1 Thursday, 16 May 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.
7 Good morning, everybody. Could the case please be called.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The appearances, please.
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Nicholas Koumjian -- good morning, Your Honours.
12 Nicholas Koumjian and Ann Sutherland with Ruth Karper, case manager, for
13 the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Defence.
15 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and Mr. John
16 Ostojic for the Defence.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Without further ado, let's continue with
18 relevant questions from the OTP.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Prosecution has no further
20 questions of the witness.
21 WITNESS: MINKA CEHAJIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The transcripts of yesterday, last page, read in
24 another way, but sleeping over the night, one can always come to better
25 conclusions, no doubt.
1 Questioned by the Court:
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dr. Cehajic, we have several questions just for
3 clarification, please. The first one is a more general. Yesterday, you
4 were confronted with a long list of names, a list of employees whose
5 employment has been terminated, a list of 113. You can't understand?
6 THE WITNESS: Translator. English [Interpretation] Now I can hear
7 you. A moment ago, I was just hearing English.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you understand now?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry for this, please.
11 Yesterday, you were confronted with a long list of names, a list
12 of employees whose employment has been terminated, a list of 114 persons.
13 And you identified, I would say probably -- correct me if I am wrong -- by
14 name, by the fact that you know the one or other persons to which
15 nationality, to which ethnicity the persons belong. It is correct that in
16 the past, you had been active in politics. Right?
17 A. Yes, but in an amateur way. Not professionally.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: During that time, or in the framework of your
19 work for the hospital, have you ever been confronted with a similar list
20 of names of people working, for example, in the hospital?
21 A. You're referring to the period from the 30th of April, 1992? Was
22 that your question, Your Honour, whether I saw such a list at work?
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]... The former
24 period, before the 30th of April.
25 A. No, no, I did not. There was never such a list. There were never
1 such cases of termination of employment, just some individual cases having
2 to do with administrative matters, the expiration of contract or something
3 similar. It was possible for a person to become surplus or so.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever make such a distinction as you made
5 yesterday, asked by the OTP on the basis of this document whether people
6 is a Croat, Muslim, Serb, Bosniak, or whatever? Did you make such
8 A. I didn't, and I had a feeling that that was the case with other
9 people as well during that period of time. I was not even aware of the
10 percentage of Croats, Serbs, or Muslims working at the hospital. It was
11 not the subject of my interest in any way. It didn't seem to be
12 information that was important in any way. We had normal communication
13 amongst ourselves. I had normal contact with everybody else, and I
14 thought that other people had this normal attitude towards me. I think of
15 that period of time as the best period in my life, best period of my life.
16 I don't think that people were obsessed with the issue of ethnic
17 background at all.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. But before leaving the list before
19 us, yesterday, on the basis of a question of the OTP, you especially
20 referred to number 111, Zec Dubravka. And I would ask the usher to put
21 Document 65 ter number 625 on the ELMO, please.
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, could I make a suggestion or a
23 request, that we mark these exhibits before the witness discusses them. I
24 think when all of us come to the point where we're writing either for our
25 submissions at the end of the case or Your Honour's judgement and we're
1 trying to find where a document is referred to in the transcript --
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, of course. I asked you yesterday whether
3 or not you want to tender. You said no, and therefore this document will
4 of course be marked J1.
5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever seen this document?
7 A. No, I haven't. I saw it here for the first time. Never in the
8 past had I seen such a document.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please be so kind and read out this
11 A. Working organisation --
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Probably it's easier when you have the document
13 before you.
14 A. "Working organisation, medical centre, Dr. Mladen Stojanovic,
15 Prijedor, OOURRZ, general hospital Prijedor. Number 02-674/3, dated 25th
16 of May, 1992. Pursuant to Article 75, paragraph 2, item 3 on the law on
17 basic employment rights and in connection with the conclusions with the
18 Prijedor municipality Crisis Staff, number 02-111-132/92 of the 5th of
19 June, 1992, I hereby adopt this decision on the termination of employment
20 of Dr. Dubravka, Zec, occupying the post of resident in the organisational
21 unit of biochemical laboratory is hereby terminated as of the 25th of May,
22 1992, because of unaccused absence during work obligation. All employment
23 rights of the above named shall be discontinued on the date when
24 employment is terminated. Explanation: Due to the general mobilisation
25 that was announced on the territory of the Autonomous Region of Krajina,
1 work obligation has been introduced to the Dr. Mladen Stojanovic medical
2 centre RO in Prijedor. It applies to all employees and has been in effect
3 since the 25th of May, 1992. At its session held on the 5th of June,
4 1992, the Prijedor Crisis Staff adopted the conclusion whereby all OOUR
5 managing directors shall terminate the employment of all workers who
6 failed to respond to the work obligation. According to Article 75,
7 paragraph 2, item 3 of the law on basic employment rights, termination of
8 employment ensues without consulting the employee if the employee has been
9 absent from work without excuse for five working days. As the above-named
10 employee has not responded to the work obligation within the given period
11 of time, the above-mentioned conditions for the adoption of the decision
12 of the termination of employment have been met. Legal remedy: Employee
13 has the right to appeal to the OOUR workers' council within 15 days of the
14 receipt of this decision. Copies: Above-mentioned, acting OOURRZ managing
15 director, personnel department, claims department, files. Acting OOURRZ
16 managing director, Dr. Radojka Elenkov, internist, internal medicine
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever seen before the signature --
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Excuse me, Your Honour, if I could just make a
20 correction. You referred to the document as P625 when in fact it's P476
21 of the Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you for this clarification.
23 Have you ever seen before the signature of this person, Dr.
24 Radojka Elenkov?
25 A. I may have, but I don't remember whether this is indeed her
1 signature. She was a colleague of mine. We worked together, but you know
2 doctors' handwritings are sometimes difficult to decipher. I don't
3 exactly remember what her signature looked like.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yesterday, you said that this person, Zec
5 Dubravka, was a Croat. Correct?
6 A. Yes. I know that because --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, continue.
8 A. -- She is a native of Prijedor, and she comes from a local
9 Prijedor family, family that has lived in Prijedor for many years. So I
10 know for sure that she is a Croat.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you discuss this dismissal with Zec Dubravka
12 or Dr. Elenkov?
13 A. No, no, I never had an opportunity to discuss this either with Dr.
14 Elenkov or anyone else, because at this time, or at the 25th of May, I was
15 not there. I mean, I would have -- could have signed this document or Dr.
16 Tesinic. I was supposed to sign this document if this, indeed, happened
17 on the 25th of May. It should have been me who signed this document but I
18 never saw this document, nor did I sign it, of course.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why do you say "it should have been me"?
20 A. Because this was part of my function. The authority to sign such
21 a document was vested with the director. The director at the time was Dr.
22 Tesinic. When he was absent, I had the authority to sign such documents.
23 I would just make a note, "for director," and then sign my name
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. To come to
1 another topic, yesterday during the cross-examination, you mentioned more
2 or less spontaneously on page 78, line 7 and following, that you have been
3 on duty the 22nd of May. You said: "I was" -- I quote line 10 -- "I was
4 at the hospital, and I came to the surgery where I was present. I went
5 where some reporters, journalists from Radio Prijedor were shooting on a
6 videocassette conversation with people who were in the vehicle that later
7 took place at the incident in at Hambarine."
8 Here it's quoted. I have this as witness. I quote from the
9 transcript: "Something would happen to me. I was scared that night
10 because I heard what this young man had said -- actually two young men
11 were in the surgery who were slightly hurt, and the third man was also
12 hurt much more. I didn't see him." Did you ever hear anything more about
13 the background of this incident, about the injuries of the three persons?
14 A. Officially, no. It was impossible for me to learn about the
15 truth. But the story went around that the three young men -- the three
16 young men had been killed. However, I saw two of them. One of them
17 spoke, and this is what I heard. And I realised that this young man was
18 able to speak normally. He was probably wounded but I didn't examine him
19 or anything, nor did I investigate the -- inquire about the issue. But as
20 I was already in a very uncomfortable situation, I went back. But I was
21 witness to what was -- to the stories that were going around at the time.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Do you know, by chance, when the three
23 persons were able to leave the hospital, or did they ever leave the
24 hospital? I don't know.
25 A. I don't know. I could no longer inquire about this event. And it
1 happened on the night of the 22nd. The next morning, I left home. It was
2 on the 23rd. Therefore, I was off duty on Saturday and Sunday. I worked
3 on Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday at about 10.00, I left the
4 hospital and I never returned.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again to return to another topic, during
6 the cross-examination, page 33, line 14, you mentioned a document, and you
7 said: "And the document was dated the 18th of August in which it is
8 written that my husband and some other men, some other persons, had been
9 turned to the military court and that he was no longer under the authority
10 of that particular court. This document was signed by..." and then it was
11 not possible to follow. You mentioned a name. Could you please repeat
12 and spell the name of this person. The document was signed by whom,
14 A. Zivko Dragosavljevic, who is a judge, who now lives in Prijedor.
15 I think that he's the president of the local Court there, but he still
16 works as a judge.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever discuss this issue with this judge
18 later on?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever heard something about a case
21 established against your husband, any kind of indictment or whatsoever?
22 A. No, I haven't. For me, it was impossible to get access to any
23 such documents officially. Nobody officially informed me of anything, so
24 I don't know whether there was any indictment at all. Those were not
25 normal times. In a normal society, persons suspected of having done
1 something wrong must be properly accused, charged with the criminal
2 offence and officially indicted. But those were not, as I said, the
3 normal times, and it was not possible to prove either guilt or innocence.
4 There was nothing that I could do about my husband, and my husband didn't
5 stand any chance.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think all persons present in this courtroom
7 know about these problems.
8 You mentioned, in addition, that you have this document, not here
9 but at home. Is this correct?
10 A. Yes, it is. This is a copy of the original document. I was given
11 this by a lawyer who currently resides in Prijedor. He told me that he
12 was supposed to be his lawyer ex officio, and I made contact with him. In
13 August, I kept inquiring about the whereabouts of my husband, and he was
14 the one who told me that he had received the information to the effect
15 that he was no longer there. And he was the one who gave me the copy of
16 this document, and I've kept it.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Could you please be so kind and
18 provide the Tribunal with a copy of this copy and send it -- I think it's
19 the most appropriate way, if the parties so agree, to the Office of the
20 Prosecutor. Please make the --
21 A. Yes, I can do that.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- Necessary arrangements. Thank you.
23 Thank you, these were my additional questions. Then, please,
24 Judge Vassylenko.
25 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Dr. Cehajic, as far as I understand from your
1 statements made in August of 1997 and yesterday, your husband was arrested
2 by the police, and he was detained in the camp, guarded by the military.
3 You were summoned for interrogations by the militaries. Soldiers were put
4 on guard outside your apartment. Soldiers and policemen searched your
5 apartment. Soldiers confiscated your car, and you were advised to request
6 an official confirmation about the confiscation from the military barracks
7 in Urije. Nevertheless, after the arrest and detention of your husband,
8 you, for several times, tried to reach Dr. Kovacevic and Dr. Stakic, and
9 not the police chief or military command. Why? Can you explain it?
10 A. The mayor was the person in that town who was supposed to care
11 about each of the citizens. That was the first explanation, and I thought
12 they had worked together. And the third was that he ought to know what
13 had happened with his predecessor. And also, they took over the
14 authority, and the person who had authority also was in charge of the
15 police and of the military. So it was all connected, who was giving
16 orders and who was listening to -- obeying the orders. So it was a
17 community which had to function in such a way, because it was not possible
18 that it functioned differently. I thought that they had the authority,
19 and that's why I thought that they would be able to help me. This was my
20 initial idea.
21 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And what do you think why all your attempts to
22 reach Dr. Stakic and Mr. Kovacevic failed?
23 A. I think it was arranged in such a way and that it wasn't possible
24 for me to achieve anything. Even if I had gotten to -- reached him, they
25 wouldn't have helped me, so it was better to prevent someone to come to
1 you. This is how I think. Maybe that was not the case. Maybe Dr. Stakic
2 doesn't even know that I looked for him and wanted to see him. But this
3 could have been the arrangement that -- for everyone as well as for me
4 that they didn't want to do it.
5 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: How do you explain the fact that Dr. Stakic
6 denied the existence of the Omarska camp?
7 A. I was surprised at that moment, even while I was in the shock
8 because of the war. But I'm not any more because of you have to use all
9 the mechanisms to be able to live normally, and I thought "how is it
10 possible that he says to people that it didn't exist"? Not others, not
11 non-Serbs, but his people knew that there was the Omarska camp, and that
12 he knew and they knew. So now he said that there was no Omarska camp. So
13 at that point, that was the only possible way how to explain it.
14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: You were interrogated in Prijedor army barracks
15 and in Keraterm camp. Who were the interrogators? Were they military or
16 civilian or paramilitary or policemen?
17 A. In the barracks, I said that they actually took me in. Nobody
18 interrogated me there. The person who took me to the -- for the
19 interrogation, he just brought me there, and he took me among all those
20 soldiers, and then he took me back to the car and drove me to the Keraterm
21 premises where a man who was a civilian interrogated me. He was a
22 civilian. And there was no uniform. He was not wearing uniform or any
24 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: I have no more questions. [No Interpretation]
25 Dr. Cehajic.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we finally conclude, I think this
2 important part of your life would not be complete without touching upon a
3 decision on the termination of employment. Could the usher please put
4 this document first on the ELMO, that we all can see what it's about, and
5 then I would ask you to read out this document.
6 This was 65 ter Document Number?
7 MR. KOUMJIAN: 625. And we have an extra copy if Your Honour
8 would like to --
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's fine. 625. And we treat it from now on as
11 A. "The medical centre, Dr. Mladen Stojanovic in Prijedor. Number
12 02804/135. Date: The 7th of October, 1992. Pursuant to Article 75, the
13 statute item 3 of the law on the basic rights of employment in the SFRY,
14 and Article 125, paragraph 2 of the rules on employment in the Prijedor
15 general hospital basic organisation of associated labour, the acting
16 director issues the following decision: On termination of employment:
17 This is to confirm that the employment of Dr. Minka Cehajic in the
18 Prijedor general hospital ended on the 18 September, 1992." It is
19 probably September the 18th, 1992. "Due to an unjustified absence from
20 work of five consecutive working days.
21 "Reasons: Following a public announcement in the Kozarski Vjesnik
22 on the 11th of September, 1992, all workers who were put on standby were
23 to report at work on the 18th of September, 1992 in order to be
24 registered. The above-mentioned employee failed to report for work on the
25 given date, thereby fulfilling the legal conditions for termination of
1 employment on the basis of an unjustified absence from work of five
2 working days -- consecutive working days pursuant to Article 75, paragraph
3 1, item 3 of the law on the basic rights of employment in the SFRY.
4 "Based on these reasons, it was decided as in the above decision.
5 "Legal remedy: Worker who is not satisfied with this decision has
6 the right to appeal to the administration board of the work organisation
7 within 15 days of the day of receipt.
8 "The acting director, the above-named, claims office, personnel,
9 files, and the director who signed, acting director, Ranko Sikman, health
10 organisation engineer."
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dr. Cehajic, when did you receive this document?
12 A. I have never received this document. This is the first time that
13 I have seen it.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Could you please finally --
15 A. Let me explain. My workbook, I was looking for it two years ago
16 in Prijedor. I do go to Prijedor, but at that time I didn't go very
17 often, and I asked some people that an employee gave me. So they did give
18 me my workbook in which it is written that my employment ceased to exist
19 on the 1st of September, 1992. And here, it says that it was much later.
20 So this is the only thing that I have in my workbook on the termination of
21 my employment.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]... Someone
23 later meet this Ranko Sikman who signed this document before you?
24 A. No. I had known him before that, because he used to work in the
25 laboratory. And I know that he became the director of the work
1 organisation of the medical centre Dr. Mladen Stojanovic at that time.
2 But ever since, I have not seen him.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any other questions?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Just one, Your Honour.
5 Further examined by Ms. Sutherland:
6 Q. Dr. Cehajic, do you have J1 in front of you, the document in
7 relation to Dr. Dubravka, Zec?
8 A. No, I don't.
9 Q. That document states that the person that's referred to in that
10 document, their work will be terminated because they haven't responded to
11 the work obligation. Do you know whether Dr. Zec was at work during the
12 end of May, the 25th of May?
13 A. I've just remembered that she was, but I only think because of
14 what is written here that she at that time was not in the laboratory in
15 Prijedor, that she was on specialisation. Where could she have been? In
16 Belgrade, Zagreb, or Sarajevo at that time, because that was the way of
17 education. We were a general hospital in which if anybody had to have
18 some additional education, they had to go to a larger institution in order
19 to do that. I went. Everybody else went. And I suppose that at that
20 time, she was there. And this was the working period. She was paid
21 during that time, but she was only -- I suppose she was in Zagreb at the
22 hospital, maybe even in Belgrade. She worked there, and she was paid for
23 that every month.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I do have a couple.
2 Further cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:
3 Q. Doctor, good morning again. With respect to exhibit J1 that you
4 have in front of you, under paragraph number 1, under decisions, it
5 actually has the word "radno mjesto" which identifies the workplace of
6 this particular doctor. Correct? Second line under paragraph number 1.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In fact, if the doctor that is mentioned here in this exhibit J1
9 would have been working in the Prijedor hospital, they would have listed
10 that as the place of employment for the doctor. Correct?
11 A. She was employed with the hospital. And if at that time she was
12 on specialisation, she could have been somewhere in the clinic in Zagreb
13 or elsewhere. But I don't know how many people worked on that particular
14 day, because this was the registration. And each unit had a control of
15 who was on leave or who was working at that time. It was not my duty. It
16 was the duty of the people who were in charge of that particular unit or
17 laboratory. But this reminds me that maybe she was at that time on
18 specialisation, and she could have been absent because she was in Zagreb,
19 Belgrade, or Sarajevo at a clinic. And that on the 25th or the 5th of
20 May -- of June, that she could not be at the hospital in Prijedor. I'm
21 only saying that that is a possibility because that was not a question.
22 But for some people who were on specialisation, I saw that their
23 employment was terminated with no reason whatsoever because they had had
24 an agreement, a contract, with a hospital that they would be receiving
25 their salary and that they would spend at some institution for
1 specialisation some time, but they would still be paid. So all the costs
2 would be borne by the unit of the hospital.
3 I suppose, because this is written here that she was on
4 specialisation, that she started working, and she hadn't completed her
5 specialisation. But I did see for some people who were on specialisation
6 then that they -- their contract of employment was terminated because they
7 were not there. They couldn't have been there because they were on
8 specialisation. I don't know under which number, but Hodzic Nermina, I'm
9 sure that she was in Tuzla on specialisation, but she had her contract.
10 When this happened, there was no reason for her employment to be
11 terminated, because she could not respond because she had been on
12 education at a different institution elsewhere.
13 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with any Serbs, in particular referencing
14 Exhibit S49B which also were under contract and did not return or respond
15 to the request by the hospital, the local hospital, to return to work who
16 were ultimately discharged or put on leave? Are you familiar with any
17 such cases?
18 A. No. I don't know because I didn't have any documentation because
19 I didn't know what was true and what wasn't. I said that on the 27th I
20 still worked. If some things could have happened then, but they could
21 have been hidden from me. But I thought that the 27th of May, I was
22 supposed to have been informed about everything that was important at the
23 hospital. But there could have been a document that I didn't know of. I
24 only saw people who told me that they had been discharged, and there was
25 all I could know.
1 Q. Was there a policy or provision in the hospital that you're aware
2 of at the time when you were a director where the head of the facility
3 would be able to request those physicians or employees who were under
4 contract for specialisation in other areas to return to the hospital in
5 Prijedor on an as-needed basis? Did something like that exist?
6 A. There was no such decision, but it was possible that we had such a
8 Q. And you're just not aware of it. Correct?
9 A. No. I'm not aware of it.
10 Q. Now, are you familiar with Dr. Risto Stojanovic?
11 A. Dr. Risto Stojanovski.
12 Q. Are you familiar with him? And just for the record, if I may
13 interrupt, Doctor --
14 A. Yes, I know of him. He was a surgeon in Prijedor.
15 Q. And it's listed, for the record, as number 19 on the --
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Bench is aware. The witness touched upon
17 this person already yesterday telling us that this is a Serb from
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I just wanted the record to be clear on that.
20 Q. Do you know the reasons for the discharge of Dr. Risto
22 A. No, I don't know. But when I worked, I did know that we always
23 discussed that he was supposed to retire. He was an old man. When I came
24 there as a doctor, he was already a specialist. I don't know how old he
25 was. But he was not supposed to work any longer. Within that context, I
1 know that we were preparing him to retire because a surgeon cannot work
2 being very old. He did operate, but he could not work a lot, being a
3 surgeon. But how he was discharged, I do not know. If he did receive it,
4 there was a possibility that it was not necessary or it was not possible
5 for him to continue working any longer. But I do believe that he didn't
6 receive it because he was a Macedonian or of orthodox faith.
7 Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Vikalo?
8 A. Yes, I am familiar with the name. Maybe if I saw him, I would
9 recognise him. What he is, where he is, how he is, I maybe have heard
10 that maybe he is working in Prijedor now, but I cannot talk about it
11 because I don't know.
12 Q. Do you have any understanding whether he is a Serb, Bosniak, or
14 A. I don't know. Maybe because of the name, we could connect him
15 with some ethnicity, but I don't know.
16 Q. Do you know when or if he was discharged and why?
17 A. I don't know. I saw somewhere that it was written, but I don't
19 Q. How about Slavica Nukic? Do you know if she was Serbian, Bosniak,
20 or Croatian?
21 A. Yes. She does work with him, even now. I know that she is a
22 Serb, and that she is married to a Muslim.
23 Q. That's all I have.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you Your Honour. Thank you, Doctor.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Reference was made once again to the list of
1 this 114 people where the employment has been terminated between 1st May
2 and 1st July, with a clear emphasis of 25 May, 1992. Can you tell us how
3 many employees had there been at the end of May 1992 in total in the
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I do not know the precise
6 number. But I did think, so at some moment we had 550 or 570 employees
7 and sometimes we did employ even more when we needed them. I think when I
8 was there, we had 550 but I cannot be sure hundred per cent. How many
9 there were later on, I would not know.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I cannot identify any more
11 questions. Then I --
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I would just offer J1 A and B and J2
13 A and B into evidence.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we do this during the change. We'll come
15 back to these administrative matters.
16 But first of all, Dr. Cehajic, thank you very, very much for
17 giving us this insight about that what happened from your point of view.
18 And I know it is difficult to be a witness here, but you can be sure that
19 you gave a contribution for all of us to come closer to the truth. Thank
20 you for that.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, Judges,
22 that have made it possible for me to do it. I also would like to ask you,
23 of course, to take this into consideration in a real way and an unbiased
24 way, to judge to what extent who was contributed to what extent to what
25 had happened. Who is not guilty should be freed, and who is guilty must
1 suffer the consequences of what he had done. I do not consider anyone
2 guilty, and I do hope that whoever is not guilty ought to show to this
3 honourable court that that is the case.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you very much.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we turn to the next witness, which is a
7 protected witness, I think, the necessary technician -- technical
8 equipment may be arranged. In the meantime, let's take this time. There
9 were two new exhibits, J1A, the English version, and B, the B/C/S version.
10 And J2A and B. Any objections from the Prosecutor?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From the Defence?
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, just again for the record, on J1, we
14 object for a number of reasons based on the witness's testimony, she
15 doesn't recognise the document as being the authentic signature of the
16 person who it purports to be. Secondly, we see two or at least two
17 inconsistencies with the date. Purportedly the document was signed and
18 issued, according to the top left hand corner on the 25th of May, 1992;
19 yet the body in reference of the document itself mentioned, relies on, and
20 uses as authority purportedly something that was in existence on the 5th
21 of June, approximately a week or two later, of 1992. That's identified in
22 the first full paragraph of Document J1.
23 Similarly, that date appears on the paragraph in the middle of
24 the -- this document under the "decisions." And it's under Item Number 2,
25 the paragraph following that. Again, it references the date of the
1 discharge, but then also references as reliance upon an authority,
2 something that existed subsequent to the date of the actual discharge.
3 Those would be our objections, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Bench appreciates your observations, but
5 under the guidelines distributed the 25th of February, 2002, the documents
6 are admitted into evidence under the number J1A, B, and J2A, B.
7 The next witness is ready?
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe so.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just that you all know, we have to make a break
10 at 10.25 sharp. There is another initial appearance for me in another
11 courtroom. And then I would ask you to be back again at 11.15. I hope to
12 be back at that point in time. And in return, we continue today until
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you. We have Mr. Waidyaratne in the on-deck
15 circle to use American baseball terminology, and if Ms. Sutherland can be
16 excused, he will be leading the next witness.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness needs pseudonym?
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, this witness is closed session with pseudonym.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it correct, registry, that this witness is
20 Witness E?
21 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour. This would be Witness O.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. Why O?
23 THE REGISTRAR: Because we have a number of 92 bis witnesses that
24 were assigned pseudonyms. So to follow the order, we resume at O now.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification for all of us.
1 I don't know. Do we all have a list of the pseudonyms assigned to
2 92 bis witnesses? Therefore my surprise.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: We do not yet, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But there were no objections to proceed in the
5 way as suggested by the registry?
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: No objections.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then we know how to call the witness.
9 Thank you for clarification.
10 [Closed session]
12 Pages 3174 to 3222 – redacted – closed session .
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
7 1.38 p.m., to be reconvened on
8 Tuesday, the 21st day of May, 2002,
9 at 2.15 p.m.