1 Tuesday, 2 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Good afternoon, everybody.
6 May we please hear the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances, please. For
10 the Prosecutor?
11 MS. KORNER: Joanna Korner assisted by Ruth Karper, case manager.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the Defence.
13 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and
14 John Ostojic for the Defence.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Before we turn this afternoon to our
16 ongoing witness, may I ask the usher to distribute these two documents to
17 the parties. One copy will be for the registry immediately.
18 The Chamber was grateful to receive yesterday a new list of the
19 estimated length of the case of the Prosecutor. And we came to the
20 conclusion that it seems to be a realistic basis, notwithstanding the
21 possibility that the Chamber comes to the conclusion that the one or other
22 witness may not be necessary. But it seems adequate that we already now
23 tell the OTP that the case of the OTP will not be heard longer than the
24 20th of September, 2002. You find the envisaged following schedule here,
25 and I don't want to read it out. You have it before you. If there should
1 be the one or other objection by the one or other party, please let us
2 know. Because everything is, without doubt, linked to this first
3 deadline, 20 September, 2002.
4 And I have to express the common wish of the three Judges that we
5 would be more than happy if the parties could come to what kind of
6 agreement whatsoever, enabling the Chamber to come to a final decision
7 earlier than envisaged here on this tableau.
8 As regards the documents before us presented by the OTP, the
9 Chamber has discussed whether or not it would be necessary to prepare
10 additional orders related to three different issues where the Chamber
11 believes that there should be additional evidence provided as it is
12 foreseen under Rule 98. First of all, the question, how the documents are
13 related to another. It would be helpful that for a better understanding
14 of the documents before us, and in order to give the Defence the
15 possibility to prepare the defence, it would facilitate the work to have a
16 kind of expert, granting us and giving us assistance in understanding as
17 to the way in which the documents in question relate to one another, in
18 particular, whether the documents can be linked through referencing within
19 a document of other documents in the group, consistency in or identity of
20 language or terminology used in the original version of the documents, or
21 other features common to some or all of the documents.
22 The second issue was what about any characteristics when signing
23 on behalf of Crisis Staff. The Chamber is noting that the Defence for
24 Dr. Stakic contests, as it is the right, the authenticity of the accused's
25 signatures as they are alleged to appear in the form of S. Milomir in both
1 Latin and Cyrillic script in certain documents included in lists 2, 3, and
2 4 which have been tendered by the Office of the Prosecutor in this case.
3 We consider that the documents in question form an important part of the
4 evidence before the Chamber, and we consider that the determination as to
5 whether there was a practice in the period from 30th of April through 30th
6 September, 1992, of -- among members of the so-called "Crisis Staffs" to
7 sign official documents with a first or given name or an abbreviation on
8 the family name followed by the first or given name, rather than with the
9 full family name. This may assist the Chamber in assessing the probative
10 value to be accorded to these documents. It would be helpful when the
11 assistance of an expert witness would be provided.
12 And finally, taking into consideration the already mentioned
13 issues, we consider that a determination as to whether there was a
14 consistent pattern of conduct or particular methodology in terms of the
15 way documents of the alleged Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff in the period
16 April 30 through September 30, 1992, were drafted, authorised or signed.
17 This may assist the Chamber in assessing the probative value to be
18 accorded to these documents. And therefore, it would be helpful if the
19 Prosecution could call a witness in this case, an individual whose
20 knowledge of the procedure and place at the alleged Prijedor municipal
21 Crisis Staff in the period from 30 April to 30 September, 1992 in relation
22 to the drafting, authorisation, and signing of alleged Crisis Staff
24 For certain reasons, we have not put this in the form of orders.
25 It only grants the right to be heard to the OTP where the Judges believe
1 there are some flaws; and on the other hand, grant the right for the
2 Defence to react in an appropriate way and that it shouldn't be left until
3 the end of this case.
4 So far as regards these three issues, are there any other points
5 to be discussed today? Please, Ms. Korner.
6 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, can I just raise at this stage
7 obviously we may need further time to consider the matter, but some
8 obvious things that occur to us. In relation to the first of Your
9 Honours' requests, namely, that it would be helpful to call an expert, as
10 Your Honour puts it, on how the documents relate to each other,
11 consistency and terminology of language and the like, Your Honour, it
12 seems to me that that requires a linguistics expert of sorts. I'm not at
13 all sure where one get the expert from, or indeed how much the expert
14 could say. Your Honour, the point -- I know we've said it before, but the
15 point about these documents are that they were, I think to the largest
16 extent, seized by way of a search warrant in 1997 from Prijedor buildings,
17 and it seems to us that any likelihood of forgery or insertion of
18 documents given the type of municipality that Prijedor is, that is, still
19 strongly under the control of the Republika Srpska, that forgetting about
20 the question of signatures for the moment, the actual documents themselves
21 speak for themselves.
22 I will add, I may say, we will have to establish whether such an
23 expert exists. Secondly, for him to do the examination will take months.
24 And Your Honour has given us to the end of September, 20th of September,
25 to close the case. So can I just simply raise for the moment that as an
1 aspect that Your Honours may want to consider.
2 Now, Your Honours, in respect of two and three, you've asked for
3 some evidence about the practice of signing on behalf of the Crisis Staff
4 using this particular form of signature. And secondly, as I understand
5 it, and I'm afraid I've lost it for a moment, the pattern of conduct
6 within the Crisis Staff. Your Honour, the only persons who can do that
7 would be either members of the Crisis Staff themselves or persons who were
8 employed in a function by the Crisis Staff. Your Honour, those persons
9 are, of a necessity, hostile to the Prosecution in this case. Your
10 Honour, the Prosecution is enjoined to prosecute and to call witnesses
11 which will, as it were, put the case for the Prosecution. If we are, and
12 how we are to obtain the attendance of such witnesses, I don't know
13 either. But if we are forced to call witnesses who are hostile to our
14 very aims, we're put in an impossible position. We can't cross-examine
15 our own witnesses. And Your Honour, we would have no idea what the
16 witnesses are likely to say. In our view, they are not very likely to be
17 honest witnesses. Therefore, Your Honour, for obvious reasons -- I hear
18 Mr. Ostojic sighing, but that's clearly right, this is a prosecution aimed
19 against the Crisis Staff who we alleged are responsible for the crimes
20 that were committed.
21 It is a course open to Your Honours under Rule 98, to call
22 witnesses yourselves. And if Your Honours feel that those witnesses would
23 be of assistance to Your Honours, then we would invite Your Honours to
24 call those witnesses and enable thereby the Prosecution and the Defence to
25 cross-examine. But to put the onus on us to put forward witnesses for the
1 Prosecution who are not witnesses who have come forward voluntarily and
2 who are witnesses I say clearly would have a bias against the Prosecution,
3 we submit would not be in the interests of justice. So Your Honour, those
4 are the points that I raise straight away for Your Honours' consideration.
5 But obviously, we need a little more time to give it our full
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. At this point in time, I have only
8 to add that on purpose, we left it open --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. At this point in time, I have only to
11 reemphasise that it was on purpose that we left it open to the OTP how to
12 fill possible, and I emphasise, possible gaps in their case. And Rule 98,
13 sentence 1, clearly provides for the possibility, even to order the
14 Prosecutor to act in a certain requested way. But we did not proceed this
15 way. We only indicated what would be of assistance for a better
16 understanding what shall be the case of the Prosecution. And therefore,
17 it may be open for further discussion, and I think it would be appropriate
18 to reconsider this. But first of all, let's hear what the --
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, could I add one more thing, and that's
20 this, which I have helpfully been reminded of, Your Honour under the
21 definition in Rule 2 of a suspect, namely, a person concerning whom the
22 Prosecutor possesses reliable information which tends to show that the
23 person may have committed a crime over which the Tribunal has
24 jurisdiction, Your Honour, clearly anyone who was intimately involved with
25 the Crisis Staff, and therefore able to give the sort of evidence that
1 Your Honour wants, more than probably will come under the definition of a
2 suspect. And of course, Your Honours don't have -- I heard the warning
3 Your Honours gave to Mr. Sejmenovic yesterday. Your Honours have the
4 right under the rules to order persons to answer questions. But
5 nonetheless, Your Honours may feel that it puts the person possibly in a
6 situation where they are going to have to give evidence which might
7 incriminate themselves.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Only one sentence may be added here as regards
9 the pattern of conduct in Prijedor itself. We have listened carefully to
10 the witnesses telling us the names of numerous persons still in Prijedor,
11 and evidently working in Prijedor under the present government. And I
12 wonder how the Prosecution can come to the conclusion, without having at
13 least tried to do so, to say these persons are already possible suspects.
14 I don't want to mention on purpose names, going through that what we have
15 heard from witnesses, I think it's -- it would be an unfair approach to be
16 very neutral on this, an unfair approach to call these persons mentioned
17 there as living in Prijedor and executing their job in an ordinary way, a
18 priori, as suspects. But I think we have made our observations, and we
19 leave it out -- we leave it for the Prosecution to fulfill their duties
20 under their onus -- under their obligation to establish the case. The
21 burden of proof is still with the Prosecutor and not with the Judges.
22 Any other observations by the parties?
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Your Honour, there's a couple observations.
24 First, I have to say for the record that I'm extremely disappointed that
25 the OTP would make categorisations about witnesses that they have not
1 interviewed, don't know anything about, and can only speculate as to what
2 they may testify. If she already knows that these people are not going to
3 be truthful and is already calling in question their veracity, I think it
4 just reflects the complete disregard for both the rules in this Tribunal
5 as well as for the sworn oath that each of these witnesses have taken.
6 Quite frankly, I think the OTP is being very disingenuous to the Court.
7 They are calling people suspects and citing a rule to the Court when in
8 fact they don't practice what they preach. In another case before this
9 Tribunal, namely the Krstic case, they had an identical person, General
10 Sefer Halilovic, whose name was brought up here who they brought into the
11 courtroom, and this is a matter of public record, brought into the
12 courtroom and less than one week after that, indicted the individual.
13 They had interviewed him, they have gotten statements from him. They have
14 gotten an enormous amount of documentation on what this individual says.
15 A week after he testifies in that case, they indict him. They
16 bring him back, and now he's back home based on a provisional release.
17 The OTP merely has to make a decision. Do we want to hear the evidence,
18 or do we just hear evidence that's sided in favour of one side without
19 getting the complete picture. I'm very disappointed in the comments that
20 the OTP has made in this regard.
21 With respect to the Court's provisional or comments that the Court
22 made, we can get that expert, and we hope to provide not just a
23 linguistics expert, but a person to establish the interlinkage of that, if
24 we get beyond the Rule 98 bis rulings. But that we only will know later
25 in the year or next year.
1 I also would like to ask the Court, for example, and just for the
2 record our Exhibit D14 which was provided to us by the OTP on May 28th,
3 2002, was sent to us which had the signature, purportedly, of an
4 individual who testified several weeks before that, and that was -- I
5 think he was not in private session. It was Dr. Mujadzic. His signature
6 appears there. We're confronted with this document and have to ask
7 another witness about recognition of a signature. We don't know why this
8 document wasn't provided to us before, why it was provided on May 28th,
9 2002, when in fact all documents relating to credibility of witnesses and
10 all documents that they would have in their possession, especially those
11 that are executed and signed by the individuals testifying, should have
12 been brought to our attention, should have been presented to us.
13 With respect to this pattern, et cetera, the OTP also has
14 interviewed numerous, both Serbian and, respectfully, Muslim and Croatian
15 witnesses who can help with that linkage. They have only provided us
16 under Rule 68 evidence that they believe, meaning their subjective
17 opinion, as to what may or may not -- may constitute evidence which would
18 assist the Defence. In their view, I can't envision any document that
19 they would think would be able to be helpful for the Defence, and if so,
20 just like the example of Dr. Mujadzic's signature on various documents,
21 it's not given to us in a timely fashion and not at all.
22 The burden of proof clearly and undoubtedly rests with the
23 Prosecutor. If this case is going to take two or three months longer from
24 the Prosecutor's point of view, so be it. We are prepared, and Dr.
25 Stakic, without consulting with him, I'm confident is prepared to wait and
1 to see if an expert could come through and to, even through a thread of
2 evidence, support some of these far-based allegations that the Prosecutor
3 has set forth here and made both in their opening and in their fourth
4 amended indictment.
5 With respect to the proposed schedule, Your Honour, we do have a
6 comment on it, if we may, and I'm not sure if the Court would like to hear
7 that. January 7th is the Serbian Orthodox Christmas, and we would like,
8 if at all possible, start on the 9th. And if necessary, even have a
9 shortened time for the Defence, or if we could extend it for those three
10 days. It's very important for a number of reasons, not just for our
11 client, but the attorneys and some of our investigators and people who are
12 assisting us behind the scenes. So we would ask if at all possible that
13 we would have the 7th -- the 6th and 7th off and not be present in the
14 courtroom during that time. That's all I have, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just respond to one aspect of
16 this, because it's the second time it has come up, the complaint that we
17 didn't disclose a document which bore the witness's signature. We did
18 disclose it before cross-examination began, as I've explained, and
19 Mr. Koumjian has explained over and over again. We do the very best we
20 can through the searches and whatever to disclose all documents in a
21 timely fashion. Occasionally, documents slip through the net. But to say
22 that they had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness on that document
23 is not true. It was disclosed before cross-examination began.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the parties, are there any other
25 comments to make as regards documents, signatures, and so on?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: We are still waiting to get the original document or
2 the original documents in connection with the report that we showed which
3 we only had the translators' version or notes from the translator. It was
4 from a Senad Kubat who received it from the embassy in Zagreb. I believe
5 it was in --
6 MS. KORNER: It has been disclosed in full.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: We wanted to see the original, I think the Court
8 asked for that, with respect to the signatures of that document, if I'm
9 not mistaken. But we did get the 245-plus page document which we're in
10 the process of getting hopefully translated soon.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I would appreciate if the parties could meet on
12 this issue and try to settle this possible dispute. But then I take it
13 that on the documents on List 2, 3, and 4, there are no other comments to
14 make at this point in time. We are grateful, of course, to receive in
15 part, if I'm correct, please correct me if not, in part, the colour copies
16 of some documents, and I think we'll receive others in the future, that we
17 have all those where it's alleged that Dr. Stakic has signed this
18 document, that we have these documents before us in the form of colour
19 copy. And in addition, we requested to have the opportunity to see the
20 originals of the official gazette 2 and 3.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Ms. Karper is already -- we have the
22 originals now of other documents that were requested, and I think also,
23 yes, the Prijedor gazettes, as well. Your Honour, there are still other
24 colour copies to be made of the ones that we got here.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: With the now incoming new colour copies, we
1 proceed as we did it with the first ones; we added to the other ones
2 only -- other ones with the same number, exhibit number, but to add -1. I
3 am grateful for the work done by the registry in so far.
4 MS. KORNER: Did Your Honours want the official gazettes now?
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We'll return it at the end of the day.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I can see no other observations to
8 make. Okay, then the witness may be brought in, please.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Mr. Sejmenovic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We try, at least we try, to finalise your
13 hearing today that started the 12th of June already.
14 May I ask you, in order to achieve this goal, that you today
15 please do us and, in this case, the Defence, a favour and answering as
16 short as possible. We have heard your comments. We have heard your
17 political opinion during all these days. And it would really be of great
18 assistance if you refrain your -- restrict your answers to a clear "yes,"
19 "no," or "I don't know."
20 May the Defence please take over.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 WITNESS: MEVLUDIN SEJMENOVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Sejmenovic.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Yesterday, we discussed at some length some of your thoughts or
3 comments that were attributed to you, and then we tried to establish some
4 comments that were attributed to Dr. Stakic in the same time period,
5 namely, May of 1992 through Exhibit SK45, I believe it was. Now, I'd like
6 you to help me with this: On May 1st, 1992, you testified previously, in
7 essence, that the SDS and the SDA leadership met in Prijedor the day after
8 the takeover. Correct?
9 A. I don't think that's quite correct. I think it was the day after
10 the takeover. I don't think it was one day after the takeover. It may
11 have been several days after the takeover. I'm not quite certain, but I
12 suppose that it was several days after the takeover.
13 Q. Okay. Regardless of whether it was the day after or several days
14 after, that first meeting after the takeover, the SDS and the SDA met.
16 A. There may have been contacts, but I was not there, so I can't talk
17 about it. I only attended one of the talks, and that's the only talk I
18 can tell you about.
19 Q. Then let's focus on that one. You attended the one meeting that
20 you said, or at least I believe you said, the day after the takeover, you
21 met at the SDA offices. You met with other members of the SDA offices.
22 And then you went to the SDS offices and had a discussion with them. Is
23 that correct? Remember when you saw the flag and all that?
24 A. We didn't meet with the SDS on that day. We met at the SDA
1 Q. When was the first time -- maybe I could start it this way. When
2 was the first time that you were in a meeting after the takeover with the
3 SDS representatives, or so-called representatives?
4 A. I only took part in one meeting, and that meeting was, I think,
5 around mid-May. I can't remember precisely, but I suppose it was around
7 Q. And I believe in your testimony on page 35, line 19, during the
8 direct examination, you described the people who were present at that
9 meeting, and you described the people from the SDS, namely, "Simo
10 Miskovic, Dusan Kurnoga, Slobodan Kuruzovic, a woman, another man I did
11 not know well," and then you said subsequently Colonel Arsic and Major
12 Zeljaja came. Correct?
13 MR. OSTOJIC: And that would be on page 36, lines 19 through 21,
14 Your Honour.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please be so kind? I don't know
16 whether you have it before you the original page numbers now starting with
18 It's not on --
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I am referring to the notes on a daily basis. I
20 don't have it in the 4.000 page, I know it has been paginated consistent
21 with the testimony that has been given. It's just a general question,
22 it's not for purposes of impeachment or anything.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Does that sound about accurate?
1 A. As far as I can remember, yes, all the people you have listed were
2 in that meeting. There may have been another officer, but I can't be sure
3 about that. Two officers were there for sure -- no, three officers,
4 excuse me, were there for sure. There may have been a fourth one.
5 Whether he had arrived there with the other officers or whether he had
6 been there before, I'm not quite sure.
7 Q. Now, Dr. Stakic was not at that meeting. Correct?
8 A. No, not as far as I remember.
9 Q. Was this a meeting of the leadership of the SDS, sir?
10 A. Yes. It was a meeting between the SDS and the SDA, and the
11 meeting was convened by Simo Miskovic from the SDS side.
12 Q. So in this mid-May 1992 meeting that the SDS had with the SDA,
13 post takeover, the deputy of the Municipal Assembly, Dr. Milomir Stakic,
14 who you, through your testimony, said was an important and critical figure
15 in Prijedor, he wasn't even in attendance at that meeting. Correct?
16 A. The SDS appointed their representatives for that meeting,
17 according to what principle and why certain people were invited and others
18 were not, I have no idea. That was up to the SDS and their presidency.
19 Q. You seem to indicate in a meeting you had in September in Banja
20 Luka where you say Dr. Stakic was present that he was there, because to
21 you at least it meant that he was someone of importance, correct? That's,
22 in essence, what you said, right?
23 A. Yes, but that's a totally different context. We're talking about
24 the republic level, the president of the republic, the delegates. The
25 municipal officials. As far as the SDA was concerned, on behalf the SDA,
1 the SDA president was not at that meeting. So we could say, according to
2 the same logic, that the president didn't matter. He did matter, but he
3 just simply did not attend that particular meeting.
4 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you from your statement of -- recently --
5 June 11th, 2002, you state in paragraph 3 as follows: "In my view, Stakic
6 was not a very communicative man. In the meetings we attended together,
7 he spoke rarely, and for this reason I am unable to comment any further
8 about the man behind the facade." What facade are you referring to, sir?
9 A. I'm not sure this has been interpreted accurately. But what I'm
10 thinking about is when you asked the question, I spoke about Dr. Stakic as
11 an official at the Municipal Assembly. And as one of the SDS officials.
12 In our communication, we didn't meet very often. He sat at the assembly
13 meetings, and he didn't speak very often. Had he been very active, had he
14 been very prominent, I would have noticed, and I would have said so.
15 Privately, I did not know and do not know anything about
16 Dr. Stakic. What he did at party meetings for the SDS, I have no idea. I
17 know that once or several times he was part of the negotiation team for
18 the distribution of positions, and he met with the SDA. I have no idea
19 how he acted in those meetings. That was just my impression, and of
20 course I cannot judge a person on the basis of how that person behaves in
21 just one meeting. So I can't provide a full answer. What I did provide
22 was merely my impression, a superficial one. Behind that facade, that
23 surface, is there anything that's different? I couldn't tell.
24 Q. When you say on page 16 of today's transcript on line 7, "had he
25 been very active, had he been very prominent, I would have noticed, and I
1 would have said so," is it fair to state, based on what you just told us
2 under oath that, Dr. Stakic was not active, and he was not prominent
3 during the time period that we're discussing? Or else, sir, you would
4 have noticed it. Correct?
5 A. I said -- let me specify this: He was not active above the
6 average. He did not act as a leader in these Municipal Assembly meetings.
7 That may have been due to his position. He was not the president; he was
8 the vice-president, and sat next to the president. So he was not the one
9 who presided over the meetings. But he did sit in the presidency of the
10 Municipal Assembly. I did not say that he was inactive. To put it more
11 accurately, he was not among the most active speakers from the SDS. Mr.
12 Miskovic, for example, usually spoke for much longer periods than
13 Dr. Stakic. As far as I remember, Dragan Savanovic spoke much more often
14 than Dr. Stakic. And that's what I wanted to say. Had Dr. Stakic spoken
15 out very often, I would have called him "very active," active above the
16 average. But whenever I attended, he was acting just as an average member
17 of the SDS.
18 Q. Help me with this: You talked about the activity, and I think
19 it's clear, although I'm sure it's subject to debate. What about his
20 prominence? You said he was not prominent, or had he been prominent, you
21 would have said so. Is it fair to state, based on what you just told us
22 today moments ago under oath, that in fact Dr. Stakic during the time in
23 question was not prominent as you yourself say? Correct?
24 A. Sir, he was a prominent figure by virtue of the very fact that he
25 was the vice-president of the municipal parliament, and that's what
1 counts. He did sit in the presidency of the municipal parliament. If I'm
2 saying that he was not as prominent as certain other members of the SDS,
3 that's because his speeches were not belligerent, and that's a fact. Some
4 other SDS members did make belligerent or menacing speeches, especially
5 as it relates to the army and the war in Croatia. I can't remember
6 Dr. Stakic doing that kind of thing. But if we wanted to get an average
7 of how often certain people spoke, then Dr. Stakic would average more or
8 less the same as the rest. That's what I noticed. I did not attend all
9 the meetings, but I did attend a number of meetings. And I'm telling you
10 about my experience from those several meetings that I attended.
11 Q. And that's all we want, is your experiences, sir.
12 So is it fair to state that the times you heard Dr. Stakic speak,
13 those limited number of times, he was indeed not belligerent?
14 A. I can't remember that he ever made threats, and I do clearly
15 remember that some of the SDS speakers did make threats. When I say
16 "threats," that's only conditionally speaking. But he did speak
17 officially, and he put forward the official views and positions of the
18 SDS. And in that, in as far he was no different than the rest.
19 Q. Now, if I can just turn, because you made a comment regarding the
20 SDA president not being at some meetings immediately after the takeover,
21 on July, I think, 14th, 1998, specifically on page 420, line 17 through
22 21, you testified in part: "I believe that several talks took place,
23 several talks were held between presidents of the two parties, Dr. Mirza
24 Mujadzic, and Simo Miskovic. However, they yielded no result."
25 And correct me if I am wrong, earlier I thought you said that the
1 SDA presidents were not at the meeting, or did not participate at these
2 talks post-takeover. Can you clarify that for me, please.
3 A. Your Honours, please allow me. I think something has been
4 misinterpreted. I will repeat both the question that was asked and as
5 well as my answer. You said as Dr. Stakic was not present at the meeting
6 with the SDA, and he was a prominent figure on the basis of which he was
7 then not present, that's my free interpretation of your question. What I
8 said is that the president of the SDA was not at that meeting either, and
9 just to follow the same logic of your question, then the president of the
10 SDA was not an important person in the SDA, and he was. And furthermore,
11 I said the president of the SDA did not attend that particular meeting,
12 and you said "several meetings," which is different. So I just want to
13 repeat this: That meeting I attended, the SDA did not attend. Whether he
14 attended or did not attend other meetings, I cannot say. I just wanted to
15 say that if some of the officials did not attend a certain meeting, that
16 didn't necessarily mean that they were no officials or not important. In
17 theory, yes, that would have been possible, but not necessarily.
18 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you, sir, have any information or
19 knowledge, first hand or secondhand, that any of the discussions in those
20 meetings, those that you participated and those that others were present,
21 do you know if the contents of those meetings were ever shared with
22 Dr. Stakic?
23 A. I can't say.
24 Q. And in fact, sir, don't you know that Dr. Stakic, as early as
25 February 1992, was a man who was not informed of what was going on in the
1 municipality and did not even know what was going on at the republic, much
2 less municipal level? You know that for a fact. Isn't that true, sir?
3 A. No, I do not know that for a fact, sir.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I tender to the Registrar an exhibit, Your Honour,
5 which was showed to the witness but not marked. I think they have it.
6 It's the minutes from an extraordinary assembly on February 14th, 1992, if
7 I may be allowed to inquire on this document. It has a date stamp on it
8 as Exhibit Number S -- and I think it was not ever tendered by the OTP,
9 but I'm not certain of that, Your Honour, so if there's any
10 misunderstanding about that because there's a date stamp on, it we would
11 like that to be changed to our next Defence exhibit, if I may.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Prosecution --
13 MS. KORNER: It hadn't been tendered. Your Honour, what happened
14 is in advance, we put a stamp on it, but it wasn't tendered. But we're
15 happy for the Defence to tender it as an exhibit.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next D number, may I ask for the help of the
17 registry, please.
18 THE REGISTRAR: These minutes will be Number D19, A and B, Your
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I understand no objections?
21 MS. KORNER: No objections, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence under Exhibit Number D19A
23 and B respectively.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, I recognise that this is a rather lengthy
1 document, but if I can just direct your attention to a couple points.
2 First, on the very last page of that document, on the B/C/S version, do
3 you recognise the signature of the individual who signed this 61-page
5 A. It reads: "Muhamed Cehajic" handwritten. That's all I can tell
6 you about the signature.
7 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you recognise the signature of
8 Dr. Muhamed Cehajic?
9 A. I'm not sure this really is his signature. It may be, and then
10 maybe not. I can't remember his signature.
11 Q. And the signature page appears, just for the record, on page 61 of
12 the B/C/S document. And it bears an ERN number P, as in Paul, 0053104.
13 Sir, if you look at the first or second page of that document on
14 the B/C/S transcript or the minutes, the version, is it true, sir, that in
15 fact you attended the meeting held on February -- either 14th or 17th,
17 A. Yes, I did attend this meeting.
18 Q. And I think if you look through the document on the very first
19 page, which is P, Paul, 0053044, it identifies you as being in attendance
20 at that meeting. Correct?
21 A. Yes, that's what it says.
22 Q. And if you look through this document at certain times both you
23 and Dr. Stakic spoke. Correct, among other people?
24 A. I did speak, and I suppose Dr. Stakic did also.
25 Q. Do you, sir, have an independent recollection of that meeting and
1 the things that you have said in that meeting on February 17th, 1992? And
2 before you answer, Mr. Sejmenovic, for the Court, the English translation
3 seems to indicate it's February 14th, yet the B/C/S transcript says
4 February 17th. So I just want the record to be clear on that, it's the
5 same document that we're referring to.
6 Sir, do you have an independent recollection of that meeting and
7 the things that you have said at that meeting?
8 A. Only in fragments, parts of it.
9 Q. Help me with this part, before we go through the detail of it. Do
10 you remember at that meeting, sir, informing Dr. Stakic that he was not
11 informed about these by-elections that were supposed to occur in October
12 of 1992 and that you felt that in fact he should check with the republic
13 level of the SDS because he had no knowledge and was persisting in asking
14 what by-elections are the members of this assembly discussing, do you
15 remember that at all? And do you remember telling him that he should in
16 fact check with his representatives because he was pleading and saying he
17 wasn't informed? Do you remember that part of it?
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I do think that perhaps we ought
19 to go to the actual parts of this document rather than asking the witness
20 if he remembers it.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I totally disagree with my learned friend, because
22 the witness clearly stated that he does have some fragmented recollection
23 of the events as they have occurred, so we have a right before, although
24 the OTP doesn't practice it this way, we have a right, before a document
25 is given for a witness to inquire of their independent recollection, and
1 then only after that has been exhausted, if indeed it has been, do we
2 establish through the record what that recollection was or may have been.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, my complaint is that we have had a
4 summary of what it is Mr. Ostojic thinks was said. I think before the
5 witness deals with the summary that we see the accurate aspect of it.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: We will most certainly get to the accurate aspect of
7 it, and I want to know if this witness recalls that at all, initially, and
8 he could share with us what it is that he recalls. And let's see how
9 accurate it will be.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In principle, the Defence is, of course, right,
11 one has to exhaust first of all the recollection of a witness. But it
12 doesn't help much, we are not interested indeed what is the recollection
13 of the witness, but first of all what can be seen from the document. And
14 therefore, it's preferable, yes, that the witness answer with a clear yes
15 or no, and then please proceed on the basis of the document before us.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember having said something
17 like this. But to whom I said it, I cannot remember. I don't know
18 whether it was a response to someone else's statement. I know that one
19 problem was discussed as a major problem, and most of the speakers dealt
20 with that issue.
21 MR. OSTOJIC:
22 Q. Before we get to the specific meeting, help me with this in terms
23 of the --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
25 MR. OSTOJIC:
1 Q. Before we get to the specific meeting and what was said, help me
2 with putting in its proper context in terms of a time line, this is a
3 meeting that occurred February 17th, 1992. Can you tell me if it was
4 before or after the referendum for Bosnia and Herzegovina to secede and
5 ask for its own sovereignty? Maybe I could help to expedite it. Sir, do
6 you remember in your testimony --
7 A. More or less, it was that period, around that period. Perhaps
8 slightly before, perhaps a little bit later. I'm not quite sure.
9 Q. Maybe I can help you because I don't think we'll draw an objection
10 from that. The referendum was held on February 28th and March 1st, 1992.
11 Correct can he -- we can't agree on that either?
12 A. We can agree on that. It is a piece of information that exists.
13 Q. This meeting was before the referendum, correct?
14 A. Obviously, if the referendum was on the 25th and the meeting was
15 on the 17th, it was before the referendum.
16 Q. And it was also before Mr. Alija Izetbegovic declared himself of
17 president on April 6th, 1992, of Bosnia and Herzegovina and declared a
18 state of war. Correct? I'm giving you the date to try to facilitate that
19 it goes a little quicker, so if you think the date's wrong, please I
20 invite you to give us a date you think that declaration was made.
21 A. I don't know the exact date, sir. It's a question you asked me
22 yesterday. And I truly do not know the exact date, and I do not know that
23 Alija Izetbegovic proclaimed himself president. There was a presidency
24 that elected the president amongst the members of the presidency, and no
25 one proclaimed himself president. And I'm not aware of that piece of
2 Q. We're going to get back to this document. Just on that response,
3 had someone declared himself president in an institution which obviously
4 had this organ called the presidency, that would have been a violation of
5 the constitution both in the former Yugoslavia on the federal level, and
6 sir, it would have been a violation of the constitution, and all the laws
7 and statutes on a republic level. Correct?
8 A. Sir, I know the following about that: There was the presidency of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there was the president of the presidency.
10 And that is all I know about it.
11 Q. Let's go back to this document, specifically page 21 of the
12 English text. The B/C/S text, 32. And I'd like to you share with us,
13 sir, if you think after reading the section which starts with "Milomir
14 Stakic," followed by your name, Mevludin Sejmenovic, if in that context,
15 sir, you felt that Dr. Stakic was informed about "some elections in
16 October," meaning October of 1992. And I'm not sure if the Court wouldn't
17 mind if he reads, because they are not that long, both Dr. Stakic's
18 comments that are attributed to him and those attributed to Mr. Sejmenovic
19 for purposes of a complete translation and accuracy.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the witness would be so kind, these two short
21 paragraphs, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Milomir Stakic: I apologise,
23 Mr. Sejmenovic, some elections are being mentioned for October on a number
24 of occasions. I wish you to substantiate this with arguments, who agreed
25 on this, with whom, and where?
1 And then "Mevludin Sejmenovic, about the elections. And Mr. Mutic
2 as a professional journalist, from that standpoint, and as a deputy,
3 please do not speak to me in that manner. One thing. Another thing, I
4 understand you fully because it is an unpleasant feeling when some
5 fundamental and very important things are being said to the face of
6 people, and Mr. Karadzic agreed to extraordinary elections, as well as Mr.
7 Izetbegovic, the gentleman from the HDZ, and even before the elections and
8 confirm that when they met on the basis of the opposition's proposal ten
9 days ago. So please call your headquarters and reassure yourself."
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
11 Q. Having read that, do you think, sir, that Dr. Stakic was informed
12 of these - as it's been referred to in the minutes here - these
13 by-elections to be held in October of 1992?
14 A. If the SDS functioned normally as a party, it would have had to be
15 informed. And Mr. Miskovic and the deputies of the SDS should also have
16 had this information, those who travelled with me to Sarajevo. What the
17 internal relations in the party were, that's a different matter, and I
18 know nothing about that.
19 Q. Would it be fair to state, sir, based on that, since you and
20 Dr. Stakic had a conversation at that meeting, at that time, that in fact
21 it's unequivocal that Dr. Stakic was not informed of any by-elections that
22 may have occurred or were scheduled to occur in October of 1992? Is there
23 any doubt about that, sir, in your mind, in your view?
24 A. Sir, at that meeting, I was suspicious of all the members of the
25 SDS and the deputies of the SDS. And in regard to many of those things
1 they said, I had suspicions as to whether they really thought what they
2 were saying. I believe that their objectives were quite different. So on
3 the basis of what they said, I cannot really judge what they really knew
4 or what they didn't know. But in a party, if relations become more
5 complicated, it is quite possible that some are less informed or some are
6 more informed. If this applies to Dr. Stakic, I do not know. This all
7 depends on the relations within the party. But in the way a party usually
8 functions, he should have been informed of this. Whether he was or not,
9 whether he was told or not told, this is a matter of the SDS, and I really
10 cannot say much about that.
11 Q. Well, sir, did you ever in February, specifically February 17th,
12 1992, make a statement that said that the SDS assemblymen were fair and
13 correct in their discussion?
14 A. Sir, I assume that sometimes you observed the work of a parliament
15 where different parties state their positions, you know what the
16 technology of the work is, the technology of work within a party is, and I
17 suppose that you know what I'm talking about. There are delegates, deputy
18 clubs and groups. They get together, they decide on what to say at the
19 parliamentary session. This is also true of the other parties. And on
20 the basis of the agenda, one tries to implement what has been agreed on.
21 Q. So is it your testimony you said it, but you didn't mean it, but
22 you didn't say it, or you don't recall if you said it or you didn't? Just
23 tell me which one it is, or any other option you may think of.
24 A. I believe that I said this on some occasions. I don't know on
25 what occasions, but I was very open in my work in the parliament. I did
1 everything openly. I think I said that openly. If I said it at that
2 particular meeting or not, I don't know. I spoke of this in personal
3 talks with Mr. Timarac, and Mr. Srdic, the deputies, when I went to
5 Q. Let's turn to the B/C/S version, page 59, towards the end of this
6 exhibit, and pages 37 and 38 in the English text, towards the end of this
7 assembly, again, sir, you speak, among others.
8 A. I found that part.
9 Q. Do you, sir, agree that, in fact, on that date, you made that
10 comment, that the SDS assemblymen were fair and correct in their
12 A. Perhaps for some of the discussions, I could have said that. I
13 may have said that. This was my practice also in the parliament of Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina. Regardless of who was speaking, from what party, I
15 always stated that clearly. I was never a slave of party discipline.
16 There were such occasions when I said that, but I also said something when
17 positions were not sincere, when policies were being explained but the
18 person speaking had something quite different in mind. Regionalisation
19 was spoken there. It was presented as an economic matter, but it was not
20 sincere. It was not a question of economic organisation but of ethnic
21 division. So it was an insincere policy, and I said this at the
22 parliament in Sarajevo, and I spoke on a number of occasions in that
23 session. But sometimes when someone was speaking from the SDS, I
24 supported him. This also happened.
25 I was not burdened by anything. I followed the course of justice
1 and sincerity in the way people presented their views. When and on what
2 sessions did I tell someone that he was sincere or insincere, I cannot
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just mention something, I heard
5 Mr. Ostojic say "men" and that's how it has come up on the screen, but is
6 it agreed that what actually appears in the translation on page 38 is a
7 singular assemblyman, so one particular assemblyman, as opposed to men.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I think if the witness can just read what has been
9 attributed to him, I think it would help clarify the point.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
11 MR. OSTOJIC:
12 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, can you read that section where you discuss the
13 fair and correctness in the discussions. Just slowly so we get the proper
15 MR. OSTOJIC: And again, for the record, this is something that is
16 translated by the OTP.
17 A. It's page 59. Is that right?
18 Q. Correct.
19 A. "Sejmenovic, Mevludin, deputy to the Assembly of BH. It is my
20 suggestion to bring the session to an end. In addition to what I said
21 earlier, I wish to say that we should avoid finding all kinds of pretexts,
22 pretext and ways of blocking this assembly. I see it like this: We have
23 a house, the door to it is locked. And now we want to pull down the house
24 because we cannot enter it. We have the key in our hand now. All we have
25 to do is insert it into the lock, enter the house, and work normally. I
1 repeat, the assembly is unblocked. As you can see from the SDS
2 assemblyman's fair and correct discussion, there is no other possible
3 conclusion than that the division issue is in its final stage. We have a
4 proposal --"
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just interrupt. Is it singular or plural
6 in B/C/S, assemblyman?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible. Well, there were
8 two or three discussions that were extremely good.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm asking, what was the word you used, singular
10 or plural?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe in this case that it is a
12 question of the plural. I think, in this specific sentence, which I have
13 just read out, I think that the plural is referred to, and there were two
14 or three presentations by members of the SDS and supported the initiatives
15 of the SDS. And I believe that this applies to those members, those
16 deputies. And that is why I used the plural.
17 Do you wish me to continue to read this part?
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]... Thank you
19 for this clarification.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't need it either, Your Honour.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sejmenovic. Do you recall, sir, at this meeting,
22 that Dr. Stakic, for lack of a better term, criticised a fellow SDS
23 member, as having fallen asleep during a meeting. Do you recall that ever
25 A. I cannot remember, but it is possible, if I look.
1 Q. If I can direct your attention to page 15 of the English text, and
2 I'll get you the B/C/S text in one moment, and just so we have it in
3 context, can you tell me who, if you know, Mr. Vinko Kos is? Do you know
4 if he is an SDA or SDS assemblyman?
5 A. I think that Vinko Kos was a deputy of the SDS. I'm not sure, but
6 I think he was a deputy of the SDS. He may have been from the opposition.
7 I don't remember exactly.
8 Q. Well, would you be kind enough to look through the B/C/S -- the
9 first ten pages and see if Dr. Vinko Kos is identified and what his
10 position may have been at that time.
11 A. I found that particular part.
12 Q. Tell me who --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
15 A. It says: "Vinko Kos, deputy of the SDS."
16 Q. If I could direct your attention to the B/C/S version, page 23,
17 the comments that are attributed to Dr. Stakic, and the English text, page
18 15. And right under, on the fourth line approximately, it seems to
19 indicate that Dr. Milomir Stakic was wishing to apply to Kos first, and
20 then he told him "he must have been asleep, when we SDS representatives
21 gave a report." Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I see that part.
23 Q. Do you recall actually Dr. Stakic being critical of fellow SDS
24 members, at this meeting, at the very least?
25 A. Now I see it from the text, he is criticising Mr. Kos because at
1 the SDS meeting he was asleep and wasn't listening to what Stakic was
2 saying then.
3 Q. Dr. Stakic, at the very least at that meeting, was not in line
4 with the SDS leadership; he wasn't informed of the by-elections to be held
5 in October of 1992. He was, in fact, even criticising other SDS members
6 at that meeting. Correct?
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's not necessary to make any
8 commentaries, and then ask the witness whether it's correct or not. I
9 think we have already an impression.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can move to another
12 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, during this meeting do you remember discussing
13 with the participants of this extraordinary session of the Municipal
14 Assembly on 17th of February, 1992, that there were, in fact, 7 to 10.000
15 Serbian refugees in the Prijedor Municipality?
16 A. I know that there was talk of the refugees, but what the context
17 was and what the number was, I cannot remember.
18 Q. As you sit here, sir, today, do you recall that there were in fact
19 anywhere from 7 to 10.000 Serbian refugees who came from Croatia, who were
20 now in the territory or area known as the Prijedor Municipality, or do you
21 dispute that?
22 A. There were refugees, but I don't know what the number was, in the
23 Prijedor Municipality at the time.
24 Q. Now, would it be fair, sir, if a member of your party in this
25 document were to identify that it was 7 to 10.000 or so refugees, would
1 that be something that we could accept as being true, or do you think it
2 was less?
3 A. I'm saying that I don't know how many refugees there were.
4 Someone who dealt with the issue probably knows better. I either know or
5 don't know about the number of refugees. I didn't know. I was not in
6 charge of that.
7 Q. Well, as the sole representative of the Prijedor Municipality, the
8 only elected official, didn't you have an obligation to report on the
9 republic level to the republic assembly as to how many refugees were
10 impacting, and the impact of those refugees in the municipality in which
11 you were elected? Didn't that matter to you?
12 A. Sir, at the republic parliament, we did discuss the issue. But it
13 is a fact that none of the SDS officials, I'm speaking about the
14 officials, did not give me any information to me or any instructions for
15 me to then inform the parliament of that. On some occasions, I had talks
16 with lower members of the SDS, the ordinary members or the members of the
17 municipal board, and I was asked to bring up certain questions. But
18 formally, to me as a deputy, no one instructed me or asked me from the SDS
19 as regards a problem of the refugees. It was a general problem; it was
20 not only common to Prijedor. It was also a problem in other
21 municipalities. I know that this matter was discussed at the republican
22 parliament, that money should be set aside for them.
23 Q. Sir, you were elected as a representative for all the people of
24 the municipality, not just people who were representative of the SDA
25 party. Correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Did you, sir, inquire as to
3 the number of refugees and any housing questions that they may have and
4 any living questions or issues that may come up with these 7 to 10.000
6 A. Sir, yes, I did inquire about all the important issues of the
7 municipality. The number of refugees, well, their number in that period
8 grew. First there were 50, 100, 200, then 1.000. And this tended to
9 change. I did not get reports at every moment of the number of arriving
10 refugees. I wouldn't reject such a report from whatever side it came.
11 But I did speak about this issue to the republic bodies.
12 Q. And just briefly before we break, if I can direct your attention
13 to page 10 of the B/C/S transcript or minutes of this meeting and page 7
14 of the English version of this exhibit, a Mehmed Mesic, an SDA assemblyman
15 is speaking at this meeting, and just for the purposes of establishing how
16 many refugees there may have been, it states down in the second part,
17 specifically for you on page 10, line 5, that "he's discussing
18 approximately 10.000 people who have returned home from Croatia and
19 Slovenia." Do you see that, sir? In fact, he states, I'll quote it the
20 record: "The data that I have may be old, but it appears that the
21 population of our municipality has increased by some 10.000 people who
22 have returned home from Croatia and Slovenia where they were sacked for
23 various reasons."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Then if we turn several pages, on page 25, the English text, I
1 think there's a gentleman that's identified as Dr. Mirza Mujadzic on page
2 24 of that text, he also discusses refugees. And I think he states --
3 I'll wait for you to get to it. On page 38, I believe, sir, of the B/C/S
4 exhibit. And in the first or so portion of his statement --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, microphone, please.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, I knew that.
7 Q. In the first or so portion of his comments that are attributed to
8 him, doesn't not, the leader of the SDA at that time, Dr. Mirza Mujadzic,
9 also acknowledge that there were "almost 7.000 refugees in our city"? And
10 we're referring to the timeframe of February, 1992, sir.
11 It's on page 39, the very first line.
12 A. I found it. I found that part. I can see it.
13 Q. And it says that there are 7.000 or so refugees. Correct?
14 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
15 Q. Is there any reason, sir, that you know of, as you sit here now
16 having been present at that meeting, that we should doubt any of those
17 members, that both members of your party, the SDA, are quoted as being
19 A. These two figures are different, and then we distinguish between
20 two types of refugees, after the war in Slovenia, and especially the war
21 of Croatia. Most of Croatia had been destroyed. Many of the factories
22 were not working, and many people who were employed in the Croatian and
23 Slovene companies from Prijedor, they lost their jobs, and they were
24 returned to their homes. And this is a very large number of people who
25 were jobless and who were in that situation. There was also a number of
1 refugees from parts of Croatia where the war was being waged. But the
2 exact number, Mesic here spoke of people who remained jobless for a number
3 of reasons. He -- Mujadzic speaks of 7.000 refugees. I don't know what
4 he referred to, but I think it must have been people from Croatia who were
5 fleeing the war and who were fleeing to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, I
6 remember that the SDA, in fact, spoke of the issue, and the SDS didn't
7 want to have the issue put on the agenda.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's appropriate to have a break now.
9 The trial stands adjourned until 4.15.
10 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Please continue immediately.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
14 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, can you tell us as the sole representative of the
15 Prijedor Municipality at the republic level, what is it that you, sir, did
16 to assist in finding any housing for the seven or so thousand refugees
17 that came from either Croatia or Slovenia?
18 A. I know that we spoke about it in the republican parliament, but I
19 can't remember any details now. What we said exactly and when. This was
20 a problem related not only to our municipality, but to a number of
21 different municipalities.
22 Q. With respect to the people in your municipality, do you know where
23 they were living at the time of February 1992?
24 A. I know that some were put up in Prijedor, in the surroundings of
25 Prijedor. But I don't know anything more specific about it.
1 Q. Let me ask you this: We know as your testimony revealed
2 yesterday, do you know, sir, if there was any refugee camp which housed
3 any of these refugees in February of 1992 or in that timeframe generally?
4 A. There weren't any refugee camps. The Red Cross arranged for the
5 accommodation of some of them. Prijedor, the villages around Prijedor,
6 the municipal territory, Petrov Gaj, Omarska, part of them were in
7 Trnopolje. Other parts of Prijedor Municipality, too. Some were put up
8 with families. Some in school buildings. But I don't really know
9 anything very specific about the Red Cross activities because that was not
10 part of what I was doing.
11 Q. Explain to me, sir, if you can, this by-election issue that was
12 supposed to occur in October 1992, according to the minutes on the exhibit
13 that we've just reviewed, why didn't it -- first, did it happen in October
14 of 1992?
15 A. October 1992, no, there were no elections in October 1992.
16 Q. And sir, in fact, from February 17th, 1992, when you stated that,
17 in fact, to Dr. Stakic there was these by-elections that were going to be
18 held in October, in fact, what transpired was a referendum occurred, and
19 there was a separation and a secession of the Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina from Yugoslavia also in April of 1992. Correct?
21 A. Yes, and the secession of the Republic of Serbian Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 Q. Now, is that the -- known as Republika Srpska? Is that what
24 you're referring to?
25 A. No. I said the secession of the Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2 Q. Is it your testimony that that happened simultaneously with the
3 secession of Mr. Izetbegovic from -- asking for sovereignty and secession
4 from the former Yugoslavia? Are you telling us that happened at the same
5 timeframe, sir, April of 1992?
6 A. I don't know exactly when this happened. But I know that it did
7 happen sometime in March, I think, of 1992.
8 Q. Did you recognise, sir, at that time, the Republika Srpska, as did
9 the international community, both during the Lisbon negotiations, the
10 London negotiations, and the Dayton accords? Did you yourself, sir,
11 recognise Republika Srpska?
12 A. The Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina was not recognised by the
13 international community or anyone else, I only recognised my own state of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And negotiations were underway on further
15 solutions to that crisis. So there was no formal recognition of any other
16 entity at that precise moment.
17 Q. Well, at these meetings that occurred in Lisbon and in London and
18 in Dayton, were Serb representatives there?
19 A. I do not know any details of these meetings, as I've said before.
20 Q. When did the secession of Herceg-Bosna occur, do you know, which
21 is within Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time when you were member of the
23 A. I don't know. While I was in the Bosnia and Herzegovina
24 parliament, the secession of Herceg-Bosna did not occur. That was later
25 on at some point, but I can't remember precisely when.
1 Q. There's been some discussion on the formation of an entity called
2 the ARK. Are you familiar with that, the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
3 A. That was not an entity. It was a Serbian ethnic region.
4 Q. Well, do you know, sir, having been a member of the parliament
5 whether or not the formation of ARK was based on amendment 42 of the
6 constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. That's not true.
8 Q. Can you tell me why you think it's not true, sir?
9 A. I think so, because we had several discussions in the Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina parliament, because the foremost legal experts from the
11 ministry of justice put forward legal interpretations of this issue.
12 There was a provision for regions or associations of municipalities to be
13 set up, but not along the ethnic lines and not along the lines put forth
14 by the SDS. So the view of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the presidency was that
15 this was extra constitutional, this sort of region founded in Herzegovina
16 and in Banja Luka was outside the constitution. And that was the official
17 position of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As the SDS -- how the SDS interpreted
18 this later on is a different issue altogether, and I can't enter any legal
19 discussion of this.
20 Q. May we have the Court's permission, have the witness be handed by
21 the usher Exhibit 131, both A and B.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's S131, sorry.
24 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, that's a document that we previously reviewed
25 which, in essence, among other posts it identifies you as being elected to
1 the Chamber of Municipalities from the Prijedor Municipality. But my
2 question is on another issue, not that. Was there an election wherein Mr.
3 Alija Izetbegovic and Fikret Abdic ran also during November of 1990?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you tell this Court, since you've told us in the past, that
6 the SDA is one that thrives on democratic principles, who of the two
7 candidates, Alija Izetbegovic or Mr. Fikret Abdic, who got more of the
8 votes in this democratic election?
9 A. As far as I can remember, Fikret Abdic got more votes. How many
10 more exactly, I can't remember. But I know that Avdic and Izetbegovic had
11 negotiations as to who would take up the position of the president of the
12 presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. Well, how is it, sir, that the president of the presidency of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't go automatically to the person who got the
15 most votes?
16 A. According to the constitution, the position went automatically to
17 the representative of that ethnic group which garnered the greatest
18 percentage of votes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the first mandate, as
19 far as I can remember. That was the only limitation. As the SDA list
20 only had two candidates, how they dealt with it internally, what the party
21 arrangement was as concerns that, I can't say.
22 Q. Well, help us with this, then: The presidency, not the president
23 of the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did it consist of seven members?
24 A. The presidency consisted of two members - as far as I remember, so
25 don't quite take my word for it - but as far as I can remember, it had two
1 members of - two Muslim members, Bosniak members, two Serb members, two
2 Croatian members, and one member from the "other" ethnic groups.
3 Q. Was that member of the other ethnic groups called the Yugoslav
4 member, or don't you know?
5 A. In this case, in these elections, yes, the member was a Yugoslav
6 by nationality because each party, when they nominated their candidates to
7 the presidency had the right to place two candidates with different
8 national backgrounds on their list, as well as a candidate from the other
9 ethnic groups. As far as I can remember, Ganic, as a Yugoslav garnered
10 the most votes. He was the one who finally took up the position in the
12 Q. And that was Mr. Ejup Ganic, correct?
13 A. Yes, yes. As I've said before, Ejup Ganic.
14 Q. Help me with this, as a member of the presidency, do you know
15 whether Mr. Ejup Ganic was a member of which party?
16 A. Prior to the elections, he was not a member of the SDA. It was
17 only later, as far as I can remember, that he joined the SDA, and he was
18 one of the party officials. But prior to the elections we are talking
19 about, he had not been a member of the party. I think he was a member who
20 came from outside the party and was thus nominated and placed on one of
21 the party lists. I can't remember anything more specific, only as much as
22 I've said.
23 Q. Now, this presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was that an organ
24 which mandated a rotating group of elected officials so that certain
25 nominees would serve for a limited amount of time? Correct?
1 A. According to the then existing laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'm
2 not sure how that was regulated. But this should not be difficult to
4 Q. Thank you. We're checking on that. But let me ask you this: Did
5 you think when Alija Izetbegovic was selected as the president of the
6 presidency, that he was being selected for a term of life or for a term of
7 one year, or for any term in between that? What did you as a member of
8 parliament, as an elected official, what did you, sir, think?
9 A. It was not up to me to think anything about it. There was a
10 mandate according to which the presidency was elected. Members of the
11 presidency chose the president. And I think that the term of office of
12 the president of the presidency in some periods, I think, it was regulated
13 in such a way as to have a rotation, but I don't know. As far as the
14 question is concerned, there's nothing for me to think it was a matter of
15 procedure and of the existing laws. They had their terms of office, and
16 that's what they did.
17 Q. Well, within the period of expiration, isn't it true that on April
18 6th of 1992, the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina proclaimed a state of
19 war, and in fact appointed Alija Izetbegovic as president and Supreme
20 Commander of Bosnia-Herzegovina, all the way through to the end of the
21 war, past 1995?
22 A. I heard that the state of war was declared. How the function in
23 the presidency was changed, who took over -- what competencies exactly the
24 presidency took over, I know nothing about this, nor do I know exactly
25 when this happened.
1 Q. So you're not familiar with the date April 6th, 1992, and you're
2 not familiar with the fact that Mr. Izetbegovic was appointed and
3 announced as being the Supreme Commander of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
4 A. I am familiar with the fact that he was nominated, but I must
5 repeat: I don't remember exactly when this occurred. If you'd asked me
6 before you mentioned the date, I would have said "no, I can't remember."
7 Too many dates. I can't keep track of them all.
8 Q. I understand. Now, he was the Supreme Commander of what? The
9 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, correct?
10 A. Yes, later, when the army was set up, the presidency or the
11 president of the presidency, the presidency actually was the Supreme
12 Commander, and not any one of its single members and that's how it was.
13 Q. Let me ask you this --
14 A. Excuse me, the army had a collective commander, and not just a
15 single person.
16 Q. With this declaration of war that was made by Mr. Izetbegovic, do
17 you know, sir, if any of the civilian authorities continued to function or
18 ceased functioning and became what we've discussed here as either war
19 presidencies or crisis staffs, on or after April 6th, 1992?
20 A. When Sarajevo was blocked, it was impossible for the Parliament of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue to function. And according to the then
22 existing laws, the presidency took over the powers of the parliament, with
23 the obligation to take temporary decisions until such time as the
24 parliament could again meet to accept or change those decisions. And I
25 know that for a certain period, it was not possible for the parliament to
1 convene. And I know later on, the parliament began to meet again. But
2 that, as far as I can remember, was late in 1993, that parliament sessions
3 began to take place again and the government resumed all its functions
4 according to the existing laws.
5 Q. And when was Sarajevo blocked, as you've identified? When?
6 A. The work of the parliament was thwarted. I think it was in early
7 April. I'm not sure about the day, but when barricades were set up around
8 Sarajevo, and the shelling began. It was no longer possible to get to
9 Sarajevo, and new circumstances were created.
10 Q. Who ran the day-to-day activities if the civilian authorities
11 ceased functioning, sir? Who ran those activities? Was it the war
12 presidency or the war Crisis Staff, as established by Mr. Izetbegovic in
13 April of 1992?
14 A. No. I don't know the details about this.
15 Q. Well, having previously told us that you are familiar with some
16 aspects of the constitution, do you know if there was a constitutional
17 provision which authorised that a person within the presidency of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina had the right to declare a state of war and to name
19 himself as Supreme Commander of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do you
20 know of any constitutional provision to support that basis?
21 A. I don't know about any such constitutional provisions, nor am I
22 familiar with anyone having proclaimed themselves the supreme commander.
23 Q. Just so that I am clear, you don't have any recollection of
24 Alija Izetbegovic proclaiming himself as Supreme Commander of the Army of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1992 April?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Sir, as far as I know, which means as far as I can recall, the
2 presidency proclaimed itself the Supreme Commander at the moment when the
3 situation became extraordinary, not the president himself. That's what I
4 remember. And I can't say anything more about this, because after all I
5 was no longer in Sarajevo at that time. So I have only memorized the
6 information that I got from the media.
7 Q. As a member of the assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, do you know
8 who the Mr. Djure [sic] Pelivan was in 1992? Jure.
9 A. Jure Pelivan was the governor of the national bank of
11 Q. In 1992, correct?
12 A. Possibly even as early as 1991, until what time I don't know. I
13 can't say with any degree of precision.
14 Q. Can you tell me during the time period where you were a member of
15 the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina, can you tell me what position
16 Mr. Alija Delimustafic held?
17 A. He was the minister of the interior.
18 Q. Can you tell me, sir, if you as an assemblyman in 1991 and 1992,
19 whether you had any powers or authority to control, supervise, instruct,
20 or in any fashion direct Mr. Delimustafic, the minister of interior, on
21 any of his duties?
22 A. As concerns the parliament, there was, pursuant to the laws, a
23 committee within the parliament whose job was to control the work of the
24 ministry of the interior. So a couple of members of parliament were
25 elected as members of this committee, which then drafted reports, asked
1 questions about the work of the ministry. But no, I was not a member of
2 this committee.
3 Q. You were part of the legislative assembly, correct? The minister
4 of the interior would fall under which part, the executive or legislative
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I have to interrupt. The Bench has shown
7 until now extreme tolerance in both directions, towards both parties, but
8 I think we can't identify any longer any relevance for the case before us.
9 And this question is not admitted. It's an academic question, and it
10 would enlighten us and it would help us for our understanding in the
11 future for the line of questions you're prepared to put if you can give us
12 some hint on the relevance of your questions.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I can, Your Honour. Two points on that: One, I
14 think it goes to the heart of some of the issues that the OTP has raised
15 persistently both in the fourth amended indictment as well as through
16 various witnesses. But more particularly I think, if allowed, that the
17 witness will help us understand that during the selection process of the
18 certain posts within Prijedor Municipality, they had to have been approved
19 by the minister of interior. And in fact, that the members of the
20 assembly were not the ones who were subordinate or superior to members of
21 certain functions, that in fact it was the minister of interior who was
22 located in Sarajevo. But I first had to establish if the witness actually
23 understood the position, and understood the gentleman who was in charge
24 there. But I can move on. I have a lot of areas to cover.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please move on.
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, are you familiar with a discussion that was held
3 in 1992 by members of the SDS to form a council of national equality or
4 the Chamber of Nations?
5 A. I can't remember that.
6 Q. Do you know, sir, if in June 10th, 1991, in Sarajevo, there was a
7 meeting for the National Defence Council to be formed, and it was held at
8 the former police station in Sarajevo?
9 A. The meeting to set up the National Defence Council. I can't
10 remember any such meeting.
11 Q. Just briefly, if I can just have some leeway to see if I can
12 refresh the witness's recollection, do you know of an Avdo Habib who was
13 an assistant to the minister of the MUP in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
14 A. I know that Avdo Habib was the assistant minister and then later
15 on went on to become the minister of the interior.
16 Q. Do you know Hasan Cengic?
17 A. Yes, I do. He was a member, an official of the SDA. I think he,
18 too, at a later stage was the minister, but I'm not exactly sure a
19 minister in which field.
20 Q. Wasn't he the general secretary of the SDA?
21 A. For a while, yes, he was the secretary with the SDA.
22 Q. How about Rusmir Mahmut Cehajic?
23 A. He was a professor, professor Rusmir Mahmut Cehajic, yes, I know
24 the person. I know that he was a member of the SDA, but he did not hold a
25 particularly prominent position. And I think he was a minister in the
1 first government of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the first free elections,
2 or an assistant minister. I can't be sure now.
3 Q. He was actually vice-president. Correct?
4 A. That's possible.
5 Q. And do you know a Munir Jekic [sic]?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Jahic? Thank you. Sorry.
8 A. Munir Jahic, I know there was a person who had the last name
9 Jahic, but whether that's person's first name was Munir or not, I'm not
11 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that since these were, or at least
12 some of these were members of the SDA and that in fact they formed an
13 organisation of the National Defence Council in June of 1991 in Sarajevo,
14 are you aware of that?
15 A. I don't know this. The National Defence Council is in Sarajevo, I
16 really don't know.
17 Q. Let me switch the topic for a little bit. At any time as a member
18 of parliament, sir, did you receive or obtain any information that was
19 classified as being strictly confidential or state secrets?
20 A. I can't remember. I know that a lot of information arrived in the
21 parliament, and that this information was discussed. Whether some of the
22 information was confidential, I can't remember. As far as the committees
23 are concerned, perhaps I'd better tell you, for you to be able to better
24 understand my position. I was in the parliamentary committee for physical
25 planning and residential planning, residential activity. That was my
1 committee. And problems concerning what I've mentioned were tabled before
2 my committee. As far as other issues were concerned, there were other
3 committees, and those are the committees or the committees which reviewed
4 those other issues. As far as the entire parliament is concerned, I only
5 got the information that everyone else had. I can't remember whether any
6 of that information was confidential, perhaps so, but not that I can
7 remember today.
8 Q. It's just a general concept, sir. My question to you is this: If
9 a member who was chief of police security, for example, in the security
10 station in Prijedor, if he had a confidential memo, was restricted to
11 disseminate that memo, would you, sir, expect to receive a copy of that
13 A. That's a professional issue. He must send it to his superior in
14 Banja Luka, and then the superior in his turn to the minister. And then
15 should the parliament so require, the minister will inform a parliament
16 committee. But he is bound to notify the presidency, the minister of
17 foreign affairs was supposed to brief the president on the most important
18 events on a regular basis. I think this also supplied to the municipal
19 level, but I'm not sure.
20 Q. And that was my question. Do you know if it applied to the
21 municipal level? You're not sure, correct? You just don't know?
22 A. I think it did apply, but I'm not sure entirely. We should look
23 it up to see what the law said about it.
24 Q. Let me ask you this, with respect to the mobilisation that
25 occurred in September and November of 1991, I think your testimony in
1 essence was that a very small symbolic number of Muslim Bosniaks,
2 participated in the mobilisation call from the federal former Yugoslavia.
3 Do you dispute, sir, the fact that the number of people who from Prijedor
4 who actually were activated and were members of this mobilisation was in
5 essence a fair distribution vis-a-vis the population in Prijedor?
6 A. I don't think I fully understand the question. What do you mean
7 exactly by "just distribution, fair distribution"?
8 Q. My point is, sir, or tell us again, do you think that the
9 mobilisation that occurred in September of 1991, whether or not both
10 Muslim, Serb, and Croats were activated and indeed participated in the
11 mobilisation or do you still think or believe that a very small few or
12 symbolic number of Muslims participated in that mobilisation?
13 A. I spoke about mobilisation for the war in Croatia. And on the
14 basis of my own experience and what I had seen and in my contacts with
15 people, my impression was that a small number of people of non-Serb
16 ethnicity went to fight the war in Croatia, or responded to the
17 mobilisation. The 5th Kozara Brigade was basically a Serb -- composed of
19 MR. OSTOJIC: If I could just have a moment, Your Honour, to find
20 the text in which I can ask this witness.
21 Q. If I told you, sir, that a witness testified here and felt or
22 testified, and I'm referring to Dr. Donia's report, or the annex to his
23 report, which is in evidence, on page 15, if he states: "The callup and
24 deployment of the 5th Kozara Brigade was carried out without the support
25 of the SDA, but many Muslims nevertheless responded to the callup." An
1 OTP witness, Dr. Donia, would you disagree with this?
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I understood that Your Honour had
3 already ruled that this form of questioning was not an admissible form.
4 It isn't admissible to put to a witness testifying what another witness
5 may or may not have said, and then to ask whether he agrees or disagrees.
6 He can put a proposition to him in ordinary cross-examination form, but
7 not in this way.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, would it be incorrect if I share with you that
11 there were many Muslims who responded to the call, you would disagree with
12 that. Correct?
13 A. Sir, I have already answered that question, on the basis of my own
14 experience and what I have seen. And in the talks I've had with other
15 people, the number was very small. As regards formal statistics, the
16 members of the brigade and their numbers, I did not dispose with that
17 information. But in the place where I used to live, only two people left
18 from Kozarac, two or three people responded to the callup. From
19 Hambarine, Rizvanovici, I think there were three people. From Ljubija, a
20 few Croats, I believe. So I heard about a certain number, but it is a
21 very small number compared to the thousands or ten thousands that lived in
22 those areas.
23 Q. So do you know a gentleman by the name of Vahid Ceric?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You would disagree with this: If Vahid Ceric confirmed to the SDS
1 board that the percentage of each nationality in the TO unit corresponded
2 to their percentage of the population in the municipality --
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to interrupt. I'm really tired now of
4 hearing this question again and again, again. The witness has clearly
5 answered and in the last answer added some facts. I'm not prepared to
6 admit this question once more.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. Sir, you discussed the importance of a meeting that occurred in
9 Banja Luka that occurred in September of 1992 where purportedly you saw
10 Dr. Stakic. I'm just focussing your attention at that meeting. At that
11 meeting, sir, do you agree with me that there were "very many soldiers"
12 when you arrived. "The building was full of officers, soldiers,
13 civilians, politicians, policemen, it was very noisy. There were
14 arguments." True or false?
15 A. No, there were people in uniforms and not wearing uniforms, and
16 policemen and officers. There were many people. I don't know what the --
17 whether there were more of ones or the others. I was in my own specific
18 situation, and I was concerned about myself.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Can you tell us, or estimate
20 for us how many people were actually there in the September 1992 meeting,
21 and what do you mean when you say "many"?
22 A. Well, the hall above the staircase was full of people.
23 Q. Give me an estimate, sir. 1.000, 5.000, 10.000?
24 A. Sir, we're talking about one storey of a building. There could
25 not have been 10.000, and now you're referring to 10.000. So, I think on
1 the first floor, going up the stairs, there is a hall. It was practically
2 full laterally towards the corridors. There was empty space in the other
3 corridors. There are only people passing by, not very many. I cannot
4 give you the exact figure, but there was a building and we know what
5 building we're talking about.
6 I can say there may have been about ten scores of people, and not
7 hundreds. There may have been a hundred and some people, but at the
8 moment, I simply did not remember the number, and I wasn't counting those
9 people at the time.
10 Q. In May of 1996, page 960 of your transcript, you describe for us
11 the building was full of officers, soldiers, civilians, politicians,
12 policemen. Can you tell me, sir, if all those people that were there,
13 regardless of the number that you can't recall now, were they all just as
14 important to the events that were taking place there, since you told us
15 earlier about the fact that Dr. Stakic was purportedly there, it meant
16 something to you. All the other civilian, politicians, policemen,
17 soldiers, were they all important, officers?
18 A. Sir, at the time Mr. Karadzic was coming to Banja Luka.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Were all the people you've
20 described --
21 A. On the basis of my own experience, the people who went to that
22 building at that time and on the basis of my own experience in the SDA and
23 when the president of the state convenes a meeting, he doesn't just invite
24 anyone. He invites politicians, officials, and not just anybody can come
25 when the head of the state is there. On the basis of that, in that
1 discussion, I said that I believed, and I still do believe, that someone
2 who is not important in the structure of authority could not have been
3 invited to that meeting.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just interrupt before we have a break, may
5 I quote from Exhibit D19A, the English version, page 21. I quote the late
6 Muhamed Cehajic: "We can talk civilly without raising the atmosphere and
8 The trial stands adjourned until 5.30.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.01 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 5.36 p.m.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. And I give the floor to the
12 Defence for the last 90 minutes of cross-examination.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And I'd like to acknowledge
14 the Bench, and inform you I did take your comments to heart, and to the
15 extent that something that was said in a voice that was inappropriate for
16 the courtroom, I certainly apologise to the Bench and the witness for
17 that. If I may proceed.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, a couple more questions, if you don't mind. There
21 has been some discussion regarding the official gazette and how it works.
22 Is it true, sir, that, for example, if a constitutional court would make a
23 decision, do you know if that decision would appear the same day in the
24 official gazette, the day before in the official gazette, or usually the
25 day after the decision is made in the official gazette?
1 A. In any case, it appears following its adoption in the official
2 gazette, but I don't know how long, what the time period is after the
3 decision is made.
4 Q. Let me show you, if the usher would be kind enough to tender the
5 first that document with the ERN number 00179941, I believe, or 9541.
6 It's difficult to read.
7 MS. KORNER: It's apparently a 4.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
9 MS. KORNER: And it appears, it's one of our documents 65 ter
10 number 372, in which case there must be a translation somewhere.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: That very well may be true, Your Honour. I'm just
12 asking general questions on this document, we're not going to have the
13 witness read the document. If I may proceed. Thank you.
14 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, this is a decision from the constitutional court.
16 A. It says that it was adopted by the constitutional court.
17 Q. It's a decision dated when, sir?
18 A. The date is October 8, 1992.
19 Q. Would you expect, sir, to see this printed in the official gazette
20 before October 8th, 1992, or after October 8th, 1992?
21 A. Sir, I don't know what sort of decision it is. I don't know what
22 its substance is, and I cannot speak about the details.
23 Q. My question, sir, in all fairness to you, has nothing to do with
24 the substance of it, just the date. When would you, as a former member in
25 1991 and 1992, expect to see a decision by the constitutional court appear
1 in the official gazette? Logically, one would think it would appear after
2 October 8th, 1992. Correct?
3 A. Logically speaking, the decision is adopted after a judicial
4 proceedings. How long that lasts, I don't know. But in practice the
5 constitutional court -- spends quite a lot of time in reviewing and
6 adopting decisions. And some of these procedures are underway at the very
7 moment now, and they last quite a long time.
8 Q. Let me show you the official gazette relating to this decision, if
9 I may.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: And if I can have the assistance of the usher.
11 Q. Sir, before you you have the official gazette of October 7th,
12 1992, or so it appears. Correct?
13 A. Yes, that is what is stated here.
14 Q. And do you see, sir, on the third page of the second document that
15 I gave you, which I'm going to ask the Court to mark, that despite the
16 fact that it's dated October 7th, 1992, in Sarajevo, there is a decision
17 which apparently is being printed relating to October 8th, 1992. Correct?
18 A. Here it says October 8, 1992, and it is a copy of a decision which
19 was published in the official gazette.
20 Q. And on top, on the date for this official gazette, what's the date
21 on the top left-hand corner?
22 A. Here, it says October 7, 1992.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, can I have both these exhibits marked
24 as Defence Exhibit 20 and 21 respectfully, D20 and 21.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?
1 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Hesitant, but nevertheless admitted into
3 evidence, D20B and D21B. The latter is the official gazette. Please
5 MR. OSTOJIC: We have no further questions, Your Honour. Thank
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Questions in re-examination.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I do have some, but can I just deal with
9 my understanding of cross-examination and ask to go into private session
10 over one aspect.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
12 MS. KORNER: Closed session, I think, actually rather than
13 private. It's to do with the document that was given.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we then please go into closed session.
15 [Closed session]
12 Pages 5509 to 5519 – redacted – closed session.
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Confirmed. Please proceed.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, before I re-examine, there's one other
18 matter I want to raise, the witness was asked a number of questions, in
19 respect of the records of the Kozarac area territorial organisation that
20 were disclosed. I want to understand, and I want the witness to
21 understand, is the suggestion being made that this witness was involved in
22 or responsible for in some way, or that there was, arming of the non-Serb
23 population in order to launch an attack on Prijedor? Otherwise, I don't
24 understand the purpose of the questions.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you understand, it's an invitation to proceed
1 with the cross-examination?
2 MS. KORNER: It's an invitation to the Defence to make it clear
3 what their case is on this, so that the witness can deal with it. Again,
4 Your Honour, I keep going back to it, and it's perhaps not surprising
5 given that we were responsible for it, but there is a rule that if a case
6 is to be advanced at a later stage, either through evidence of the
7 defendant or other witnesses, which in some way is going to contradict the
8 witness, the evidence this witness has given, then it must be put to him.
9 That's the only reason I'm raising it.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, Mr. Ostojic.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I don't believe I understand
12 fully what the OTP is suggesting. And I think, from what I heard, that
13 they would like the burden of proof to be switched on the side of the
14 Defence, and they would also, I believe, like to have the Defence put
15 their case in its entirety before the conclusion of the Prosecution's
16 case. It's not going to happen. The documents, as we have said in the
17 past, as we've said with numerous witnesses, as the OTP herself has said,
18 speak for themselves. The witness refused on numerous occasions to answer,
19 what I considered respectfully, straightforward questions and gave us
20 explanations that went on for several lines. We did so, with respect to
21 the issues raised by the OTP. If the OTP feels they must rehabilitate a
22 witness, they should do so on each and every witness. If they feel there
23 was a suggestion made, then they should try to clarify that suggestion for
24 the Court, if they feel it was a strong enough suggestion. The comments
25 and the questions with respect to the Kozarac Territorial Defence were
1 asked for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to test the veracity of
2 this witness; secondly, to test the recollection of the witness. And
3 third, comparing it to the testimony that he gave in several other trials
4 that we have seen by my references to those cases.
5 I'm not sure I can answer the OTP, nor do I think we are required
6 to answer the OTP on these issues. We will be glad, when the time is
7 right to establish the true context of the territory, how events
8 transpired, and I think we have to some degree done that, so that the
9 Court can have a complete and full and honest review of the facts. With
10 respect to this particular witness, if we were to make an accusation, and
11 if we were going to attack this witness, we would have certainly done so,
12 Your Honour. We confided, and I think we acted appropriately in each of
13 our questions to him. We did not ask this witness questions in areas that
14 he was either not present at or was not being quoted as being present at
15 certain meetings. We refuse to accept the invitation by the OTP and do
16 not accept their attempt to try to shift the burden of proof and will not
17 at this time be putting on our Defence case.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, again, Mr. Ostojic doesn't want to answer a
19 simple question. But Your Honour, I've made the point. It's not shifting
20 of the burden of proof; it is an obligation under the rules to put one's
21 case to a witness. And I am taking it, from what Mr. Ostojic has said,
22 that there is no suggestion and no evidence will be called at a later
23 stage that Mr. Sejmenovic was in any way involved in arming of Muslims,
24 supply of weapons, or anything like that. Because if that's the case, it
25 should have been put. Your Honour, I'm satisfied with Mr. Ostojic's
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it's of course free for the OTP to put such
3 questions if they believe there could emanate a problem for the OTP from
4 the questions and answers during cross-examination. I think that's the
5 purpose of the re-examination.
6 MS. KORNER: Absolutely. But, Your Honour, I'm not going to put
7 questions about matters which, contrary to Mr. Ostojic's assertion, and
8 Your Honours will judge it for yourselves, Mr. Sejmenovic has dealt with
9 and has repeated over and over again, that such arms, as the Muslim or
10 non-Serb TO possessed were minuscule in comparison with the Serb
11 artillery. Your Honour, that's why, otherwise I don't quite follow the
12 point of the questions that were asked about it. But Your Honour, I
13 didn't want to re-examine on that. There are two or three other matters I
14 want to re-examine.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And I think we should limit this to
16 that of course we would be more than eager and more than happy to hear the
17 final contributions of both parties on these issues already now, and not
18 only the 20th of September. But we have to proceed as scheduled. And
19 therefore, please feel free to put your questions in re-examination now.
20 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
21 Re-examined by Ms. Korner:
22 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, I want to ask you first of all, because it's the
23 briefest, to have a look again at the record of the 14th of February
24 assembly meeting in Prijedor. Could you have that back. It's D19.
25 Now, it was put to you that Dr. Stakic at that meeting, in the
1 response to Mr. Kos, was prepared to criticise other members of the SDS
2 party. Could you just look, please, at the speech actually made by
3 Mr. Kos.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's at page 11 of the translation.
5 I'm afraid, I can't help you in the Bosnian version.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 17.
7 MS. KORNER:
8 Q. Can we just have a look at what he said, after he said he greeted
9 the assembly. Do you see this, Mr. Sejmenovic: "I wish to level
11 A. Yes, I can see that part. Do you want me to read this out loud?
12 Q. No, I'll just read it, and if you can follow. "I wish to level
13 criticism against the SDS assemblyman's club and our people who
14 participated in these negotiations. There was no assemblymen's club
15 meeting afterwards, we were not informed about these conclusions, and
16 neither were it seems many others. And that isn't all." And he goes on.
17 Do you recall, I know it's a long time ago, Mr. Sejmenovic, there
18 being an argument going on between the SDS members at this assembly
20 A. I can't remember any argument, but there were assemblymen who held
21 different discussions in different directions. Some advocated the need to
22 discuss the spring harvest, the refugees. Others said that we had to have
23 extraordinary elections. And those were the differences.
24 Q. Right. Yes. Thank you. You can put that away, now.
25 Now, next, I want to ask you about the documents that you looked
1 at today, and also earlier. I think you were first asked about them, if I
2 can find my -- yeah, on the 24th of June, and that's -- I've forgotten
3 what the number is, the D number. It's the documents that Mr. Ostojic
4 took you through yesterday where your name appears.
5 MS. KORNER: These things.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: D7.
7 MS. KORNER: D7. I wonder if you can have those for a moment.
8 Your Honour, can I just hand Your Honour this message. I'll show
9 the Defence. It relates to Mr. Sejmenovic, his travel plans. The Defence
10 can have a look at it as well.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, although I want to re-examine, if Your
13 Honours have questions that you feel you want to ask, I prefer that they
14 get done.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's limited, so please proceed that you don't
16 feel limited in your rights.
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, I just want to deal with some of the things that
19 were said during the course of these meetings. But first of all, I don't
20 think you've actually ever said, who was making the notes of these
21 meetings. Do you know?
22 A. I don't know. And I can't remember. It may have been a number of
23 people. Some people may have been taking notes just for themselves,
24 possibly there was a recording clerk in charge of taking minutes. I don't
25 know exactly.
1 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting at all of this manuscript or
2 these manuscript notes?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And can you just tell us, because I don't think you've ever
5 explained or haven't been asked this, what exactly was this committee or
7 A. As I've said, I attended several meetings, and those meetings were
8 also attended by the Territorial Defence, the police, civil protection,
9 and chiefs of local communes. It was a consultative body reviewing the
10 situation. Sometimes party representatives were there too.
11 Q. Did it have any particular name, that's all I want to know.
12 Something like the council for national defence or whatever?
13 A. No. Immediately before the war, which means seven or ten days
14 before the war, it was called "Crisis Staff" formally. But I was no
15 longer a member of that Crisis Staff, so I no longer attended the
16 meetings. I mean, the Crisis Staff under the command of the TO.
17 Q. Right. All right. If we take the notes that you were taken
18 through, was there any consensus of opinion, or was there a difference of
19 opinion of how things should proceed, what should be done, particularly
20 after the takeover of Prijedor?
21 A. There was a consensus, at least as far as I can remember, though
22 several meetings. There was a consensus about several different issues,
23 not to give -- not to provide any cause for an attack, to try and
24 negotiate both in Prijedor and in Banja Luka and all possible ways. Also,
25 for the TO to be placed at the disposal of general defence, if there
1 should be an attack, which means to protect the population. That's what I
2 can remember now. Any more specific discussions or talks, I can hardly
3 recall, because I had over 300 meetings throughout those years, and it's
4 very difficult indeed for me now to remember precisely any one of those
5 meetings. There were people who did not have a realistic view of the
6 situation, so they put forward proposals that were completely off the
7 mark. There was a lack of consensus concerning the proposals by some
8 people for a new municipality to be established. There was no consensus
9 about that.
10 Q. Can we just have a look one more time at what you said, and that's
11 in the meeting of the 6th of June. I think that's an error. I think it
12 should be the 6th of May. Page 320 -- 319 in the translation. And it's
13 you speaking, Mr. Sejmenovic. And it starts: "I can see two
15 A. I'm trying to find this. All right, I've just found it. "I see
16 two options," that's what it says, yes.
17 Q. All right. Can you just read out that part, because we've got "I
18 see two solutions" and you say it's "options." Can you just read out so
19 we can get a translation of what you said there.
20 A. This reads: "I see two options, without insignia or with insignia
21 for the police." So these are the two options. "But the question is
22 posed of the safety of the people, who will protect them after the
23 disarming, if we turn in our weapons?" Two illegible words here. And
24 then: "Many people will get hurt. If we decide to try to buy time, we
25 must try everything possible. I am not in favour of leaving the people
1 without protection. I would prefer for us to at least try to put up some
2 defence, to try to successfully defend ourselves."
3 Q. All right. First, have you any reason to believe that this is an
4 inaccurate note of what you said?
5 A. I can't say for sure. I remember that it was in this context, and
6 I remember that my view was, and that there was fear among the people that
7 if we turned in our weapons, a massacre would immediately ensue, such as
8 we have heard a lot about. I never suggested here that there was only one
9 option. It was said that there were two options, and that we should
10 choose either of those. But what was the most difficult problem for me at
11 that time was how at least a minimum protection was to be secured. I,
12 alongside with many other people, did not believe that it was logical to
13 surrender under the -- on the terms requested by the Serbs, especially
14 following the ultimatum where we were requested to hand over incredible
15 amounts of weapons.
16 Q. So the two options that you were talking about was either
17 surrender your weapons or hang on to your weapons to defend yourselves?
18 A. Yes. In order to defend ourselves, if we were to be attacked.
19 Q. Was an option ever considered at any of these meetings that you,
20 the non-Serb population, should launch an attack on the Serbs in the
21 Prijedor Municipality?
22 A. No, absolutely not, not at any moment, not by any person.
23 Q. Now, the final matter that I want to --
24 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Your Honours --
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please continue.
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. The final matter that I want to ask you about Mr. Sejmenovic is
3 this: It was suggested -- it was put to you in terms. You know that
4 Dr. Stakic, as early as February of 1992, was a man who was not informed
5 of what was going on in the municipality and did not even know what was
6 going on republic, much less municipal level. And your answer was "no."
7 From your knowledge of events and Dr. Stakic in the Prijedor
8 Municipality, what was his role, his position in February 1992 onwards, or
9 from February 1992 onwards?
10 A. I know for sure that in February 1992, he was vice-president of
11 the Municipal Assembly. I know that he was an official of the SDS. I
12 think he was in the Executive Board. I'm not quite sure. He may have
13 been vice-president, but I know that he was an official at any rate.
14 I already said that I attended meetings when he was
15 vice-president, and it was a well-known fact in Prijedor. From my own
16 experience, I know that the post of vice-president or president is not
17 attributed easily or to any person. It must be a person who in the
18 political structure, in terms of hierarchy, was highly placed. This, I
19 know, from my experience in relation to any party.
20 Q. Is it possible in your view for the vice-president of a
21 municipality, subsequently the president of a breakaway assembly, to be a
22 mere figurehead and not to be aware of what was happening or what was
23 going on?
24 MR. OSTOJIC: We object to the form of the question, Your Honour,
25 both inappropriate as to what may be possible. If we're dealing with
1 reasonableness is one thing. And secondly I think it calls for extreme
2 speculation on behalf of this witness, in light of his evidence wherein he
3 described for us not just recently, but in 2001 when he testified, as our
4 questions were put to him in the Keraterm Sikirica trial where he did not
5 know the post. That type of question is inappropriate we believe for both
6 those bases, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question is on the level we heard during the
8 last days from both sides, and therefore, I can't see a reason why we
9 should change our attitude. Please proceed.
10 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, Mr. Stakic, Dr. Stakic, was the vice-president of
12 the municipality, president of the National Defence Council, later
13 president of the Serb assembly. Now, from your knowledge, from your
14 experience of political life, is it possible that Dr. Stakic was all of
15 these things and was in ignorance of events and decisions in the
17 A. Well, to my mind, this is quite impossible. It is impossible to
18 hold such a post, if you're not some sort of authority in your party, or
19 to be so highly placed and not be informed of what is going on.
20 Regardless of the party or structure in question, in practice, it is
21 simply not possible.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Sejmenovic, that's all
23 I'm going to ask you.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the usher, please, to present these
2 documents first to the Defence, and then to the witness. For the record,
3 these are the originals provided today for us by the OTP of the official
4 gazette, Prijedor, issue number 2 and 3 of 1992.
5 Mr. Sejmenovic, may I ask you, have you ever seen the official
6 gazette of Prijedor in 1992?
7 A. I don't remember having seen the official gazette in 1992. Some
8 on occasions in 1991, I did see the gazette, or perhaps in January,
9 February 1992. But I cannot remember with precision.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was the official gazette always published in
11 Latin and Cyrillic letters?
12 A. I think so. This was according to the law. It was essential.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, the pagination between issue 2 and 3
14 is a different one. Correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: How is it possible that issue number 2 of 1992
17 is from 25 June; issue number 3, 1992, from 31 August? Did you ever hear
18 that there was a change in the board of editors or something like that who
19 were responsible for the official gazette during the year 1992? Because I
20 would be surprised that issue number 1 would have been from January, and
21 then until June, no new official gazette. Do you know anything about
23 A. What I can see here is not logical to me. As regards possible
24 changes of the editors, in the official gazette, it is true that when the
25 SDS took over power, all the non-Serb persons employed there were
1 dismissed. And the officials and people at lower levels, too. So it is
2 quite possible that there were changes there in the official gazette, too.
3 But I cannot specify who was in question, which persons.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Who had normally access to this official gazette
5 in Prijedor?
6 A. Well, as far as I can remember, there was a service within the
7 Municipal Assembly which was tasked with the following: That after
8 sessions were held, they collected the decisions of the municipal
9 parliament or government and other administrative decisions from the
10 municipality, and to publish this occasionally in the official gazette.
11 This was a service which was under the direct control of the municipality
12 and who was the superior body to that, I really do not know.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And have you ever seen -- you mentioned maybe in
14 1991, an edition of the official gazette where the author appeared as a
15 member or president of the Crisis Staff?
16 A. I apologise. I haven't quite understood the question, whether I
17 saw an official gazette dated in the year 1992? 1991, where an author
18 appears? Whom do you mean when you say author?
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are some decisions published. If you have
20 a look, for example, in number 2 or 3 in the beginning, and what can you
21 read under the decisions published there?
22 A. Here, at the end of the decision, I see a signature whose
23 president of the Municipal Assembly, Milomir Stakic, handwritten, and this
24 is the typical form in which a decision is published in the official
25 gazette, regardless of what decision.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're looking now on number 2 or number 3?
2 A. No, I'm looking at 3.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you have a look on the other pages of this
4 gazette, who is signing the there-published decisions?
5 A. Here, on the first pages, all the decisions were signed by
6 Dr. Stakic. So the decisions --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In which capacity, please, if you also have a
8 look on --
9 A. In edition number 3, in the capacity of president of the Municipal
10 Assembly. In number 3, I'll have to have a look. Also the president of
11 the Municipal Assembly, Dr. Milomir Stakic. There is a whole series of
12 decisions signed by the same person with the same signature.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Always --
14 A. So on page 4, there is a decision where -- which has been signed
15 by the president of the Crisis Staff, Dr. Milomir Stakic. And then there
16 is also a series of decisions also signed by Dr. Stakic in his capacity as
17 president of the Crisis Staff. All the other decisions have been signed
18 in the capacity of president of the Crisis Staff.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And now let me turn to my former question: If I
20 understood you correctly in the beginning, you mentioned that earlier,
21 maybe in 1991, you saw an edition of the official gazette. Correct?
22 A. Yes, sometimes.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever seen there a contribution or
24 decision which was signed by also where you can read in printing that
25 "this decision was taken by a member or president of the Crisis Staff"?
1 A. No, no, absolutely not.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you in person, to conclude, have never seen
3 these official gazettes?
4 A. No, those gazettes I never seen. I saw some that were signed by
5 the president, Muhamed Cehajic.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
7 Judge Vassylenko.
8 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Mr. Sejmenovic, while testifying before this
9 Court, you mentioned for several times the Serb Radical Party. Was this
10 party active in the Prijedor municipality, and who were the leaders of
11 this party in Prijedor Municipality?
12 A. In the Prijedor Municipality, the Serb Radical Party, its
13 supporters, appeared before the party was actually set up. Subsequently,
14 in Prijedor, the Serb Radical Party was set up in Prijedor, and I know
15 that either the president or vice-president was Mr. Vracar, I think his
16 name was Stojan Vracar from Omarska or from a village nearby Omarska. I
17 don't know who the officials were. But it never developed into a larger
18 party, and it did not candidate itself for the municipal elections. They
19 held events or party meetings in different places, but after the
20 elections, they were not present in their parliament, and their activities
21 were not felt in the political life of Prijedor.
22 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: In your testimony of 29th of May and 11th of
23 June this year, you said that in the meetings, Dr. Stakic spoke rarely.
24 It's page 2, English version. "But on the occasions he did speak, it was
25 evident that he held the same views as other persons like Srdjo Srdic.
1 Their speeches were identical."
2 Can you be more specific about the content of these views?
3 A. I can, Your Honour. The SDS, its official positions were
4 implemented through the municipal parliament. The speakers would come
5 out, Mr. Miskovic on behalf of the SDS, or some of the deputies coming
6 from the SDS, that the general drift went in that direction. I remember
7 an SDS deputy, his name was Dragan Sidjak who was very moderate in his
8 views. And sometimes his views differed from those of the SDS. Then
9 there was another person. I don't remember his name. But the remaining
10 portion of the SDS did not differ in their views. They would mainly
11 repeat the arguments that had already been put forward by someone. And in
12 that sense, Stakic was no different from the others. There were rare
13 individuals who were different, and I mentioned the names of two of them.
14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you. I have no more questions.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No further questions from the side of the Bench.
16 Are there any additional questions emanating only from those
17 questions put by the Bench?
18 MR. OSTOJIC: No, thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This, then, concludes the examination of this
20 witness. And we have to thank you for being prepared to answer the
21 questions of all participants here in the courtroom. Thank you for
22 coming, and you are excused.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The official gazettes may be presented again to
1 the OTP.
2 May I ask, what about tomorrow? We are still on schedule and have
3 Witness Number 3?
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes. Your Honour, we've got some
5 more -- no, we've got the original of the document that Mr. Ostojic was
6 referring to, the Senad document. I think Your Honours asked to see the
7 original. In fact, the original's just another photocopy again.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are based on a photocopy only. If it --
9 let's wait until the usher returns. But as regards witness 3, we have a
10 list of potential exhibits. And what about proofing notes?
11 MS. KORNER: There are none, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are none. And the estimated length of the
14 MS. KORNER: I think Your Honour, we've said two sessions in
15 chief, but I don't think it will take that long. We revised it. Although
16 he has got quite a lot to deal with, I don't think it will take -- I would
17 hope that I can finish him in one session tomorrow.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good to know. And in addition, there was
19 probably we can finalise this, still a dispute on two documents amongst
20 the parties. Has this been settled until now? They were not admitted
21 into evidence. Probably the registry may help me out, the two final
23 THE REGISTRAR: You're probably referring to D13 and D14.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: We would ask that they be admitted into evidence,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And may I ask, are there any objections.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, well, I certainly didn't have any
4 discussions with Mr. Ostojic about these documents.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it was in the framework of the witness
6 before us, but I may be wrong. We heard this witness since June 12th.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I honestly can't remember what the
8 problem was, if any, but can I put it this way, it's one of the documents
9 from the Tadic appeal. Is that right?
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think both are emanating from the Tadic
11 appeal. The problem was the documents were disclosed under Rule 68 to the
12 Defence, and then the documents were tendered by the Defence, but
13 apparently there were some problems by the OTP on the admission into
14 evidence. Therefore, it was still open. I had hoped that it was settled.
15 MS. KORNER: I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and have a
16 look at it in the intervening period. Nor can I remember there was an
17 objection from us if there was an objection.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the meantime, please, the usher present the
19 document from the OTP to the Defence.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in addition, we've also found if Your
21 Honours want it, the translation of the document that Mr. Ostojic asked
22 Mr. Sejmenovic about, which is the Supreme Court decision.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Translation.
24 MS. KORNER: We said it was one of our documents, and there was a
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be helpful, because we have only the B
2 versions of these two documents. And then I think there's no problem to
3 admit these into evidence as D20, D21A respectively.
4 MS. KORNER: I don't think we've got -- we haven't got the second
5 document, the actual gazette. I don't know where that comes from. It's
6 not one of our documents, but we have got a translation of the typed
7 document. So I can now hand that to Your Honours.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please. Thank you. Then this would be
10 MS. KORNER: Yes.
11 Then, can I just in the last minute, in the light of the present
12 or the discussions that we had in closed session --
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just, I'm really eager to have a decision on
14 these two documents -- sorry. If they may be, please, shown to the OTP.
15 They were tendered by the Defence; and from our personal view, there is no
17 MS. KORNER: My recollection was Your Honours weren't satisfied
18 with these documents for some reason. But without, again, looking at
19 the -- at what was said...
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I can expedite it, Your Honour, if I may,
21 Ms. Korner.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Normally, I would say "quid tacet consentire
23 videtur," to be silent, seems to consent. So if there are no
24 objections --
25 MS. KORNER: I can't say that, Your Honour, because I honestly
1 can't recall anything about these documents at all.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You are not silent.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Let me just be very clear with respect to these
4 documents, Your Honour: If there is any indication from either the Court
5 or the OTP or any representative that there is an inkling of fraud, the
6 Defence does not want anything to do with those documents.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I understood this. And please remember, only it
8 was our point that the document, I think, it was J3, should never be used
9 in the courtroom again. And as regards these two documents, until now, we
10 have no fundamental objections, and we are expecting them probably you can
11 address it immediately tomorrow.
12 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, for the moment, subject -- you
13 know, I know Your Honours admit a number of documents with a caveat. I
14 don't object at the moment on the basis that there's a question mark.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you remember, in the beginning, we
16 distributed the document on the admission of evidence, and it always can
17 be reversed when we have fundamental objections --
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think it's simple, then, to just give
19 it an exhibit number and be done with it.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then please, for the registry, admit it into
21 evidence under D13, D14. Then we have settled this.
22 And then you had another point?
23 MS. KORNER: Very quick one, Your Honour: It's merely, as it
24 were, in the Old English expression, "firing a shot across the bows," in
25 relation to tomorrow's witness, we've provided the same kind of document,
1 this time to Your Honours as well as to the Defence. However, if the
2 Defence are going to seek to ask questions about that, I would ask that
3 there be discussion in the absence of the witness and a foundation laid
4 for why those questions should be asked.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is the basis of our future
7 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This concludes today's hearing. The trial stays
9 adjourned until tomorrow, 2.15.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
11 7.00 p.m., to be reconvened on
12 Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 2002,
13 at 2.15 p.m.