1 Thursday, 3 July 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.

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

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

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pisarevic.

9 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

10 Analysing the evidence, P16, it becomes clear that it says no word

11 about Croats being imprisoned as a revenge for Serbs imprisoned in Odzak.

12 In his closing arguments, as well as in his final brief, the Prosecutor

13 mentioned Mr. Zaric's book several times and that's why we will touch upon

14 that lightly. The book of Mr. Zaric was written after he had already

15 given his interview to the OTP in the Detention Unit. Mr. Zaric said

16 himself in his book that there are a number of inaccuracies in his book

17 and technical mistakes which he attributed to his associates and revisors

18 who assisted him in shaping and publishing his book.

19 They also put into the book some of their observations and

20 descriptions of events which is something that Mr. Zaric had no influence

21 over because he was already in Detention Unit in The Hague.

22 And finally, Mr. Zaric did not have an opportunity to carry out a

23 final revision of the book, and it was printed without him seeing it and

24 correcting it. However, Mr. Zaric's book is the first book published in

25 which its author mustered enough courage to speak in a critical way about

1 war crimes and other negative aspects that were brought along by war,

2 speaking about his fellow compatriots, people of the same ethnic

3 background as him. And this is how this book should be seen. It should

4 be seen in its entirety and not page by page, as suggested by the

5 Prosecutor.

6 In their brief, in paragraph 363, the Prosecution states their

7 role of Mr. -- their vision of Mr. Zaric's role as participant in joint

8 criminal enterprise, saying that he participated in forcible takeover of

9 power and removal from office of legally elected municipal organs, that he

10 participated in arrests and so on. They also state that he, together with

11 his superiors, organised transfer of some 50 non-Serbs to illegal military

12 prisons in the barracks where they continued interrogation which had

13 started in the SUP. As a high official in liberated Odzak, he continued

14 using workers who were performing work obligation to clean the town and to

15 loot it.

16 And finally, they say that he actively participated in

17 negotiations on exchanges of illegally imprisoned non-Serbs for Serbs,

18 including members of his family who were held by Croats in Odzak. Even if

19 the Trial Chamber finds that these claims are grounded claims, that he had

20 no final say about who was going to be exchanged and under what

21 circumstances, the evidence points to his central role in negotiations for

22 exchanges in May and July of 1992.

23 The entire description of responsibility of Mr. Zaric, as depicted

24 by the Prosecutor, is unfounded and represents a partial and incomplete

25 interpretation of evidence adduced.

1 The Prosecutor picks out of Mr. Zaric's testimony, and that of

2 Defence witnesses, only those segments which they believe would assist

3 their case if taken out of context, and they completely ignore full and

4 real meaning of that evidence and full meaning of that evidence is a

5 simple one. Simo Zaric is not guilty for what the indictment charges him.

6 The Prosecution believes that Mr. Zaric was aware of the existence

7 of joint criminal enterprise for persecution of non-Serbs on a

8 discriminatory basis, that he accepted joint goal and acted in order for

9 implement it. The question that Defence would like to put before you is a

10 very simple one. Would somebody with family circumstances of Mr. Zaric,

11 whose wife is a Muslim, three sisters are married to Croats and Muslims, a

12 daughter is married to a Croat, and he has a stepson who is a Muslim, so

13 could somebody like that be aware of a plan for persecution of non-Serbs

14 and could somebody like that knowingly and willingly participate in that?

15 Did Mr. Zaric share the same goal as the participants of joint criminal

16 enterprise when a Serb specialist, Vuk, put a pistol in his mouth, and

17 when in front of the lined-up specials from Serbia he was publicly

18 humiliated and insulted and called a communist and somebody who had

19 married a Muslim. Didn't Mr. Zaric support the same goal as the joint

20 criminal enterprise when he sent his family in a furniture truck out of

21 Bosanski Samac to become refugees because he was fearful for their safety

22 after what had happened to him?

23 Did Mr. Zaric act with discriminatory intention as a member of a

24 joint criminal enterprise when he hid Sulejman Tihic and Ibrahim Salkic in

25 the premises of the police station and locked them in empty offices in

1 order to put them out of reach of their torturers? Did Mr. Zaric support

2 the same goal as joint criminal enterprise when he asked Stevan Todorovic

3 to release Sulejman Tihic and when he hugged and kissed Sulejman Tihic,

4 expressing his joy that transfer of prisoners to Brcko was secured,

5 outside of the reach of their torturers?

6 The fact that Mr. Zaric was sincere then is best confirmed by

7 Mr. Tihic's testimony before this Tribunal. Was Mr. Zaric a part of joint

8 criminal enterprise and did he support and accept its goals when he saw

9 off his relatives, Croats, from Bosanski Samac, to be exchanged in

10 Lipovac, or when after or in the middle of the war he carried a cross at

11 the funeral of a deceased Croat and attended funerals of deceased Muslims,

12 when he assisted Muslims and Croats who suffered misfortune during the

13 war?

14 Finally, did Mr. Zaric share the same goal as members of a joint

15 criminal enterprise when, way back in 1992 he compiled the information in

16 the document signed by 13 signatories in which he condemned arrests,

17 beatings, murders and looting and called them war crimes which had been

18 committed previously only by Ustashas, fascists from Second World War.

19 The Prosecutor when speaking about this document of 13 signatories, stated

20 that the authors of that document could not even dream that one day that

21 document will be assessed before this Tribunal. This very fact is the

22 best illustration of sincerity and honourable motives that Mr. Zaric had

23 when compiling this document, without expecting any personal benefit for

24 that, even the consequences that followed, the publication of that

25 document, consequences for him and his family, did not change his

1 position.

2 The Trial Chamber should ask itself whether Mr. Zaric was a part

3 of joint criminal enterprise when his wife, a Muslim, swept streets in

4 Bosanski Samac as part of her work obligation and when his mother, Mileva

5 was thrown out of the house of her granddaughter in Bosanski Samac, and

6 she is an old lady who lives as a refugee to this day because she cannot

7 return back to her property which had been destroyed and burned, as the

8 Trial Chamber had opportunity to see in photographs.

9 What were the sentiments of Mr. Zaric at that time? In paragraphs

10 403 to 408 of their final brief, the Prosecution spoke about circumstances

11 that affect the length of sentence of Mr. Zaric, and the Defence must say

12 that we were shocked by some of the statements contained in these

13 paragraphs. Full minimisation of some obvious facts occasional looked

14 even cynical to us. In paragraph 405, the Prosecution states that

15 although participation in transfer of prisoners to Brcko could have had

16 some humanitarian reasons, the main reason for that was their further

17 interrogation. The Defence points out that the only reason the prisoners

18 were transferred to Brcko was of humanitarian nature, and the Prosecution

19 should ask itself how many of their witnesses would be alive today and

20 able to testify in this trial had they not been transferred to Brcko at

21 that time.

22 Further on, in paragraph 406, it is stated that the surrender of

23 Mr. Zaric to the Tribunal was a late one, 16 months after the indictment,

24 and that it should be assigned little significance. Simo Zaric, together

25 with Tadic and Milan Simic, was the first accused who voluntarily

1 surrendered to the Tribunal and this is exactly how this fact should be

2 seen. The then American president, Bill Clinton, saluted his surrender at

3 the time. He called it a brave act that should serve as an example to

4 other accused. His voluntary surrender was also welcomed by the then NATO

5 secretary, Javier Solana; the then-president of the Tribunal, His

6 Excellency Claude Jorda, who also applauded this act as did many other

7 officials who mentioned it when addressing the public.

8 The view that Mr. Zaric did not cooperate with the Tribunal, which

9 can be seen in the paragraph 407 of the Prosecution's brief is the last

10 one in a series of unsubstantiated claims. Namely, Mr. Zaric, after his

11 voluntary surrender, gave three interviews to the OTP and stated that he

12 was always prepared to talk to them should they find it of interest to

13 them. The Prosecution after that never asked to speak again to Mr. Zaric,

14 and the reasons for that are known only to them. Back in 1998, Mr. Zaric

15 gave a consent to investigators of the OTP to talk to Defence witnesses of

16 Mr. Zaric without the presence of his Defence counsel, which is something

17 that the Prosecution took advantage of and talked to nine witnesses. A

18 large number of documents disclosed to Mr. Zaric -- or rather, a large

19 number of documents disclosed by Mr. Zaric was admitted into evidence on

20 the initiative of the Prosecution as their exhibits. If you were to

21 accept this position of the Prosecution that this does not represent

22 cooperation, then that would be a signal to all further indictees that

23 voluntary surrender [as interpreted] Is not viewed upon favourably before

24 this Tribunal. All three interviews of Mr. Zaric have been admitted into

25 evidence.

1 There is a mistake here. I spoke about voluntary -- giving of

2 interview on page 6, line 20, not voluntary surrender.

3 All three interviews of Mr. Zaric with the OTP were introduced

4 into evidence and the OTP frequently used them for their own needs. What

5 shows us just how sincere Mr. Zaric was when testifying before this Trial

6 Chamber is that he confirmed fully during his testimony everything he had

7 previously said to the OTP during his interviews. The Prosecutor goes on

8 to say that Simo Zaric did not surrender his work notebooks to the

9 Tribunal and based on that they conclude that he did not cooperate. The

10 Defence would like you to know that at no time did the OTP ask Mr. Zaric

11 to turn over his notebooks, and therefore this cannot be viewed as a lack

12 of cooperation on his part.

13 Through his Defence counsel, Simo Zaric expressed his regret to

14 all victims of war for what they had suffered during the war, regardless

15 of his view that he did not contribute in any way to their suffering.

16 This Trial Chamber can be assured of sincerity of sentiments of Mr.

17 Zaric concerning suffering of all victims of war, regardless of their

18 ethnic background.

19 Your Honours, my client, Mr. Simic Zaric, stands accused here in

20 an unjust and unfounded way by the OTP. He is accused of grave crimes of

21 international criminal law. The Prosecution has charged a man who

22 throughout his life sincerely and selflessly worked on nurturing peace,

23 respect, tolerance, and love among people regardless of their ethnic,

24 religious, and racial background. The man who was indicted here is the

25 man who never hated anyone, never took revenge on anyone, was never a

1 nationalist or a chauvinist, but rather a citizen and a man who

2 contributed and was committed to the interethnic and religious tolerance.

3 The man who was indicted here is the man who didn't mind wearing folk

4 costumes of other peoples, singing their songs and playing their music,

5 advancing cultural achievements of other peoples and doing that with true

6 excitement and sincerity. The man who was indicted here is a man who

7 loved Yugoslavia and his Bosnia-Herzegovina, whose family is a miniature

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, whose wife is a Muslim, whose sisters are married to

9 Muslims and Croats, whose daughter is married to a Croat, and whose

10 stepson is a Muslim.

11 The man who stands accused here is a man who was a member of the

12 only regular and legal army and who responded to mobilisation call, thus

13 fulfilling his sacred civic duty to defend his country. The man who was

14 indicted here is a man who participating in various peace rallies was

15 contributing to preservation of peace and co-existence. He urged his

16 fellow citizens not to divide along ethnic and religious lines and he

17 asked them to all act together to preserve peace.

18 This man never accepted the existence of national parties and he

19 was never a member of any national party and he was never a member of the

20 SDS. Once war had begun, this man, sparing no effort, did everything he

21 could to help people survive the war and help people regardless of their

22 national or ethnic background, ethnic or religious background. After

23 having suffered physical mistreatment, humiliation and threats, he did

24 everything that was within his power for the people who were tortured and

25 imprisoned in the TO building in Bosanski Samac to be transferred to the

1 barracks in Brcko for their safety, bringing upon himself great danger

2 upon himself and his family by doing that.

3 This man, when he found out about the crime in Crkvina, did

4 everything that was within his power to stop such crimes from ever

5 happening again. He informed his superior officers about all the abuse,

6 all the mistreatments and all inhumane treatment perpetrated by

7 representatives of the authority and always asked for measures to be taken

8 so that this injustice and these crimes could be stopped and the

9 perpetrators punished. The man who stands indicted here is the first who

10 had courage enough to compile information on all the mistreatment,

11 looting, crimes, and unjust proceedings by the civilian governments in the

12 Serbian municipality of Samac, when it took great courage and great

13 self-sacrifice. This is the man who was the first in a public document to

14 comment on actions of members of the Serbian police and who was the first

15 man to use the term "war crimes." This was back in 1992, when no one

16 could have known that an International Criminal Tribunal for War Crimes in

17 the Territory of the former Yugoslavia would be set up. Simo Zaric stands

18 accused before you, Honourable Judges of precisely this International

19 Court. The Prosecution asks that he be pronounced guilty of grave

20 breaches of international law.

21 Your Honours, it is up to you to judge and decide whether this

22 man, Simo Zaric, has in any way committed grave crimes against humanity.

23 This man puts his trust in you and he firmly believes that after carefully

24 assessing the evidence, you will pass a decision which he has been

25 expecting for a long time, namely, that he is not guilty. Thank you.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Pisarevic.

2 It's now time for the Prosecution to reply.

3 [Prosecution Rebuttal]

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. In the

5 remaining hour that the Prosecution has to address you, many issues will

6 be covered. I hope that my submission to you this morning will be very

7 brief. The bulk of the remaining hour will be handled by Mr. Weiner and

8 Mr. Re in much the same way as we initially handled our oral submissions

9 to you. After the Defence submissions have been completed tomorrow, the

10 task of providing judgement will fall upon you, and part of that task will

11 involve an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, what parts of

12 their testimony you are going to accept, reject, and similar exercises,

13 and after over 20.000 pages of evidence and some 22 months on track, the

14 task of -- and hundreds of documents in the case, the task of assessing

15 that credibility is going to be indeed onerous for you. However, you are

16 now in a much better position to conduct that exercise and consider all of

17 the evidence of the Prosecution and Defence witnesses.

18 In the time that the Prosecution has left to it, it cannot

19 comprehensively cover every issue of credibility as it relates to every

20 controversial fact in the case and therefore I can only provide what I

21 hope are a few illustrative examples to you this morning, the sorts of

22 issues that you're going to have to deal with. The issue of credibility,

23 of course, is going to arise, with all types of witnesses in this case.

24 The expert witnesses who testified here, the witnesses of fact that might

25 refer to as the more simple witnesses of straightforward fact, and of

1 course the defendants themselves.

2 Ewa Tabeau is just such an expert witness whose credibility you

3 are going to have to assess as well as consider, of course, the substance

4 of her evidence as well. Now, the most serious of allegations have been

5 levelled against her by the Defence, by Mr. Lukic. The allegation was

6 made yesterday that she was manipulating figures. It was said yesterday:

7 "And yet during cross-examination, when this, let me say, manipulation,

8 was found out," referring to a point that was raised in cross-examination,

9 "she admits that she made a mistake and after being ordered by the Trial

10 Chamber she inserts corrections into her work," and Mr. Lukic continues.

11 So a serious allegation levelled against an expert, possibly the

12 most serious, that of manipulation of data and figures. So you are going

13 to have to assess her credibility when you come to consider that

14 particular issue.

15 How you do that, of course, is a matter for you, but in assessing

16 her credibility, you may consider it relevant to take into account her

17 readiness to revise her figures in this small regard, because it was only

18 in a small regard, and you may consider that her readiness to revise her

19 figures, which led to the production of P133A, indicates to you a person

20 whose credibility is in fact enhanced, rather than undermined by that

21 necessity to revise, in that small way, those figures.

22 When you come to assess her credibility, you may care to compare

23 her ultimate conclusion, namely, that there has been massive demographic

24 change in the areas in the territories covered by the post-Dayton

25 municipalities between 1991 and 1997, that there's been extreme

1 polarisation of the ethnic groups in those four post-Dayton

2 municipalities. With the conclusion -- you may cast that conclusion with

3 the conclusion of Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic, which is essentially that

4 there had been no change, nothing has changed. It's all as it was in 1991

5 in the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak. The sorts of difficult

6 assessments of credibility that you are going to have to make.

7 In considering the evidence of those two witnesses, assessing

8 their credibility, you are entitled, of course, to take into account all

9 the other evidence in the case. When you come to look at that particular

10 clash of evidence, you may, for example, like to consider it against the

11 backdrop of the words of Mr. Zaric himself from his book, "On The Hague

12 Cross," Exhibit P180, which itself describes massive population changes.

13 I'd like to just briefly quote from that. I ask that you bear with me

14 while I read this into the transcript, page 243 of that -- of his book.

15 He was answering questions, and he was asked about ethnic cleansing in

16 Samac. He said: "I know very well what you want me to say, so, yes,

17 there was," referring to ethnic cleansing, "but on both sides. I'm not

18 trying to establish an artificial symmetry because I don't want anyone to

19 answer for this, but as soon as it was decided that separation would be

20 ethnically based and affected by means of war, this kind of symmetry was

21 inevitable. Does it matter at all who started it or who started with a

22 little ethnic cleansing and later did a little bit more ethnic cleansing,

23 whether it was done in order to settle old accounts or because the

24 concepts chosen could not be realised otherwise? What is the right

25 measure when the criterion is, 'go away, you don't belong with us, we

1 can't make a state with you?' What was decisive in the realisation of the

2 proclaimed goals were force and the strength of arms, not anything else.

3 Was anybody made to move by referendum, agreement, or bargain? No. How

4 then did both sides end up with commissions for the exchange of the living

5 and the dead if the people did not resist this? There are, after all,

6 things in which we are not the same. Six indictments based on what

7 happened in Samac have arrived from The Hague. I believe there are secret

8 ones too. But there's not a single one for the same thing across the

9 river, and yet not one Serb remains there. How did this asymmetry of

10 responsibility and justice come about when evil was undeniable on both

11 sides? Why are the crimes committed on the other side not punished too?

12 Someone must realise if either side is allowed to go unpunished this will

13 only perpetuate bad blood in preparation for future settlings of

14 accounts." And then he said: "I want to stress if there are no Croats

15 and Muslims here, and no Serbs there, both are instances of ethnic

16 cleansing." And then he went on.

17 So consider the evidence of Dr. Radovanovic and consider the

18 evidence of Dr. Tabeau, assess their credibility, and bear in mind all the

19 other evidence in the case when you finally come to make your conclusions

20 as to which witness to accept, which witness to believe.

21 You'll also have to make assessments of credibility of the, if I

22 can describe them as such, as the ordinary witnesses in the case, the

23 straightforward witnesses of fact who describe the events. One such

24 witness in the last few days has been roundly criticised by the Defence,

25 Defence counsel, is Mr. Esad Dagovic. Mr. Lukic indeed suggested that the

1 only truthful thing that he told you was details of his own name and his

2 own date of birth. And one matter that the Defence have relied upon in

3 the last few days and pointed to in asking you to dismiss him as a witness

4 of truth is his insistence that on the day of the forcible takeover, the

5 17th, he saw Mr. Zaric and Mr. Tadic accompanied by a tank, and the issue

6 of whether it was indeed a tank was laboured to undermine his credibility.

7 You are going to have to assess his credibility.

8 When you come to consider that, you may like to consider the

9 circumstances of someone who was terrified, who had large, heavy armoured

10 vehicles rumbling around the streets, who was describing events some ten

11 years ago, and you may like to consider whether any supposed mistake over

12 such a matter of detail is going to seriously affect your assessment of

13 his credibility. So you may also like to consider why it would be that he

14 would be motivated to lie about such an issue when you come to again

15 consider his credibility.

16 You'll also have to assess the credibility of the defendants in

17 this case. That's going to be difficult. They covered a lot of ground in

18 their evidence. All three of them testified. All I can do in the time

19 that I have left to me is to ask you to look at two simple examples

20 relating to the accused Mr. Tadic, one of which was raised in submissions

21 in the last few days.

22 In the Prosecution's submission, Mr. Tadic is a witness who has

23 demonstrated a willingness to be less than frank with you, and a witness

24 who is prepared to lie over issues, both great and small, in this case. I

25 can do no better than to point to two issues which you may regard as

1 crucial in the case, and perhaps on the other hand a more peripheral

2 matter. He told you of an episode in evidence in his evidence of -- an

3 episode relating to a Crisis Staff letter that was written to the

4 patriarch in Belgrade, and that of course relates to Exhibit P82. In his

5 examination-in-chief, he made clear that that particular letter was

6 generated following his report of his conversation with the patriarch in

7 Belgrade. He came back to Bosanski Samac, mentioned his encounter with

8 the patriarch in Belgrade, Todorovic and Mitrovic were there, that

9 generated or caused the letter to come into being. And you will find that

10 evidence where he says so unequivocally at page 15357 to 358 of the

11 evidence.

12 In cross-examination, he agreed that there was absolutely no doubt

13 whatsoever, page 15687, that the encounter with Todorovic and Mr. Mitrovic

14 caused P82 come into being. But if you look at the letter, P82, you will

15 see that the letter is plainly written in response to another letter from

16 the patriarch, provides reference to an earlier letter at the top is the

17 words "your reference 1875." It's a reply. In the text of the letter it

18 starts with the words, partway down "in reference to your request for the

19 release of Friar Puskaric." It refers to -- the text of the letter says

20 finally in regard to the allegation, and it goes on to say, "your words

21 that we must be human beings."

22 So it was clearly a response to an inquiry from a previous letter

23 by the patriarch. And consider that evidence against the evidence of

24 Mr. Todorovic, who told you that in fact the letter was a response to a

25 letter by the patriarch or some call from the patriarch, and that the

1 matter was considered by the Crisis Staff as a matter of some importance.

2 You'll find that evidence at page 9155.

3 So the evidence of Mr. Tadic on this topic is both dishonest and

4 opportunistic and that is another exercise in credibility that you're

5 going to have to make.

6 Another issue relating to a major topic of his -- major topic,

7 where you will also be required to assess his credibility is the issue of

8 his participation in the forcible takeover. Yesterday, Defence counsel

9 made absolutely clear that their position was that Mr. Tadic had not been

10 involved in any meaningful way in the events following the 17th and 18th

11 and thereafter, and they -- you'll find that at page 126 of yesterday's

12 submissions of Mr. Lukic. And they relied on various witnesses,

13 Mr. Antic, Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Zaric himself. Yet if you look at those

14 witnesses, they do anything but support that assertion. Mr. Zaric, in

15 P141, pages 17 and 19, P141 ter, made it clear that Mr. Tadic was involved

16 in the seizure and collection of weapons. The same for Mr. Nikolic, page

17 18559, he was unequivocal. Mr. Antic was also unequivocal.

18 So they're the sorts of issues that you are going to have to look

19 at when assessing credibility in this case.

20 If Your Honours please, I'm about to sit down, and this is

21 probably the last occasion I shall address you before you go off to

22 consider your judgement in this case. And it's been some 22 months since

23 we became involved in this case. If Your Honours please, on behalf of the

24 Prosecution, on behalf of myself and on behalf of Mr. Weiner, Mr. Barag,

25 Mr. Re, the Prosecution thanks you for your patience in this case and for

1 listening so attentively to the evidence.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.

3 Mr. Weiner.

4 MR. WEINER: Good morning. I'm going to try and address a number

5 of issues over the next 20 minutes based on the arguments made by various

6 counsel. Defendant Simic argues that the Variant A and B document was

7 neither received nor followed in Samac. They would like you to believe

8 that the fact that certain directives were provided and that those

9 directives were implemented in Samac is nothing more than a mere

10 coincidence. The defendants would like you to believe that it's a

11 coincidence that Variant A and B directed that an assembly of the Serbian

12 people be convened and proclaimed in Samac, and that this did in fact

13 occur in Samac. See P124 at pages 2 and 4.

14 The Variant A and B directed that the assembly be comprised of SDS

15 leaders and local Serbs from municipal assemblies, and that this did in

16 fact occur in Samac, P124, pages 2, 4, and 5. That Variant A and B

17 directs that a president of the assembly be elected at that first meeting,

18 and this did in fact occur, see P124 at page 17. They would like you to

19 believe that it's just a coincidence that Variant B directs the

20 preparation -- that preparations be made to establish government bodies

21 and that this occurred in Samac, see P124 at pages 6 through 10.

22 That Variant A and B directs that at another section, a municipal

23 Executive Board be formed, and we know that this occurred in Samac, at

24 Exhibit P124, at page 12. That Variant A and B directs that preparations

25 be made for the takeover of the security service centres, and we know that

1 this occurred in Samac, at P124, page 21, and testimony of Todorovic at

2 9034 through 37.

3 They would like you to believe that it's just a coincidence that

4 Variant B directed the mobilisation of the police forces and that this

5 occurred in Samac, at P124, pages 12 and 21 through 22; testimony of

6 Todorovic, 9034 through 37; and the defendant Zaric's book P180A, pages

7 149 through 150, when he indicates on the morning of April 17th, "all of

8 these Serb police officers from other areas were running around Samac."

9 that Variant B directs that a Crisis Staff be established, and we know

10 that this occurred, although not immediately, it did occur, P124 pages 2

11 and 21.

12 And finally, Variant B directs that the SDS president be named the

13 commander of the Crisis Staff, and we know that this did occur at P124 at

14 page 21 and Exhibit P109.

15 This view, or the view that Variant B was followed in Samac is

16 also consistent with the factual basis of Biljana Plavsic, P164, paragraph

17 12, which indicates that the SDS sent written instructions to the

18 municipal SDS assemblies and that they implemented these instructions at

19 the municipal level. And in reviewing Plavsic's statement, just remember

20 that she was the highest SDS official in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time

21 that that document was issued. In paragraph 12 of Plavsic's factual basis

22 was corroborated by Defence Witness Maksim Simeunovic, who indicated that

23 these instructions were followed in Samac, at pages 16006. He concedes,

24 however, that the police were not subordinated to the JNA immediately but

25 they were in fact later subordinated to the JNA, at page 16007.

1 Witness Simeunovic also testified that Plavsic's statement was

2 consistent with the defendant Zaric's statement, which indicated that the

3 local SDS took its orders from the main SDS board and President Karadzic,

4 and that's at pages 16010, citing Zaric at P142 ter, at pages 66 through

5 67.

6 So based on this evidence, we submit that the actions of the

7 defendant Simic, the SDA, and the Serbian assembly were based on the

8 instructions and directives of the Variant A and B and did not occur as

9 they would have you believe just by coincidence.

10 Defendant Simic also attempts to transfer the blame to Todorovic,

11 saying that he had, I quote, "a fiefdom in Samac," at page 42 of July 1st

12 transcript. Todorovic, however, says that Blagoje Simic was the person

13 [Realtime transcript read in error "American"] who had the authority in

14 Samac. That's page 10230 of the transcript. An examination of the

15 record indicates that the defendant Simic was a powerful leader in Samac.

16 Let's examine certain pieces of evidence.

17 When the locals from Samac visited Belgrade in late May or early

18 June, it was the defendant Simic who contacted Simo Zaric and told him

19 that he was -- "he," meaning Zaric, would be joining them on this trip,

20 P140 ter at page 64. At that meeting in Belgrade at the air force office

21 headquarters, it was the defendant Simic and not Mr. Todorovic who spoke

22 with General Mladic on the telephone, that Zaric's testimony, 19479

23 through 80, and P140 ter at 70.

24 It was also the defendant Simic who went to Ugljevik and met with

25 Colonel Dencic concerning Colonel Djurdjevic's inability to command due to

1 his advanced age. That's Blagoje Simic's own testimony 12300 to 301. It

2 was also the defendant Simic who, with Crni and Todorovic, jointly agreed

3 that Colonel Djurdjevic should be removed from his command of the 2nd

4 Posavina Brigade. That's P127 at pages 1 and 2.

5 It was the defendant Simic who warned Colonel Novica Simic that he

6 and Crni would close the Posavina corridor if Stevan Todorovic and Milan

7 Simic were not released. That's P117 at page 3. It was the defendant

8 Simic who told Colonel Beronja that he, meaning Simic, had mobilised the

9 civilian police to close the Posavina corridor. That's at Exhibit P115 at

10 3.

11 Todorovic also states that he would take orders from the Crisis

12 Staff and from the defendant Simic. That's pages 10231 and 234.

13 Now, corroborating this point is the testimony of Mitar Mitrovic,

14 who describes responding to a letter from Patriarch Pavle concerning a

15 certain arrest. Mitrovic recalls an argument between Blagoje Simic and

16 Todorovic. Simic told Todorovic not to play games, to investigate the

17 case, and to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. Todorovic

18 responds that arms were found on this person, that he had personally

19 authorised the arrest, and that a response would -- but said a response

20 should be set and he would personally inform Simic about the case at a

21 later date.

22 Now, let's analyse this situation. Todorovic doesn't refuse to

23 discuss the matter with Simic. He doesn't say: Mr. Simic, this matter is

24 outside your jurisdiction. This is a police matter. He doesn't say that

25 Simic can't tell him what to do. What does he say? What does he do? He

1 helps draft a response and agrees to personally --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please slow down.

3 MR. WEINER: -- About the situation.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Could you please slow down, Mr. Weiner. The

5 interpreter is having a problem.

6 MR. WEINER: Sorry. Simic then approves the letter before it's

7 sent, and that's at pages 18731 to 32. As you can know from these

8 situations, Mr. Simic was a powerful figure in Samac.

9 Now, the Defence tries to claim that after Simic accidentally shot

10 himself he was not around for most of August if not the rest of the year.

11 It is our contention that this isn't supported by the record. The

12 defendant Simic was admitted to the hospital on July 24th and was released

13 in good condition, according to medical records, on August 3rd, 1992, and

14 you'll find that at D60/1, at page 7.

15 In August, the defendant Simic had a meeting with Savo Popovic and

16 Colonel Simic in Odzak. We get that from the testimony of Popovic at page

17 16294. Also on that page, Popovic tells us that Simic was there for one

18 or two other meetings in Odzak through the rest of the year.

19 On or about August 9th, the defendant Simic and paramilitary

20 leader Debeli visited Colonel Beronja in Odzak. That's at P115, at page

21 1. In the early fall, the defendant Simic; Stevan Todorovic; and

22 Milan Simic, his cousin, visited Colonel Beronja, requesting the return of

23 the paramilitaries. That's at P115 at page 1. The defendant Simic signs

24 P83 on October 2nd. From late October through mid-November 1992, the

25 defendant Simic visited Colonel Novica Simic four times. That's

1 P17 -- I'm sorry. P117 at pages 2 and 3. He signs P103 on November 6th.

2 On November 14th, Colonel Simic [sic] meets with Colonel Beronja in

3 Batkusa. P115 at page 3. The defendant signs P84 on November 23rd, P92 on

4 November 28th. According to the payroll records for the Crisis Staff,

5 which is D70/1, Simic worked all 30 days in November. And then we know

6 that he was interviewed on December 14th by military prosecutors.

7 We submit the defendant was not out of work for the second half of

8 the year.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.

10 MR. WEINER: And that this is just another attempt by him to

11 conceal the acts which he committed.

12 Counsel for Tadic argues that no witness testified that he was

13 sent to Zasavica in May 1992. We invite the court's attention however to

14 the testimony of Defence witness Pasaga Tihic at pages 18207 and 208.

15 Jelena Kapetanovic, at 8978 through 80, and Defence witness Petar Karlovic

16 at 18437 through 440. All three witnesses testify about people being sent

17 to Zasavica in May of 1992.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel wait two minutes before the

19 interpreters catch up.

20 MR. WEINER: It also mentions --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, could you wait two minutes so the

22 interpreters can catch up.

23 MR. WEINER: I apologise. I'm trying to cover a lot of issues

24 with very little time. I apologise to the Court and to the interpreters

25 and to Defence counsel.

1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Weiner. Before you begin. Just

2 two little clarifications before we pause on page 21, line 17, it says on

3 November 14th, Colonel Simic meets with Colonel Beronja in Batkusa. Is

4 that what you said?

5 MR. WEINER: No. That would be the defendant Simic meets with

6 Colonel Beronja in Batkusa.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you. And one other one, just very briefly

8 I'll just scroll up to it here. This is page 19, lines 4 and 5 Todorovic

9 however says that Blagoje Simic was the American who had the authority in

10 Samac. So I think maybe we should clarify that one as well.

11 MR. WEINER: It was once again I apologise. I'm speaking quickly

12 to cover many issues. Todorovic said it was the defendant Simic who had

13 the authority in Samac at those pages. And I just want to also reiterate.

14 When we refer to the Plavsic plea agreement, we were speaking in terms of

15 a witness adopting a certain section of that testimony, of that

16 information in that agreement, that specific paragraph, paragraph 12.

17 Counsel for Tadic mentions several exhibits and asks us to

18 consider them. These exhibits, they claim -- these exhibits, it is our

19 contention, add great weight to the Prosecution's case. For example,

20 D113/3 is a request by civilian protection to the executive committee for

21 a large quantity of glass. Who do you think is going to install the glass

22 window panes in these homes? Ljubomir Vukovic tells us that it's the

23 labourers that they got from Beg Kapetanovic. Those were the people who

24 were standing outside, because we know that the people that

25 Beg Kapetanovic controlled and Dzevad Celic controlled were those people,

1 the Muslims and Croats, who lined up every day and waited outside for

2 their forced labour assignments.

3 The other documents that they mention, we like to point out to the

4 Court, also demonstrate the relationships or the links or ties between the

5 municipal Ministry of Defence and the municipality. D112/1 is a letter

6 between the executive committee and the Ministry of Defence, is a document

7 between those. D131/1, between the secretary of housing and the Ministry

8 of Defence. In fact, D92/1, which they refer to, the executive committee

9 tells the secretariat of economy to implement the harvest programme, "in

10 cooperation and coordination" with the Ministry of Defence. As the

11 Prosecutor has stated that these documents show that government agencies

12 in Samac were all part of one large system, and sadly, it was this system

13 which was used to persecute the Muslims, or the Muslims and Croats, or the

14 non-Serb community in Samac.

15 Finally, I would just like to direct the Court's attention to

16 P128, which was a document from the Prime Minister, setting the

17 requirements or providing instructions to the Crisis Staff. They

18 instructed the Crisis Staff to prevent looting and war profiteering. It

19 failed. To provide safety for the population and for property. It

20 failed. To treat the non-fighting population humanely. It failed. To

21 treat prisoners of war humanely. It failed. To prevent disturbances of

22 commercial and economic activity. It failed with regard to non-Serb

23 businesses. These directives were not followed, and I suggest to the

24 Court the only reason the directives of the Prime Minister were not

25 followed is that it was done purposely and it was done with an intent to

1 persecute the non-Serbs of Samac.

2 I thank the Court for its attention and once again apologise for

3 speaking so quickly.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.

5 Yes, Mr. Re.

6 MR. RE: Your Honour, there are several issues which I will

7 address in my part of the outline in the remaining 25 minutes, keeping my

8 eye on the clock. The first one which I turn to is the issue of joint

9 criminal enterprise, and the submissions which the Defence have made in

10 relation to the Prosecution's outlining of its joint criminal enterprise

11 case. Joint criminal enterprise is, of course, only pleading terminology.

12 It is not contrary to Mr. Pantelic's understanding, it seems, from his

13 submissions, a charge. It is merely a mode of liability. Mr. Pantelic

14 also seems to be under the misapprehension that the Prosecution has

15 suggested that the SDS is a "joint criminal enterprise." That is simply

16 not so. The Prosecution has never alleged and would not and could not

17 allege that the SDS is a joint criminal enterprise, and the Prosecution,

18 of course, has not alleged and would not and could not allege that the SDS

19 was an illegal organisation. The Prosecution has simply alleged all the

20 way through the trial, from day one, that the SDS and other people, or

21 members of the SDS, participated in a common purpose design or joint

22 criminal enterprise to ethnically cleanse Bosnia or parts of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina of non-Serbs.

24 The phrase "joint criminal enterprise" in Tribunal jurisprudence

25 first emerged in the Tadic Appeals Chamber decision of the 22nd of July,

1 1999. Judge Hunt, in his separate opinion in the Ojdanic case, which I

2 and Mr. Pantelic referred to, on the 21st of May this year, collected

3 together all the various terms used by the Tadic Appeals Chamber to

4 describe exactly the same thing. These were common criminal plan, common

5 criminal purpose, common design or purpose, common criminal design, common

6 purpose, and finally, common concerted design.

7 It is, of course, very important to note the evolution of the term

8 in the Tadic case. The Tadic indictment did not use any of those terms

9 which the Tadic Appeals Chamber used in formulating the parameters of a

10 joint criminal enterprise or a common design. The Tadic case, as Your

11 Honours are, of course, aware, concerned the participation of Dusko Tadic

12 in, amongst other criminal acts, the horrors of the Omarska concentration

13 camp. The indictment in that case referred to his participation in,

14 paragraph 6.1 refers to a group of Serbs, including Tadic, committed a

15 variety of crimes, including beating someone to death. Paragraph 8.4

16 refers to Tadic and one Dusan Knezevic participating in subjecting Omarska

17 prisoners to inhumane treatment. It refers to armed groups of Serbs,

18 including Tadic, entering a village and committing various atrocities. It

19 does not mention acting in concert or common purpose or any of the other

20 terms I just referred to from His Honour Judge Hunt's judgement. But he

21 was convicted of his participation in those crimes committed with other

22 Serbs. And the Prosecution appealed one of the Trial Chamber's findings

23 in relation to an acquittal, and the Appeals Chamber held, at paragraphs

24 231, the relevant portions of paragraphs 230 to 234, but at 231, the

25 Appeals Chamber held that the appellant actively took part in a common

1 criminal purpose to rid the Prijedor region of its non-Serb population. I

2 use this as an example of an indictment which did not mention common

3 criminal design, purpose, or any of those other terms but which the

4 appellant was convicted ultimately by the Appeals Chamber of his

5 participation in such a design.

6 Now, of course, the purpose of an indictment is to set out the

7 charges and to provide the accused with proper notice of the offences with

8 which he or she is charged. The Prosecution has never alleged in this

9 particular case anything other than a common criminal design, purpose, or

10 enterprise, from the very first moment. I refer Your Honours specifically

11 to the indictment as charged. The indictment has charged the three

12 accused with acting in concert, together, and with other Serb civilian and

13 military officials, with committing persecutions, and setting out

14 underlying acts. Now, the Prosecution has never alleged in the

15 indictment, in its pre-trial brief, in its opening, in its evidence, that

16 each of the accused were involved in committing each of the underlying

17 acts, but it alleges, paragraphs 11 and 12, that they are responsible for

18 persecutions through the manner of their commission. That is in paragraph

19 12 of the indictment.

20 The indictment specifically at paragraph 33 - sorry. I withdraw

21 that. If you go to paragraphs 24, it sets out the role of the SDS and the

22 plans of the SDS and JNA to establish Serb control over large segments of

23 territory, in order to control -- achieve control over this territory, the

24 Bosnian Serbs planned to isolate and expel as many non-Serb as possible,

25 in a process that became known as "ethnic cleansing."

1 If you go to paragraph -- there are more allegations, additional

2 facts pleaded. The case is pleaded properly against the accused, and

3 paragraph 33 it sets out their liability when acting together. What are

4 they acting together pursuant to? What could it be other than the plan

5 which the Prosecution has outlined ten paragraphs earlier? Paragraph 33,

6 from approximately 1 September 1991 to 31 December 1993, "Simic Tadic and

7 Zaric, acting in concert together and with various individuals on the Serb

8 Crisis Staff," et cetera, a campaign -- instigated, et cetera, "planned,

9 otherwise aided and abetted a campaign of persecutions for the common

10 purpose." Common purpose of ridding [sic] Bosanski Samac and Odzak.

11 Common purpose is pleaded quite clearly in the indictment, Your Honours,

12 and in accordance with the Tadic decision.

13 The Prosecution of course further set it out in its pre-trial

14 brief and I refer Your Honours specifically to paragraphs 13 and 35, where

15 in the pre-trial brief it says that "the Prosecution will also prove that

16 Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric, in their private and official capacities,

17 planned, instigated, ordered and committed, as with Blagoje Simic, the

18 evidence will show that these other two participated in the planning," et

19 cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

20 The Prosecution specifically opened on this very issue. I refer

21 Your Honours specifically to pages 925, 927, and 930 of the transcript,

22 referring to the -- the second page of Mr. Di Fazio's opening was: "the

23 Prosecution contends that each of these defendants acted in concert

24 together and with other Serb civilian and military officials," et cetera,

25 et cetera, et cetera, "in the execution of crimes which ultimately

1 resulted in the successful ethnic cleansing of Bosanski Samac."

2 The Defence has alleged, and Mr. Pantelic in particular in his

3 submissions, that the Prosecution -- sorry - the Prosecution's pleading

4 has denied them somehow a fair trial because they did not understand the

5 nature of the allegations against them. The Prosecution's answer to this

6 in one word is nonsense. What could Defence counsel possibly have been

7 thinking when they saw the indictment for the first time, with these

8 allegations of a common purpose, their clients acting in concert with

9 others to perpetrate ethnic cleansing as set out in the indictment, and

10 knowing, of course, as they would have, the parameters of the Tadic

11 appeals decision. It's been clear from day one exactly what they've been

12 charged with, and that's why the Prosecution is completely mystified by

13 the approach of Defence counsel to -- Defence counsel of Dr. Simic, when

14 asked by Her Honour Judge Williams: "what do you say the words 'acting in

15 concert' means?" his response was: "The words 'acting in concert' mean

16 nothing to me."

17 And went on to say that the wording of the indictment was

18 absolutely vague and imprecise.

19 Well, if the wording of the indictment was so vague and imprecise

20 that the accused had no idea what charges they were facing, the Rules

21 provide that they have 30 days from the filing of an indictment to bring

22 such a challenge. Five indictments have been filed. One as recently as

23 May last year. And as you know, we're still awaiting this challenge,

24 which appears to have been made in the closing submissions. The

25 defendants know -- the accused know exactly what charges they faced. They

1 have responded with their own evidence. It's so clear from the evidence

2 they've led, to which one can only say that this is a ruse, a smoke screen

3 designed to divert Your Honours from the evidence itself and the strength

4 of the evidence against the accused. The question you have to ask is:

5 What prejudice is there to the accused? And the answer is absolutely

6 none. The Prosecution reiterates it's simply a change in terminology

7 which is now favoured by the Tribunal itself.

8 Second issue I turn to is Crkvina. The appellants -- I'm sorry,

9 the accused also seem to suggest in their submissions that the Crkvina

10 killings were charged as a crime, as a foreseeable consequence of the

11 ethnic cleansing. They weren't, they never have been. They're not in the

12 underlying acts. The Prosecution has never alleged that they are. There

13 is no evidence and we do not suggest that the paramilitaries -- that when

14 Blagoje Simic brought the paramilitaries to Bosanski Samac, that that

15 massacre was within the reasonable or foreseeable contemplation of him.

16 It is simply used as evidence of what the paramilitaries did and to show

17 the extent of the campaign or the extent of what happened at Bosanski

18 Samac.

19 Another issue Mr. Pantelic raised was the recognition of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina as we have already submitted we -- the Prosecution

21 regards these issues as completely irrelevant. However, there's one

22 matter I direct Your Honours attention to, that is the quotation from

23 Shaw's international law at page 125 paragraph 4 --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.

25 MR. RE: -- 460 of -- I'm slowing down.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Slow down, Mr. Re, please.

2 MR. RE: Of Mr. Pantelic's submissions, where he doesn't say -- he

3 misses the next part of the quote, which is: "On the other hand, it could

4 be argued that in the special circumstances of the former Yugoslavia, the

5 international community, particularly by means of membership of the UN

6 which is restricted to states was prepared to accept a loosening of the

7 additional criteria of statehood, essentially international recognition

8 compensated for lack of effectivity."

9 Mr. Pantelic also referred to the Badinter commission, opinion

10 number 2, which is P148, in saying that somehow Dayton annulled this.

11 That is simply incorrect. I just direct Your Honours -- refer Your

12 Honours to paragraph 2 of P148.

13 The issue of international armed conflict was also raised by

14 Defence counsel. I refer Your Honours to paragraph 85 of the joint

15 statement of matters not in dispute, that a conflict was occurring at the

16 relevant time. I've already invited Your Honours to take judicial notice

17 of decision of the Appeals Chamber as to the overall control of the

18 various feuding parties. I refer Your Honours to our pre-trial brief,

19 where we specifically -- paragraph 54 refer to the findings of the

20 Celebici and Tadic trials and relied upon them, as I do in the closing

21 arguments. Both of those judgements have since been affirmed on appeal,

22 although Tadic overturned the Trial Chamber's test.

23 The Prosecution's submission is the VRS was clearly under the

24 overall control of the FRY armed forces, as found in Celebici and the

25 Tadic judgement. These matters just do not require any relitigation.

1 They have been found so many times in this Tribunal that it is a complete

2 waste of the international community's resources to raise them over and

3 over again.

4 Mr. Zaric raised the issue that the JNA had not participated in

5 the overthrow of any government or any municipal governments. The

6 Prosecution refers you to the judgement of the Tadic Trial Chamber at

7 paragraph 125, referring to takeovers by the JNA and Serb -- I'm sorry -

8 Serb forces in Bosanski Brod -- I'm sorry, between March and May 1992 in

9 Bosanski Brod, Derventa, Bijeljina, Kupres, Foca, Zvornik, Visegrad,

10 Bosanski Samac, Vlasenica, Brcko, and Prijedor.

11 We also refer you to the Jelisic trial judgement in the takeover

12 of Brcko in its findings at paragraph 19 on the 1st of May, 1992; the

13 Kvocka trial judgement, paragraph 12, and its findings in relation to the

14 takeover of Prijedor on the 30th of April, 1992; and the Kunarac

15 judgement, Trial Chamber judgement, regarding the takeover of Foca. And

16 we specifically refer you there to paragraphs 12 and 22, and 567, and if

17 necessary, invite you to take judicial notice in relation to those

18 takeovers in response to Mr. Pisarevic's submission.

19 Mr. Pisarevic in his submissions also referred to the role of the

20 JNA in its collaboration, the collaboration between the Serb officials and

21 the JNA. We simply refer Your Honours to Mr. Zaric's own book, P180A. He

22 was certainly in a position to know, as a JNA official, and what he said

23 at page 156 in relation to what would have happened in a Muslim takeover,

24 and he says: "The JNA would have interfered and we would have joined

25 forces in liberating the town," amongst other things.

1 The assessment of the threat, I refer Your Honours to scrutinise

2 carefully, in the light of the accused's submission that the town of

3 Bosanski Samac was facing an imminent threat of attack from Croat forces,

4 Jovo Savic's evidence at page 17175 to 6 and 17180, in relation to the

5 4thDetachment's assessment of five or six patrols of mixed composition.

6 And of course, Mr. Antic, the then commander's assessment at page 16826,

7 saying: "at the command, we were convinced that there would be no surprise

8 attack against Samac."

9 Dr. Simic also submitted through his counsel that there was

10 no -- he had no influence on the military. The Prosecution points you to

11 the following pieces of evidence which do point to his involvement and

12 influence over the military; that is, the replacement -- the primary piece

13 of evidence is his role in the replacement of Colonel Djurdjevic and

14 Dr. Simic's role in replacing him with one of the paramilitary

15 psychopathic thugs Simic himself brought to Bosanski Samac from Frenki

16 Simatovic in Belgrade with the man called Crni. That evidence is

17 Simeunovic's evidence at 15911 to 6, Savic at 17065 to 79, and Zaric

18 himself at 19453. The Prosecution says there is no reason why you should

19 disbelieve any of those three witnesses who attended the meeting and

20 testified as to Dr. Simic's participation. And, of course, as Mr. Weiner

21 has addressed you, the trip to Belgrade Zaric talked about at 19476 to 81

22 the conversation with no less than General Mladic in relation to the

23 appointment of Crni, the psychopathic paramilitary thug and the own

24 assessment P127 the 13 signatories of the role or of Dr. Simic's

25 interference.

1 I turn to the isolation document, P71 --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, can you please slow down for the

4 interpreters.

5 MR. RE: I will do, Your Honour.

6 P71 is the isolation document. It's important in relation to

7 Zaric's involvement. The number of the document is important. It's

8 number 95-10/92. Crisis Staff documents were numbered sequentially.

9 Mr. Simic -- Dr. Simic appears to be suggesting that it's forged. We say

10 Mirko Lukic provided the Prosecution with the great bulk of Crisis Staff

11 documents. If it is a forged document, where is the real 95-10/92? And

12 if Mr. Zaric's role in interrogation was -- as chief of national security

13 was as slight as he alleges, what was he doing in the police station after

14 the 15th of May and seeing that document in three separate offices? That

15 is Milos Savic's, Sarkanovic's, and Todorovic's.

16 Mr. Tadic submitted that he had cooperated with the Tribunal

17 somehow. The Prosecution responds to Mr. Lukic's submission by saying

18 Rule 101B says that the Trial Chamber must consider any mitigating

19 circumstances including the substantial cooperation with the Prosecutor by

20 the convicted person before or after conviction. Substantial cooperation

21 before or after conviction. The most they can say is we -- we made a

22 statement to the Prosecutor. The Prosecution's

23 response to this is attempting to convince the Prosecution after

24 indictment of your own innocence is not cooperation with the Prosecution.

25 It is simply self-serving.

1 Mr. Pisarevic made a submission this morning about Mr. Zaric --

2 Mr. Zaric's cooperation. The Prosecution's submission holds in relation

3 to that. We add one other thing. Mr. Pisarevic said that the Prosecution

4 has never attempted to speak to Mr. Zaric. Mr. Pisarevic knows that what

5 he says is patently untrue. As recently as last month [sic], May, after

6 he had given his evidence, the Prosecution attempted to speak to Mr. Zaric

7 through Mr. Lazarevic. Mr. Pisarevic knows that. He should not have made

8 that submission.

9 In relation to Mr. Zaric's book, Mr. Pisarevic says that the book

10 has some inaccuracies. Well, wouldn't it be good to know what those

11 inaccuracies are? Mr. Zaric gave, I think, ten days of testimony in this

12 Court. He had the complete opportunity to go through the book and to

13 point out any inaccuracies. The Prosecution -- he didn't. The

14 Prosecution submits the reason why he didn't is because he cannot. The

15 Prosecution says that this book is one of the largest confessions in legal

16 history outlining the extent of his participation or minimising it in some

17 respects in the joint criminal enterprise. The only reasonable inference

18 available from that book and the fact that he did not tell us, tell the

19 Trial Chamber, what was inaccurate, is that everything in that book which

20 is against his interest is true and reliable, especially in light of his

21 evidence of the detailed -- of his detailed notetaking and assiduous

22 recording of everything that happened in Bosanski Samac during the war.

23 If Your Honours look at the detail in the book, it could only have been

24 made from notes from someone's own diaries.

25 Finally, the Prosecution makes the submission, the only conclusion

1 the Prosecution says that the Trial Chamber can come to in the light of

2 the overwhelming evidence against all of the three accused and their

3 participation in it and their knowledge, which is the only inference

4 available from the totality of the evidence against all three of them is

5 that each of them are guilty as charged in the indictment of the three

6 serious violations of international humanitarian law and they should be

7 found guilty. Those are the Prosecution's submissions, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Re.

9 We have come to the end of today's session. We will continue

10 tomorrow at 9.00 for the replies from the Defence. The Court will rise.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.23 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day of

13 July 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25