is that there were armed 4th Detachment members

10 walking around at night going to and fro their positions on the

11 embankment.

12 A. Not by night. The daytime. At night-time nobody took shifts.

13 Q. The positions on the embankment, that required you to dig in, to

14 form emplacements for heavy machine-guns and also to provide cover for the

15 soldiers, members of the 4th Detachment; am I correct?

16 A. Well, in the beginning we didn't even dig in. It was only a few

17 days later. We just lied about on the embankment.

18 Q. Okay. So just lay about on the embankment. But in any event,

19 after lying about for a few days, you actually did dig in some positions.

20 A. Later on, later on, seven or eight days later.

21 Q. All right. I take it from the fact that you just lay about on the

22 embankment that you weren't too worried about an attack coming from

23 Croatia or anywhere else.

24 A. Well, we were not wise to all that war. We didn't know what one

25 should do, because we had an attack precisely from that side on the

1 17th -- no, I think on the 18th, afternoon, from the direction of Prud.

2 Q. Okay. Were you involved in that particular action?

3 A. What do you mean was I involved?

4 Q. That attack from Prud on the 18th, were you involved in that

5 attack, defending the town, I mean?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did that lead you to dig in?

8 A. Yes. After that, we started digging in.

9 Q. Okay. Was equipment used for that?

10 A. Well, we used picks and shovels. Later on they made those

11 concrete bunkers for us.

12 Q. Did you have a little -- are you aware of a little tractor being

13 used, some sort of small earth-moving equipment, a piece of earth-moving

14 equipment being used to dig the trenches?

15 A. I don't remember. I guess there was, because I told you, I'm

16 not -- you're there for a while, then you go, then you're at home. Nobody

17 forced you to be there on the embankment non-stop. At times you just get

18 away.

19 Q. Mr. Bojic, I'll leave you alone on topics if you don't know

20 something about it, but I just don't know from your answers whether you

21 know something or whether you don't know. Let me ask again. You asked --

22 I asked you if there was a little tractor or a small piece of earth-moving

23 equipment being used to dig the trenches. You replied as part of your

24 answer, "I don't remember. I guess there was." Now, do you --

25 A. Yes, yes. That's why I'm saying this. Because from time to time,

1 I'd take to my heels and then I'm not there for a couple of days, I'm

2 staying with my girlfriend. So I mean, there was this, you know.

3 Everybody is over there and you're over here.

4 Q. Fair enough. Fair enough. So was earth-moving equipment used to

5 dig in on the embankments while you were there?

6 A. While I was there, it wasn't used. Mostly the trenches were

7 already dug out. I didn't dig them out, anyway, because I'm lazy.

8 Q. I see. Okay. Thank you for that. Did you see any Muslims or

9 Croats digging trenches that were to be used by the 4th Detachment?

10 A. Well, only those who were members of the 4th Detachment were

11 digging, Croats, Muslims, and Serb, because they were digging them out for

12 themselves.

13 Q. At any time that you were in Bosanski Samac in April of 1992, did

14 you see Croats or Muslims who were not members of the 4th Detachment

15 digging trenches, trenches that were used by the 4th Detachment?

16 A. I didn't see any.

17 Q. How many sons does Mr. Tadic have?

18 A. I know only of one.

19 Q. Okay. Are you aware of his being involved, the son, that is, in

20 some fracas or incident in the Cafe AS in early 1993 in which a man was

21 hurt?

22 A. When? In 1993?

23 Q. Yeah, early 1993. I'm not interested in the episode, but are you

24 aware of the son being involved in some fracas or dispute with someone

25 else, some customer, some drunken customer, which resulted in the drunken

1 customer being hurt, the police coming around, and Mr. Tadic's son having

2 to face court proceedings and being sentenced to a short period of

3 imprisonment?

4 A. Oh, yes. I know. I know.

5 Q. All right. That was early 1993, wasn't it?

6 A. I can't remember.

7 Q. One thing you do know though is that after a small and trivial

8 incident in the Cafe AS the police responded, he was arrested, he was

9 taken before a court, due process was observed, and he was sentenced to

10 imprisonment.

11 A. The police did not react at all. As far as I know, there was no

12 police. He only later on reported it to the police, who arrived and

13 compiled this record.

14 Q. Thanks. That's all I want to know. I'm not interested in the

15 episode at all. The episode itself is of no relevance to me at all. What

16 I am interested in is the fact that something happened, police reacted, he

17 was dealt with, he went to jail. That's correct, isn't it?

18 A. He did not go to jail. Well, he wasn't sentenced. How should he

19 then end up in a prison?

20 Q. Okay. Very well. But you're aware that something happened, that

21 the police responded, the authorities somehow dealt with it?

22 A. Well, it was a regular procedure, I guess. It was the judiciary,

23 the judiciary, yes.

24 Q. Correct. That's right. That's right. It was the judiciary

25 swinging into action and dealing with a minor offence. Correct.

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Do you know if that same judiciary acted when prisoners were

3 killed, murdered in the TO building or in the high school -- or in the

4 high school gym? Are you aware of any paramilitaries being charged and

5 taken off to prison, the police going round to visit them?

6 A. I am not aware of them having been killed there, at the TO and the

7 other thing, so I also couldn't be aware of the procedure either.

8 Q. Then you know of an episode in Crkvina where 16 or 17 - perhaps my

9 figures are wrong - but a large number of Croats were slaughtered in a

10 warehouse? You know of that episode, in May 1992?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did the police --

13 A. Everyone knows that.

14 Q. Thank you. That's precisely right. And did the police swing into

15 action as they did in the case of Mr. Tadic's son and arrest the

16 malefactors?

17 A. I don't know that. I wasn't there.

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MR. DI FAZIO:

20 Q. No. No, I know you weren't there. I understand that fully well.

21 Did the information service in Bosanski Samac provide reports on any

22 investigation that was in progress, to tell the people what was happening

23 in respect of that?

24 A. I don't know. We had a radio station, but I rarely listened to

25 it.

1 Q. Okay. Thanks very much for your assistance.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Re-examination?

3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no questions.

4 I would only like to make a slight correction. The last answer by the

5 witness was, "But I didn't listen to it, the radio."

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps the witness can repeat his last

7 answer.

8 Re-examined by Mr. Krgovic:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your last answer to the

10 question by the Prosecutor, concerning the radio. What did you say?

11 A. That I didn't listen to the radio.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no questions

13 for the witness.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you.

15 Questioned by the Court:

16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. Mr. Bojic, I just have one -- a short

17 question, and it's really just a clarification. On page 63, line 13 you

18 were answering a question put to you by the Prosecutor, Mr. Di Fazio,

19 concerning the 4th Detachment members and what they were doing at night.

20 And your answer on line 13 was, "Not by night. The daytime. At

21 night-time nobody took shifts." And I just wanted to be clear on this.

22 Are you saying, as it seems to be, that the 4th Detachment was only

23 guarding the perimeters of the town of Bosanski Samac on the embankments

24 of the River Sava during the daytime and at night-time there were no

25 shifts, everybody went home? That's what it seems to suggest. I would

1 just like to --

2 A. No, no, no.

3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I would just like to be clear on that.

4 A. No. I wanted to say by saying this that there were no shifts

5 during the night, meaning whoever was there in the evening stayed there

6 until the morning. So -- but there was, of course, a 24-hour shift at the

7 embankment.

8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you very much. That's what I

9 presumed. Because it seemed very odd that there wouldn't be anybody there

10 at night. Thank you very much.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Bojic, for giving evidence. We are

12 now finished with you. You may leave the courtroom.

13 [The witness withdrew]

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I would

16 like to inform the Chamber that we have by finishing this witness, have

17 finished with all the witnesses planned for the Defence case for

18 Mr. Miroslav Tadic, and we have no further witnesses to call. But to

19 use -- to seize this opportunity, the time that we have, since we know

20 that there will be no other witness for the day, I still owe the Chamber

21 to give them a translation of a document and another motion. So I would

22 like to solve this issue now.

23 So first of all, I would like to deliver to the Chamber

24 translations of two documents. We received them beforehand, but I thought

25 we -- it wasn't necessary to show them earlier because we had finished

1 earlier. This is document D71/3 ID. This is an English translation of

2 the list of civilians scheduled for the exchange who arrived from the

3 Croatian side to be exchanged on the 4th of July, 1992. We had the B/C/S

4 version. Now we have the English translation as well. And we give them

5 to you in the order that we receive it from the translation service.

6 If we could get a number now, unless there is an objection by the

7 Prosecution, because we were just waiting for the translation.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: No, there's no objection to this. And I believe

9 there's another one, D72, that Mr. Lukic is going to tender, D72, which is

10 also just a formal translation. And that can be done now too, and we've

11 got no --

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: We have no objection to that.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: So this document, D71/3, is now admitted into

15 evidence as an exhibit.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And the next document, this is an

17 official translation of the document D72/3 ID, the translation that we

18 received in the meantime.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. This document, D72/3, is now admitted into

20 evidence as an exhibit.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The next document I would like to

22 tender as an exhibit is a document so far marked as D74/3 ID, which is a

23 document I will remind the Chamber that I gave to Kemal Bobic during his

24 testimony. And witness Gordana Pavlovic delivered this document from

25 Belgrade and then it was delivered in the B/C/S form, in the B/C/S

1 version. Now I have the official English translation and I would like to

2 complete document with the English translation to be tendered as an

3 exhibit. This is D74/3 ID. This is a contract -- a donation contract.

4 This is the title, actually, of it.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: In respect of this particular document, the

8 Prosecution view is that the threshold point for its admission has been

9 reached because she testified about it in Belgrade. So no objection to

10 its -- to its --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Admission.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Admission. Its authenticity is, of course, another

13 matter, and that will have to be assessed by you when you finally come to

14 look at the evidence of Gordana Pavlovic and the other gentleman, now

15 witness.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to say something, Your

17 Honour, on the following issue: If the Court should find the authenticity

18 of the document in dispute, I would ask of the Prosecution - because

19 during the testimony of Kemal Bobic, if you remember when he was

20 confronted with the document, the part of the document, he did not

21 recognise it, so the document was merely marked for identification. But

22 since Gordana Pavlovic recognised the entire document, I suggested that it

23 be tendered as a whole. But if the Prosecution should contest the

24 authenticity of the document, I will require the Prosecution to disclose

25 to us the source of the -- the source that, delivered to them, the

1 document that I confronted Kemal Bobic with. Since we received this

2 document from the Prosecution, numbered 00604078, and I really am

3 convinced that they received it from Kemal Bobic, I think that the

4 Prosecution should speak up and say who they received this document from,

5 the document that was disclosed to us by the Prosecution along with some

6 other documents related to Kemal Bobic. Kemal Bobic told me that he had

7 never seen the document and we received the document from the Prosecution,

8 so we request the Prosecution to explain where they received this

9 particular document from.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't want to embark into an analysis of the

13 reliability or the authenticity of these documents. All I'm saying is

14 I've got no objection to its admission.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: But subject to later submissions, at the

17 appropriate time on how you should view all of this evidence. That's all

18 I'm saying.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: There's plenty of documents that go in that are

21 disputed by one side or the other.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: So what matters is how much weight the Trial Chamber

23 should attach to it.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: In view of submissions made by the parties.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: At a later point. At a later point.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: So it will be admitted into evidence as D74/3.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The next document is -- it's a binder

4 of the communications centre. You remember that we marked the document

5 for identification because there were two translations in the English

6 language. This is D154/3 ID. We verified the -- both of the translations

7 of this particular document of the communications centre. We came to the

8 conclusion that there are some insignificant differences and that the

9 translation we submit here to you is accurate. This is the internally

10 marked by the number 00037299. This is the translation done from the

11 original document and not from the photocopy, and I think we have already

12 informed the Prosecution, Mr. Di Fazio, about it, and I think this is the

13 translation that the Chamber should use when analysing this document. And

14 since the identification number was there only for the verification of the

15 translation, we hereby submit the translation.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Prosecution?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. D154/3 is admitted into evidence.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender three lists of

22 exchanges. I have mentioned them in my pre-trial brief, and I informed

23 the Prosecution that we would be using them in the Defence case. I have

24 talked to the Prosecution during the proceedings and I told them that I

25 would introduce these documents at the end. These are seven documents.

1 First is internally marked PDB71/3. This is the list of prisoner

2 exchanges of 24th December, 1992. These are the persons who arrived for

3 the exchange, as it says here, and this is -- this has both the B/C/S and

4 the English version, so we would kindly tender this document.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: May I ask --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If these are lists of Serbs going into the

8 municipality of Bosanski Samac? Yes. Could we just -- I don't have my

9 copies right at hand. Might I have an opportunity just to have a look at

10 them -- oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm informed my case manager has them.

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MR. DI FAZIO: No, we've got no objection, if Your Honours please.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, I just want to be clear. Maybe you said

14 it already. This is the list of the Serbs who came from Odzak?

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Who came from -- through the Odzak

16 commission, and at the time they were not able to be in Odzak. I just

17 wanted to seize this opportunity to submit three lists of Serbs who were

18 involved in the exchanges that we heard testimony about. So these were

19 three exchanges. And we simply didn't have a chance of having any

20 witnesses testifying about them, so I didn't have an opportunity to submit

21 them at the time. And I am actually just using the proceedings that

22 Ms. Aisling used to introduce these at the end of the case. So which --

23 how should this document be numbered?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: First, let's deal with PDB71/3, which we already

25 have. That one is admitted into evidence. Can we have the number. I

1 think it will be the next number.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. As a completely new exhibit

3 tendered in the order of the documents as we tendered them so far.

4 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D187/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The next document,

6 internally marked PDB62/3 is a list of persons who took part in the

7 exchange on the 5th of November, 1992. This is what the document says.

8 Although, there's a correction, that the exchange actually took place on

9 the 7th of November.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number.

11 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D188/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The next document is

13 another list of exchanged persons, marked PDB57/3. This is a list of

14 persons arriving from Bosanski Brod on the 5th of October, 1992.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number.

16 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D189/3 and ter for the B/C/S

17 version.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The next documents that I

19 have prepared are all contained in the pre-trial brief of Mr. Tadic. We

20 said that we would use them in the presentation of evidence, and they

21 relate to the international documents by different authors talking about

22 the exchange of prisoners, and this is relevant for the indictment and the

23 time frame. It's internally marked PDB143/3. This is the agreement

24 number 2 of the International Red Cross in Geneva, signed by participants

25 - I won't mention them here - of 23rd May, 1992.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: In the interests of economy of time and so on, may

4 I ask that Mr. Lukic deal with this on another day. I'm well aware of the

5 documents that he's -- he's referring to, and he has kindly offered --

6 sorry, given copies to the Prosecution. The problem is that I haven't yet

7 had a chance to confer with my colleagues over this -- this documentation.

8 I would like on opportunity to do so. It may be that there will be no

9 objection to the admission into evidence of these documents, but if I can

10 be provided with some more time, a day or two, that will give me an

11 opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Weiner and with Mr. Re. We may be able

12 to resolve the issue or at least focus the issue a bit more carefully.

13 But I just haven't had that opportunity yet. So I'd ask that we deal with

14 these documents on another occasion.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic has explained that they are referred to in

16 the pre-trial brief. The only question I have to ask him is: When were

17 they actually given to the Prosecution?

18 MR. DI FAZIO: They were given to us - I can't recall - now but

19 some days ago.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So you had enough -- yes.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may say, Your Honours, I did not

22 want to take up the time of the trial and of the witnesses. I really

23 waited for this stage to be over. All these documents were contained in

24 the pre-trial brief and were given to the Prosecution then. And then a

25 week ago - I will tell you specifically when - this was before the

1 testimony by Mr. Tadic, that I gave them these documents because we then

2 said that I would wait for some free time to show up to tender them into

3 evidence, but I really think we should use up the time we have today to

4 deal with these technical issues to include them in the documentation.

5 But if it's not possible, we would wait for the Prosecution to give their

6 reply.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: We can do it tomorrow, if Your Honours please.

8 Essentially the issue is very simple: That's one of a series of Red Cross

9 documents dealing with issues of exchanges. The Prosecution may be able

10 to locate other Red Cross documents, and it may be that it might be more

11 helpful to you if you saw the series in its entirety rather than an

12 individual document. All we, the Prosecution, need is some time to confer

13 amongst itself and gather those documents together, examine them in a

14 little more detail, and it may be that then there will be no objection at

15 all to the documents' admission into evidence.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may, Your Honours, this is a

17 completely different issue. I would like to tender those -- the evidence

18 that we have mentioned in our pre-trial brief and in our presentation of

19 the case. Now, if the -- what the Prosecutor says, within the meaning of

20 Rule 85, this could come under a completely different procedure, and this

21 has nothing to do with what we had already planned in our pre-trial brief

22 to be tendered, apart from that, in agreement with Rule 65(G) they didn't

23 object to these documents in the pre-trial procedure when we were writing

24 our pre-trial brief, and they were informed about it. I don't object to

25 the Prosecution giving their objections later on, but these two different

1 types of evidence cannot run hand in hand because these are -- this is

2 evidence we have announced beforehand and what the Prosecutor is

3 mentioning now is new evidence.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Unless you want to respond?

6 MR. WEINER: Very simply, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. WEINER: David Re, who is a member of our trial team, is

9 handling this matter. I can't respond in any of the Red Cross documents.

10 Mr. Di Fazio can't respond in any of those Red Cross documents. I looked

11 at them a month or so ago. I don't recall them. David Re is taking up

12 this matter. We can take it up first thing in the morning. I don't see

13 any problem with any of them when I look at them, but he's handling the

14 matter. It would be much easier for him to handle it. If we knew that

15 they were going to discuss this today, I'd have Mr. Re down here. If you

16 want to take a break now, it's at the hour and a half mark, I can try and

17 find Mr. Re and see if he's in the building. But at this point I can't

18 respond to it, Mr. Di Fazio can't respond it to it, and we weren't

19 prepared to respond to it today. I didn't receive any notice yesterday

20 that this matter would be on today.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree, and as we won't have

22 witnesses all day tomorrow, we can have some time tomorrow to discuss the

23 issue in the presence of the learned colleague who is informed about these

24 documents. Since we will close for today, I would like to seize this

25 opportunity to mention another issue relating to these documents now that

1 we have our colleague binder here.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have a break and resume our proceedings at

3 12.50.

4 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has to decide on the

7 documents. Do you want to say anything further, Mr. Weiner?

8 MR. WEINER: Yes. I can help out. We met at the break. We have

9 no problem with the Red Cross document. Counsel can tender it.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

11 MR. WEINER: And the other documents that they have too.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And I continue. The first

14 document that I wish to tender now is a document that is internally marked

15 PDB143/3. I'm going to call the document Agreement Number 2 before the

16 International Red Cross dated the 23rd of May, 1992.

17 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D190/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The next document is a document that

19 is internally marked PDB67/3. I'm going to call it UNPROFOR's proposal

20 for the mutual release of prisoners. This is a document that does not

21 have a date, but you will easily see that in paragraph 6 reference is made

22 to the period when it was actually adopted.

23 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D191/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The next document is the

25 document that was internally marked PDB69/3. I'm going to call it the

1 Agreement from Budapest dated the 16th of December, 1992.

2 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D192/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The next document is a

4 document internally marked PDB136/3. I shall call it Principles and

5 procedures regulating the mediation of International Red Cross in

6 exchanges. Just a moment, please. There is a date here. The document is

7 dated the 24th of July, 1993.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: The title, if Your Honours please, is somewhat of a

9 misnomer, or at least the way it was translated, I don't know. The

10 document itself is headed "Guidelines on principles and procedures for the

11 ICRC involvement in operations of release and exchange." That might be --

12 I take that from the English, and I think that might be a more accurate

13 description of the exhibit, and the Prosecution would be happier with

14 that.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we shall take the one on the English

16 as --

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: -- as the title.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I can also inform the

20 Trial Chamber of the following: This document is officially in English,

21 but the translation that you have been given is the one that was sent to

22 the relevant office, I believe, in Zagreb, but that's why we gave it to

23 you in that form.

24 And the last document that the Defence wishes to tender into

25 evidence -- pardon me.

1 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D193/3 and ter for the B/C/S.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The last document that the Defence of

3 Miroslav Tadic wishes to tender into evidence is the document that was

4 internally marked PDB147/3. This is part of the Dayton Paris Peace

5 Agreement, Annex 1A. I have singled out only one thing, and I believe

6 that that is the only thing that is of interest. Only Article 9. But if

7 necessary, we can tender the entire annex. So I have submitted the first

8 page to you so that the source of the document could be seen. And what

9 I'm particularly interested in is Article 9, which is entitled "Exchange

10 of prisoners."

11 MR. DI FAZIO: The document that the Prosecution was given, if

12 Your Honours please, was -- consisted of Article 1 -- I'm sorry. Would

13 Your Honours just bear with me for a moment, please.

14 [Prosecution counsel confer]

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. I have nothing to say on this exhibit.

16 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D194/3 and ter for the B/C/S

17 version.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] By this document we have concluded the

19 tendering of documents. I would just like to deal with two other matters

20 that we still have to address the Trial Chamber about, and I think that

21 for one document -- or rather, one matter we have to speak together, the

22 OTP and us, and then the other one is different. If you remember,

23 D153/3 -- 155/3, that is the HVO order on the withdrawal of the military

24 and the population from the territory of Odzak. When Miroslav Tadic

25 testified, I introduced that. And Mr. Di Fazio then said that he accepts

1 that but he said that he is contesting the authenticity of it. And then I

2 asked him to give us the reasons why they were challenging it, because I

3 wanted to apply Rule 89(D) if the authenticity of this document is being

4 contested. So then the Trial Chamber told us that the parties should

5 discuss this between themselves. I talked to my colleagues from the OTP,

6 and they said that they can state their views regarding that document,

7 whether they continue to challenge its authenticity and whether it can

8 therefore be tendered at all, and also so that I would know how to deal

9 with it, whether I have to prove the facts related to it.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: This is D153/3 or D155/3?

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think it is D155/3.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution.

13 MR. WEINER: We have no objection to its being tendered.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: It can be admitted into evidence. I hear that --

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I understand it's already an exhibit,

17 actually.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Yes. The Prosecution did

19 not object to that, but it was only the authenticity that was questioned.

20 But now they no longer question it.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, they are no longer questioning that.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We still owe the Trial Chamber one

23 more thing, and that is the official translation of a document. That is

24 the decision on the appointment of Svetozar Vasovic in the Red Cross. The

25 translation was controversial and Mr. David Re and I are still awaiting a

1 new version of the translation, so we are going to state our views when

2 the OTP receives a new translation because there were some different

3 interpretations as to his appointment to the Red Cross. So I believe that

4 in this way, we have honoured all our obligations vis-a-vis the Trial

5 Chamber and we have dealt with all of these matters.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The document you are referring to, I think, is D143?

7 Because it's no use discussing without recording the number. But it was

8 never marked for identification.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. Was it given an identification

11 number or not, the appointment of --

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes. It was admitted, and

13 there was just one thing that we had to agree upon, that is, the

14 translation of one sentence. So it's not the document that is

15 questionable but it's just one sentence. If you'll recall, whether

16 Mr. Vasovic was employed in the Red Cross or whether he was volunteering

17 there. We are waiting for the translation service to define that for us.

18 I think that the entire document has been admitted into evidence and that

19 it no longer has an ID number.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: For purposes of having a clear record, perhaps once

21 the parties have discussed this, we may refer to this page of the

22 transcript so that we identify the number of the document.

23 Yes, Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I understood this correctly, once

25 the document arrives, then we are going to recall today's discussion

1 concerning it. Did I understand it properly?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Discussion, yes. Yes.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Vukovic.

5 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of

6 Mr. Blagoje Simic received the English translations of witness statements

7 that were provided under 92 bis yesterday afternoon. I have given copies

8 of the translation to the Office of the Prosecutor immediately, so I would

9 now like to tender them into evidence.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please.

11 [Trial Chamber confers].

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Judge Lindholm wishes to raise a matter before you

13 go ahead.

14 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Yes. A question to Mr. Lukic in order to be

15 certain that I haven't missed anything and haven't mixed up things. I

16 still have some documents in the sea of documents marked with PDB, and I

17 would like to ask you whether they are now obsolete or whether they are --

18 I have missed something. I will repeat the numbers very slowly: 19/3 --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: That's PDB?

20 JUDGE LINDHOLM: They are all PDB. So 19/3, 23/3, 72/3, and 81/3.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Lindholm, I just

22 know that at any rate we gave up or some documents that we had originally

23 intended to tender. I am going to check these particular documents, and

24 I'm going to tell you tomorrow whether these documents did indeed become

25 exhibits or whether we gave up on these documents altogether.

1 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Vukovic, this is the last batch, is it? This is

3 the --

4 MR. VUKOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

6 MR. VUKOVIC: Yes, it is, Your Honour. Precisely.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number for identification.

8 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be treated as document D174/1

9 ID and ter for the B/C/S.

10 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to ask that we

11 state that this is Witness Lazar Mirkic's statement. I would like this to

12 be in the transcript.

13 [In English] Mr. Usher --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because then there is no confusion as to whose

15 statement it is.

16 MR. VUKOVIC: Mr. Usher, please.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Statement of Cvijetic Dusanka will be treated as

18 document D175/1 and ter for the B/C/S.

19 The statement of Branislav Marisic will be treated as document

20 D176/1 ter ID and D176/1 ID.

21 MR. VUKOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe just to assist the Registry. Here in the

23 transcript we have for document D175/1 and ter for the B/C/S there is no

24 ID mark, just for the record.

25 THE REGISTRAR: I did say and ter for the B/C/S. This is at line

1 22. Thank you.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, if I could just say to the registrar,

3 that Mr. Lazarevic was not talking about the ter; he was talking about the

4 ID mark. That's on line -- line 3 of page 86.

5 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. I'll repeat the document. It is a

6 document that's ID and is D175/1 ID and ter for the B/C/S ID. Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber expects the Prosecution to

9 indicate their position on these three statements under the provisions of

10 Rule 92 bis by 13.00 hours Monday.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. That will be done.

12 And may I seek just a clarification. Is that to be -- can that be

13 done orally, or do you want it in the form of a motion? May I say that

14 the Prosecution would prefer to do it orally. But we'll obviously -- if

15 the Chamber wishes a written motion, then we'll do it.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber prefers to have it in writing.

18 It's much easier.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly. And that will be --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: That will be done by Monday, yes.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: There was one matter the Prosecution -- the Trial

23 Chamber wanted the Prosecution's position. Mr. Pantelic had applied to

24 withdraw a witness, Mr. Cedomir Simic, who had given a statement under

25 Rule 92 bis, and the Prosecution wished to be heard.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. We don't have any objection to the withdrawal

2 of the witness, and of course that means a withdrawal of his statement and

3 any material provided by him, and that will not -- that material will not

4 be evidence in the proceedings at all. And of course, on that basis, the

5 Prosecution has no objection to the withdrawal of that witness.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber will give its ruling in due

8 course.

9 Yes. What is the position regarding witnesses for Mr. Simo Zaric?

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, we were informed by the Victim and

11 Witness Section that Ms. Fatima Zaric has arrived this morning in The

12 Hague.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: I can't hear you. Would you speak up.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will do my best. Ms. Zaric

15 has arrived in The Hague and we were informed in that respect about --

16 from the Victim and Witness Section. Hopefully she will be able to start

17 her testimony tomorrow. I still haven't had the opportunity to see her

18 and see how she feels. I spoke with her yesterday in the afternoon about

19 her arrival. She said that she's under some sort of influenza, that she's

20 not feeling too good but hopefully she will get better and start her

21 testimony tomorrow. Of course --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because -- yes.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: After Ms. Zaric -- Mrs. Zaric, sorry, we have

24 three more witnesses that are arriving in The Hague tomorrow and another

25 one that will arrive in The Hague on Saturday. And also -- well, because

1 of certain problems with this witness - he is afraid of flying in the

2 airplane, he had to come by his own car, and he will be here on Saturday -

3 and the last group will also come on Saturday by plane. So we will have

4 all our witnesses for next week.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mrs. Zaric will testify tomorrow, because

6 she's -- she's quite brief. Part of her testimony is under the statement

7 already, isn't it? Okay.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. We shall adjourn and continue our proceedings

10 tomorrow.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.19 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day of

13 April, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25