021211ED

Page 9623

1 Wednesday, 11 December 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon. Please be seated.

6 If I can ask the representative of the registry to call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. Case number IT-97-24-T, the

9 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances, please.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian,

12 with Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

14 And for the Defence.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. John Ostojic along

16 with Danilo Cirkovic on behalf of Dr. Milomir Stakic.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

18 Before we hopefully can conclude Witness DD, let me ask what about

19 the list for the witnesses to be called the first -- yes, the first eight

20 days in January. This list was due today.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: That is correct, Your Honour, and we have the list

22 here that we can distribute to the Court and to the OTP. However, just as

23 a matter of reference or note, it is just a single-page list. We would

24 ask that it be kept confidential, because at this point there are some

25 within this list that may be seeking protective measures and some that

Page 9624

1 have, but what we've done is identified them by the number from our 65 ter

2 disclosures as well as their full name. So if I can just apply for that

3 cautionary measure to be utilised for these exhibits.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. I think there are no objections. It may

5 be treated confidential until further notice.

6 And I take it that the proffers for these witnesses have been

7 distributed? For example, number 15 was on the list of missing proffers.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's my understanding that now

9 the OTP is in possession of all the proffers for those witnesses that

10 we've just submitted.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As you know, also the Judges are extremely

12 grateful if we have the proffers, and we missed until now number 15.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: It's also my understanding, Your Honour, that we've

14 submitted the proffers to be delivered to the Court as well. We can -- we

15 can verify that. And if not, we'll get it at the next break to secure

16 that the Court has it.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Apparently it was distributed right now.

18 Then any other additional issues? It was my understanding that

19 the order of appearances should change during this week. Correct?

20 Especially for today.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: That is accurate, Your Honour. And if I can just

22 explain. It's not necessarily a change, but when we anticipate a certain

23 length of time for a witness, we cannot and do not anticipate the length

24 of time that the OTP will undertake to cross. So our schedule is based on

25 our best guesstimate, if you will, and we had scheduled today's witnesses,

Page 9625

1 but obviously we're still on Witness 05, DD, and the following witness

2 will be as scheduled in the same order, which is Witness number 44.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Who also, if I'm not incorrect, the Court has

5 granted protective measures, both pseudonym, facial distortion, and voice

6 distortion. He'll proceed next in the order that we suggested.

7 Following Witness 044, we will be calling Witness number 052,

8 whose name is Vladimir Makovski. He is not -- is not seeking protective

9 measures, and that's why I identify him also by his name and number.

10 Following Mr. Makovski, the Defence will call Witness number 045.

11 We do not anticipate asking for protective measures for Witness 045,

12 however, I have not in detail discussed with this witness his desires, if

13 any, regarding that, so I'd prefer not to identify him at this moment.

14 But I don't anticipate that we will be seeking those measures for him.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: So those three witnesses for the remainder of the

17 week we think will adequately fulfil the time period -- or at least we

18 anticipate that it will, especially given or in light of the first

19 witness, DD, having taken the time that it did, which is -- we're not

20 objecting it to, obviously. We welcome it. And we think that that will

21 be all the witnesses we will call for this week.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You indicated earlier that there would be an

23 additional two witnesses. And we have tomorrow and we have Friday. The

24 plenary for Friday has been cancelled, but this Trial Chamber will

25 continue and is ready to hear the witnesses that are present in The

Page 9626

1 Hague. It should never be the case that we send a witness home without

2 having heard the witness. So therefore, please take care that the

3 witnesses still stay in The Hague and we can continue.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm in agreement to proceed. I think that we'll

5 take up the entire period of the week with the remaining three witnesses,

6 however. With respect to Witness number 71, he's not coming to The

7 Hague. He is not in The Hague. And we will not be calling him this week.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then the final one? There was one in

9 addition.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I think the Court is referring to Witness number 68

11 68.

12 There were some personal problems that had arisen with respect to

13 Witness number 68. We are trying to get all the information in connection

14 with this witness. We will be to inform the Court more fully on that

15 hopefully later this evening or tomorrow morning in connection with his

16 personal circumstances that I've discussed with him.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But the witness is in The Hague?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: That witness is, yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So in principle, we expect to hear also Witness

20 number 086 from the 65 ter list. But in future, we should make reference

21 only to the final Defence list prepared by the registry.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, Your Honour, 086 is not

23 at The Hague, but 068 is.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, the record says that you're requesting 086 on

Page 9627

1 the transcript.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And it's 068. I don't want to mention the

3 name, 3rd March birthday. Correct?

4 Okay. Anything in addition?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, Your Honour, if I may, since I have the

6 floor. Thank you.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, a matter arose yesterday in questioning

9 by the Court, and I would just like some guidance on it if I may. With

10 all due respect to the Court, the Court asked a witness a question. It is

11 not my practice, if you will, to object unless I feel that it is of utmost

12 necessity, particularly with respect to the OTP witnesses.

13 My question, if the Court would be kind enough to assist me in

14 understanding it, relates to the question Your Honour asked whether

15 Keraterm was similarly or was it known to be the same type of institution

16 as Omarska in 1992. With all due respect to the Court, 1992 in August, as

17 we all know, the international press uncovered Omarska and Keraterm as

18 well as Trnopolje. There was much media in 1992 after that. I don't want

19 to utilise the answer given by the witness, although I'll obviously --

20 it's the Court's discretion to advise us, hopefully, on this, to suggest

21 that that was known to this individual prior or after certain dates. I

22 think the individual answered the question. There was some perhaps

23 confusion, and he answered it in the affirmative.

24 I would ask if it's necessary for the Court to determine whether

25 this witness knew, since he was not ever physically at Keraterm, based on

Page 9628

1 his testimony, but did visit Omarska once and Trnopolje on three separate

2 occasions that, if the Court wishes, I can ask that if I'm given an

3 opportunity on redirect or just to clarify it. Because I think as the

4 transcript reads now, it's left too broad for interpretation. Again, I

5 say with the most respect. It is just -- we're looking for guidance and

6 dates and times are extremely important for us, I think as the Court has

7 gathered.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it would be for the Defence if they are

9 not satisfied with the one or other answer and they might feel that an

10 answer was ambiguous to address this issue in the re-examination.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So that's the reason why we proceeded this way

13 before you started your re-examination.

14 Anything else?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: There is one other point, if I may, for the record,

16 Your Honour. Unfortunately, as I stated my practice with respect to

17 objecting is to allow the flow of questions and answer to proceed

18 accordingly. Regrettably yesterday in part -- I think it was page 68 of

19 the transcript, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Koumjian asked the question,

20 which was a compound question, which also included the language when he

21 was inquiring as to this witness's discussion with the Defence team, and

22 he referenced to the extent -- I'm paraphrasing it, but I think I have it

23 accurate. He was asked to testify to items that the Defence would allow

24 him to testify to, the items that the Defence would like you to testify

25 to.

Page 9629

1 Again, I think it's an inappropriate question. It's not a

2 question of the Defence wishing him. He came here as a witness to

3 testify. And we believe he did give much testimony, as we know from the

4 two days. It's that reference that I would hope that the OTP does not

5 continue to ask our witnesses. Not if they met with the Defence or when

6 they met with the Defence, but not to suggest that the Defence would in

7 any manner manipulate or seek somehow to distort the testimony of

8 witnesses. They are under oath and know their obligations once they take

9 that oath. The Court has warned numerous witnesses in connection with

10 their obligation. The Defence objects to the OTP suggesting that the

11 Defence attorneys or our investigators would in any manner suggest to

12 witnesses to provide certain answers. So we just for the record would

13 like to make that objection.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have heard this objection, but we have to

15 come back to this later when we have the necessary time to discuss whether

16 or not the proffers provided by the Defence orally and in writing were, in

17 fact, misleading and brought this Trial Chamber to a decision which would

18 not have been the outcome of our discussion whether or not a witness is

19 relevant and -- but this concern has to be expressed in the presence of

20 both Defence counsel.

21 The Prosecution, please.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I wanted to raise two matters, and one

23 deals with the proffers, but perhaps it's better to deal with that, as

24 Your Honour suggested, in the presence of both Defence counsel. But we

25 were particularly concerned with the proffer of one of the upcoming

Page 9630

1 witnesses. I believe it's number 45, that's being an example of an

2 inadequate proffer. Even if that is accurate, it's just inadequate as far

3 as the detail provided. But we're prepared to proceed for the rest of

4 this week.

5 The other matter I just wanted to raise briefly is that we did

6 inform the Defence regarding one of the witnesses who previously testified

7 who the Defence in their motion identified as a person that they would

8 have had other questions for had they had the Rule 68 material submitted

9 by the Prosecution in the summons interviews. And that's Mr. Marcelovic.

10 I just want to remind the Defence that he is here today. He's here this

11 week. And he's available this week to answer further relevant questions,

12 if the Court finds that there are relevant questions arising from the

13 material that was provided to the Defence after Mr. Marcelovic testified.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. But I deliberately didn't ask this

15 question because I take it that having received the letter by the

16 Prosecution in due time, it would be for the Defence to indicate if

17 there -- they believe there is a necessity to hear a witness again, to

18 cross-examine a witness again. And the same holds true for the two

19 witnesses to come in January. I take it that the Defence does not have

20 the intention to restart the cross-examination of the three persons

21 mentioned in the same letter.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may reply.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: If the Court recalls, on December 3rd, 2002, the OTP

25 sent us a letter which identified only one witness, Witness Q, that was

Page 9631

1 going to be present this week to testify. That did relate to our motion

2 for a mistrial, it was denied by the Court. At that time we responded,

3 namely on December 4th, 2002, and suggested that we do feel there is a

4 need.

5 Upon consultation with Dr. Stakic and the rest of the Defence

6 team, we determined, based upon the evidence that was produced to us

7 following the Rule 68 disclosures, namely of those five individuals and

8 specifically of the one and that the Court, I think, is well aware of, we

9 decided not to question Witness Q. Subsequent to that - although on the

10 same day, we believe, perhaps the 4th of December - we received another

11 letter from the OTP identifying three additional witnesses with dates upon

12 which they're expected to testify.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: We immediately responded to the first letter,

15 Witness Q, which the Court referenced. The Defence likewise respond to

16 the second letter, which identified these three individuals. Within that

17 letter, based upon my recollection, we requested that we would like to

18 re-examine the witness that is here this week. Actually, it was Witness

19 number 21. I'm not sure if he was a private witness. I could identify

20 him in the letter he was identified. So I don't believe that he is a

21 private witness, and the OTP is nodding, it is a public witness, Muharem

22 Murselovic.

23 We do want to question Mr. Murselovic again. Based on the 68

24 disclosures of the members -- or purported members of the Crisis Staff in

25 1992. And that's what we indicated to the OTP at that time, and we also

Page 9632

1 carbon copied the Court specifically with respect to that.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Court is only in the possession of the

3 letter I mentioned before, as of 4 December 2002, mentioning three

4 witnesses, one of them being in The Hague on 11 December. And as opposed

5 to the other letter of the same date, we didn't receive any reaction from

6 the Defence. We took it that it's not your intention to continue with the

7 cross-examination of this witness. But if necessary, we can react

8 immediately. But then, please, take into account that what we stated

9 earlier: You have to demonstrate that on the basis of concrete questions

10 that you weren't able to put these concrete questions to the witnesses

11 when they had been here in The Hague and that these new questions are

12 emanating from the statements missing at that point in time, I have never

13 seen an answer related to Witness Murselovic.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, we can check with

15 the registrar. We did file with the registry a letter responding

16 specifically to the letter of the 4th of December, 2003 [sic], and we

17 copied the Court. I'll check with the registry. The OTP, I believe, is

18 in possession of that letter and we filed it the same day that we did the

19 other letter, and I believe it was the 4th of December, 2002.

20 Within that letter, we asked and identified and put on notice the

21 OTP and the Court that we would like to discuss the issue and we are

22 seeking leave to continue to question the witness. The Court has never

23 set parameters as to how far in advance we should outline our specific

24 questions of the witness. I'm prepared, having reviewed his summary in

25 part this morning, to advise the Court the areas in which I'd like to

Page 9633

1 touch upon with Mr. Murselovic.

2 In that same letter, just by memory, I specifically state that

3 with the remaining two witnesses - and the Defence reserves our right on

4 this - with the remaining two witnesses, since they'll be called sometime

5 in mid-January, that we notified the OTP - and it's outlined specifically

6 in that letter that we submitted to the registry, to the OTP, carbon

7 copying each of the three Judges - that we reserve our right at that time

8 upon further evaluation to determine whether we will be asking questions

9 of the remaining two individuals.

10 I just don't want to record to reflect that we did not respond.

11 We did respond. We responded in writing. It was filed in the normal

12 channels. The Defence cannot and does not follow up to see if the Court

13 did or did not receive that letter. We're confident it was received by

14 the OTP because we talked about it. We were confident since our prior

15 filings were always received that that one likewise would be given to the

16 Court.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to inform counsel, that I'm not aware that we

18 received the letter. I know the OTP is a large institution. Ms. Karper

19 is not aware of it and Ms. Sutherland is not aware of it. Ms. Korner is

20 away, so I'm not sure of whether it's possible that that letter somehow

21 got to her office without reaching us. But none of us are aware of the

22 receipt of a letter from the Defence.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask Madam Registrar whether there was a

24 letter.

25 THE REGISTRAR: I will double-check, Your Honour, if you will

Page 9634

1 allow me.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are taken by surprise, admittedly. We are

3 discussing this -- the issue what witness to be heard the next day, day by

4 day, and you had possibilities enough to address this issue orally. If

5 you believe you have written a letter, then you could have done it orally

6 in addition. If you were under the impression that the Chamber has not

7 received and not responded to your letter.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: That --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So but let's -- let's not discuss. Let's

10 cross-check immediately. The Chamber is prepared to rule on your letter,

11 whether the threshold is met, indicated in the hearing of 25 November

12 2002, and we are prepared to proceed with this witness today. Hopefully

13 he has not yet left The Hague.

14 May I ask the Prosecutor.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: He has not left The Hague. And I'll have

16 Ms. Karper try to arrange to make sure he doesn't leave today or tomorrow

17 until we hear an answer from the Court. We'll notify --

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this, because this has priority,

19 and we would find a possibility to hear, if necessary, this witness as

20 well.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: I do have one other brief matter. Just to ask the

22 Defence if the order -- the witnesses for the first week, we were given

23 them in the order of their 65 ter number, realising that things can

24 change. Is this the, at the moment at least, the intended order in which

25 they will be called? It would be helpful to us, and I'm sure, the Court

Page 9635

1 to have some idea of the order of witnesses.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. We believe that is correct.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may I ask -- I just saw it, it reads the

4 first week of January. Please recall the order was related to the first

5 working -- the first eight working days of January 2003.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: That's correct, Your Honour. If the Court recalls,

7 we start, I believe, on the 8th of January, which is three days of that

8 week.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: So we wouldn't have envisioned to call one of those

11 witnesses. So that does -- it is for that first eight- to ten-day period,

12 work-day period in January.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. I can't see

14 any other administrative matters, so therefore may I ask the usher,

15 please, to escort the witness into the courtroom.

16 May I ask Madam Registrar to be prepared to present document S169.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Witness DD. Please be seated.

19 This is a totally different environment, but the same holds true.

20 You are still protected in the same way as it was during the last two

21 days. And no doubt you are still under solemn declaration.

22 May I ask you before starting the first -- with the first

23 questions, do you want to add anything to your testimony of yesterday?

24 WITNESS: WITNESS DD [Resumed]

25 [Witness answered through interpreter].

Page 9636

1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the witness. The

2 interpreters cannot hear the witness.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What's the problem? The interpreters cannot

4 hear the witness. Is it resolved now?

5 May I ask you once again to try and find out whether the mic is

6 working now. Do you want to add anything to your testimony of yesterday?

7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the witness.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The interpreters can't hear you.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness say something, please.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you try once again to answer the question

11 whether or not you want to add something to your testimony of yesterday.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to -- I would just like

13 to add something in response to a question that was asked of me yesterday

14 during my testimony in connection with the name of the person who held --

15 or actually holds a responsible function, a responsible office in the

16 relevant ministry. Was that your question more or less?

17 It is possible that I didn't understand the question. I mean, I

18 think I said I didn't know, but maybe the question was who the first man

19 in the police is in the relevant ministry, the entity ministry.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My question was related to the name of the

21 prosecutor general.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I see. No, I don't know.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Thank you.

24 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Witness DD, in 1992 you were the age of 22,

Page 9637

1 correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you like to play soccer in your youth, or

4 football?

5 A. I was not much of a sportsman, not much of a football player, no.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever been to the Ljubija football

7 stadium?

8 A. Yes, of course.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And can you explain the environment. Was there

10 only a football place as such? Was there an area for other athletes as

11 well? Was there a building for the athletes? Please try to give us a

12 short overview of what you recall as the football stadium of Ljubija.

13 A. Well, I don't need to recall. It is situated in the immediate

14 vicinity of my house, and there is an adjacent building which was used

15 before as a changing room for athletes.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You said "which was used before." And I think

17 you covered already --

18 A. Yes. It is still used for the same purpose, the ground floor, I

19 mean.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And in the meantime, was it used for other

21 purposes as well, this building?

22 A. At the beginning of the war, it functioned as the seat of the

23 military police.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The entire building?

25 A. I guess. The building is not very large.

Page 9638

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you been in this building during the time

2 you were mobilised, as you said, "about seven days in 1992"?

3 A. No, I did not have an opportunity to be there. This was not my --

4 the seat where I had to go. Or rather, there was no need for me to be

5 there, even if I had an opportunity.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And so was the sports grounds, as such, when the

7 changing rooms were used by the forces you mentioned before, was it

8 possible to play football or soccer in this area, on the place as such?

9 A. It is possible that it was possible to use it for this purpose,

10 but nobody cared much about football in those days. There were no

11 physical obstacles at the stadium. Even in those days, it was still open

12 on both sides.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What do you mean by "open on both sides"? Is it

14 your testimony that there was no fence around the football stadium as

15 such?

16 A. Yes, it was open. One side of the football stadium -- on one side

17 of the football stadium is a forest, and there is no fence on that side --

18 or rather, there is some kind of fence, but it is not a continuous fence.

19 There are gaps in it, and that's how it is today, as far as I know. As

20 for the lower part of the football stadium, there used to be a fence which

21 is actually still there, but it also has a gap -- a 10-metre gap

22 approximately, and this is all very visible, because the fence itself is

23 transparent. It is just a wire mesh fence.

24 On the side of the road the area is not that visible. You cannot

25 see the stadium with the naked eye. You can see the adjacent building

Page 9639

1 though. And the upper side of the stadium also has an adjacent building,

2 which is connected to the fence on the upper side, and it has a large

3 entrance gate.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are covered three sides. What about the

5 fourth? Was there a fence or was there a wall or something similar?

6 A. I believe I have described all four sides; one side being the

7 wood, the lower side, the fence with gaps, the side next to the road as I

8 said is not that visible. The stadium is not visible from the side of the

9 road with the naked eye; only the adjacent building. And the fourth side

10 consists of this other adjacent building. I believe I was clear.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was --

12 A. Excuse me. Also, you cannot see the stadium from the upper side

13 with the naked eye except when the gate is open. It's not only my

14 opinion; it's a fact.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was there a wall on one side?

16 A. Yes, there was a wall on the side of the road, which I described.

17 This is the physical obstacle that blocks the view of the stadium and the

18 stands, which are situated in the middle of the stadium and are somewhat

19 higher than the fence. That is the area that I said was not visible with

20 the naked eye. And also, from the upper side, you cannot see the stadium

21 except for when the gate is opened. You cannot see it through this

22 adjacent building that I mentioned.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was this football stadium to the best of your

24 recollection, living very close to this area, ever used as a detention

25 facility?

Page 9640

1 A. The only thing I know was that at the time persons were taken

2 there to be interviewed. As for any lengthy stay, no, I don't think that

3 there was any talk about that.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were they brought to the building or to the

5 football ground as such for this, as you called it -- in order to be

6 interviewed?

7 A. I think that they were brought both to the building and to the

8 area next to the football pitch. Although, I never entered the premises

9 at that time. I was never there. This is what I heard from other people,

10 when talking to other people. But I personally never visited the area. I

11 was never there, so I cannot give you a specific answer.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever hear shooting from this area?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever see corpses in this area after the

15 shooting?

16 A. No. I didn't. Shooting could be heard even during the day and

17 during the night intermittently, which doesn't necessarily mean that

18 people were being killed. Though, I do not know the real answer, because

19 I was never there.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From your answer, I take it that you speak about

21 people that -- "they were brought to this area." Who is "they"?

22 A. Well, civilians.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what is --

24 A. I indicated that people were sometimes brought there.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May I ask the usher to present

Page 9641

1 Exhibit number S169 to the witness. And may it be -- please be put on the

2 ELMO.

3 Could you please be so kind with the help of a marker to indicate

4 where you lived in 1992.

5 A. This is Ljubija here.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the usher please bring a dark marker to the

7 witness that you can mark your place of residence on this map.

8 A. [Marks] Is this enough?

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. And the football stadium was where,

10 please?

11 A. On the photograph or on the map?

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the map, please.

13 A. Here, in this area, in the area of Ljubija town.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You have marked the place of your own residence

15 by a cross. Could you please mark the place of the football stadium with

16 a circle on the map.

17 A. If this is my place of residence, then the stadium is here

18 approximately. It -- the map is much too small for me to indicate the

19 distance.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this. And may this Exhibit number

21 S169 with the additional marks on it be called S169A, so that we know the

22 source of these additional marks.

23 May I ask you, when you have the car before you, did you ever

24 drive with your [redacted] to Brisevo?

25 A. No not to Brisevo?

Page 9642

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: With your own car to Brisevo?

2 A. Not during the war operations.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Had you ever heard about a checkpoint between

4 Brisevo and Ljubija.

5 A. There are several roads between Brisevo and Ljubija that can be

6 used. I didn't know them. I never went to Brisevo in those days. I

7 never had an opportunity to go there.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Thank you. For the moment we don't need

9 any longer this special map.

10 In the beginning of your testimony in chief, you mentioned that

11 there were several camps for different purposes, as you stated. What

12 would you call a camp in this sense in the area of the municipality of

13 Prijedor?

14 A. What camp exactly do you have in mind or generally speaking, the

15 notion of a camp?

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we were clear enough when we discussed

17 Omarska and then you made a distinction opposed to Trnopolje. Were there

18 other to the best of your recollection, let's call it detention

19 facilities, detention buildings -- you mentioned in the connection with

20 the football stadium that this place was used for the purpose of

21 interviewing civilians. Were there other such places you recall?

22 A. In the municipality of Prijedor?

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

24 A. I know about Keraterm, Omarska, and Trnopolje, where people were

25 detained for longer periods of time. And I also said the Ljubija football

Page 9643

1 stadium, when people were kept there, they were kept there only for very

2 short, as far as I know.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you recall no other place in the

4 municipality of Prijedor serving for the same purposes as, for example,

5 the football stadium and Ljubija?

6 A. No, I don't remember.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I really understand that it was difficult for

8 you on the basis of a small picture to identify Omarska.

9 May the usher please present document S15-18 to the witness, and

10 please put it on the ELMO.

11 Does this reproduction assist you in finding out from which side

12 you approached Omarska at that time, when you drove there with the

13 second-last bus?

14 A. I said yesterday that it could not assist me. I was there for the

15 first time next to this big building, and I recognised the area according

16 to the photograph, but it was ten years ago, so I don't remember. And I

17 only stayed there very briefly. And I'm not familiar enough with the area

18 anyway.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it is your testimony that you saw only the

20 building from outside and you have no own direct knowledge what happened

21 inside the building, what happened on the entire area depicted here on

22 this still? Is it correct?

23 A. Yes, that's what I stated yesterday, and I still abide by what I

24 said because I stood only at the gate of the compound. I didn't stray

25 away from the bus. I didn't go inside the buildings at all, no.

Page 9644

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And to come back to another question I put to

2 you yesterday: Having discussed now Ljubija football stadium, Omarska,

3 Trnopolje, what would be your categorisation of Keraterm? What was the

4 purpose of Keraterm in 1992 from the perspective of a civilian living in

5 the municipality of Prijedor and for professional purposes, sometimes

6 driving to Prijedor and being in Prijedor?

7 A. As I said yesterday, I know about the Keraterm camp. I know that

8 its purpose was to have an opportunity to control a certain number of

9 civilians in one place. The implication being that they did not go there

10 on their own free will. I don't know if this is enough.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you knew this in 1992, correct?

12 A. I knew about this on account of the stories that I heard. I never

13 had a chance to get closer to the camp or visit the camp itself.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Correct. This is what I understood from your

15 testimony. But you heard about that already in 1992 from other persons

16 telling you stories they have heard from Keraterm, correct?

17 A. Yes. But this was only after a lot of people had already been

18 released from Omarska and Trnopolje.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask you in this connection another

20 question: On page 61, line 23 of Monday's transcript, you immediately

21 answered, when only being there for an extremely short period of time at

22 Omarska, what was the reason for you to ask whether the persons being

23 there were "physically or mentally mistreated"? What brought you to this

24 question?

25 A. I asked that question in Trnopolje, as far as I recall, and not in

Page 9645

1 Omarska. And I didn't have an opportunity to contact anyone in Omarska,

2 anyone from the civilians who were already detained there.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But then let me repeat the same question in

4 relation to Trnopolje: What was the reason? Why did you ask this

5 question?

6 A. To the individuals in Trnopolje? Is that what you mean?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

8 A. For purposes of information. I wanted to see how they were

9 treated, what was the treatment generally speaking. I don't think it was

10 a stupid question at the time. And it was not ill-intentioned.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I know that you answered this question already,

12 the one and the other time, but I have to come back to this. Is it

13 correct that all in all three of your relatives were in Trnopolje?

14 A. Two relatives and one friend, and a few acquaintances, some of

15 whom I knew better than others.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What would be your estimate, the number of

17 persons all in all who you knew at the time being in Trnopolje?

18 A. Hard for me to say. I really can't give you an answer to that

19 question. I knew quite a few people there, but I wouldn't be able to give

20 you their exact number. It would be wrong to say that I didn't know those

21 people, especially those who were from Ljubija itself.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But did you know about the ethnicity of these

23 persons?

24 A. But of course. Ljubija is a relatively small place.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And so were they Serbs? Were they Croats, or

Page 9646

1 Muslims predominantly?

2 A. Croats and Muslims were detained in Trnopolje.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You mentioned that it was possible for you to

4 bring the one or other person back to their homes when released from

5 Trnopolje. What about the three persons you mentioned just beforehand,

6 the two relatives and the one friend? They were all released on the basis

7 of Serbian guarantees? Correct?

8 A. I already answered that question to the Prosecutor, if I can

9 remember. I took my friend home personally. I don't know who signed the

10 release documents for him. His wife kept it a secret. She came with me

11 to pick him up. At the end of the day, I wasn't that interested in

12 finding out who had signed the document. The most important thing was for

13 him to go home, obviously.

14 As for one of my uncles, it was my father who was the guarantor,

15 and he escorted him home. I don't know how they then went to Prijedor,

16 and from Prijedor to Ljubija they travelled on a local bus which had

17 already started running between the two places.

18 And the third person, my other uncle, got the guarantee from a

19 taxi driver whom I don't know. I only know that there was some

20 compensation, some money involved in that. And that same taxi driver

21 brought my uncle home. My uncle never told me how much he had to pay for

22 that. He always shrugged it off and always said, "It doesn't really

23 matter. What matters is that I'm now home." That is what I know

24 personally about these three men. I don't know about others, whether they

25 had to have the written guarantees of relatives, Serbs, friends, Serbs, or

Page 9647

1 maybe they had to pay for that.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask you: Did you ever discuss with these

3 three persons, especially with those you escorted home yourself, about

4 that what happened to them and to others in Trnopolje? Did they speak

5 about any beatings or other violence vis-a-vis detainees?

6 A. No. They didn't tell me. I did ask them, and they said that

7 during the short time that they had been in Trnopolje, nothing like that

8 had happened. So we didn't talk much about that period of time. I didn't

9 really find it necessary to talk too much about that. The most important

10 thing was that they were home, that they were free. And now, after so

11 much time has gone by, we really don't talk about it. It never occurs to

12 us to reminisce on those times.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But wouldn't you yourself find it surprising

14 that when coming first to such a camp, you immediately asked what about

15 "physical or mental mistreatment"? And then, later on having the

16 possibility to discuss this with your relative and friend, or you didn't

17 discuss this at all? Is really your testimony under solemn declaration

18 that you never discussed these questions and you never heard about

19 beatings and other kind of violence in Trnopolje camp?

20 A. I've already said that the first time I met with them, I asked

21 them how they were, how they were treated. I said that yesterday and the

22 day before. They answered, "The conditions are not ideal. The food is

23 not good. Their accommodation is very poor. Some sleep on beds, some

24 sleep on the floor." And they also said that nobody was beating them or

25 otherwise ill-treating them. That's what my cousins told me later on when

Page 9648

1 we got home. We never discussed it again.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you never discussed with them the name of

3 Kuruzovic?

4 A. Maybe then at that time, but not later on. If we don't talk about

5 things, we can't mention any names, can we? If they don't want to talk

6 about it, if they do not want to dwell upon it, why should I insist on

7 that? Why should I be interested in talking about it?

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Quite clear. But you answered, "Maybe then at

9 that time." You are under solemn declaration, and I have to insist,

10 please answer the question. Did you discuss the name of -- the

11 personality of Mr. Kuruzovic with one or all the three of them?

12 A. I can't remember. It was a long time ago. It was ten years ago.

13 I really did not expect such questions, which doesn't imply that I'm not

14 prepared to answer them. I myself mentioned Trnopolje. Already the day

15 before yesterday I told you how I got there the first time, the second

16 time, and the third time. If the Defence counsel had not asked me that, I

17 would have mentioned it anyway.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My final question would be: Who do you believe

19 was not the Urije, but on the basis of the title, the main political

20 responsible person in Prijedor municipality and on what factual basis do

21 you come to this assessment?

22 A. I can't give you an answer to that. I know that there were some

23 military officers as representatives of the military. One of them was

24 Colonel Arsic. Then there was Radmilo Zeljaja. I believe that his rank

25 was also colonel. The late Simo Drljaca, who was the chief of the police.

Page 9649

1 And there were also people from the civilian authorities. Those people

2 had most influence at that time.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So that the transcript is clear and unambiguous,

4 it reads now, "There were also people from the civilian authorities.

5 Those people had most influence at that time." Could you please comment

6 on this. And as you did it in relation to military personnel, what were

7 the persons in civilian authorities you recall at that time, 1992?

8 A. I remember Mr. Srdjo Srdic, for example. Allegedly he was a

9 representative in the People's Assembly. There was also Mr. Simo

10 Miskovic. I don't know what his position was. The late Dr. Kovacevic.

11 Again, I don't know what his position was at the time. These -- this is

12 my answer, but I only learnt that later on, after the war. At that time I

13 was not aware of all this.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Finally, in -- when you escorted the bus on its

15 way first to Omarska and then to Prijedor, in which capacity did you act

16 at that time?

17 A. On the road first to Omarska and then to Trnopolje, not to

18 Prijedor, I was an escort.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And we learned that you were at that time [redacted]

20 [redacted]. Did you act as [redacted]--

21 A. That is correct, yes.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And who asked you to act as [redacted]

23 and why was it necessary to have [redacted]acting as an escort

24 on a bus to a camp?

25 A. [redacted], but I was off duty. My shift was 48 hours,

Page 9650

1 and then I would be off for the following 48 hours. On that particular

2 day I was off duty and one of the military came by my house and saw me,

3 saw me that I was free, that I wasn't doing anything. I can't remember

4 who it was. They had already seen the other [redacted]

5 performing his regular duties. Then they ordered me to come with them.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you volunteered?

7 A. I went for purely safety reasons, for my own safety.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it's your testimony that you were compelled

9 to do so?

10 A. I wouldn't say I was compelled or forced to go. They simply told

11 me, "You are coming with us." I could have refused, but I feared the

12 possible consequences.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So taking all the time together you spent there

14 in the Brdo area when the targeted persons were collected and brought to

15 the buses and then brought first in part to Omarska and then later to

16 Trnopolje, how many hours did this take from the first bus to the last

17 bus? You told us that you observed this entire exodus.

18 A. I know that that operation lasted from approximately 10.00 or

19 11.00 in the morning until 3.00 in the afternoon. But I arrived later,

20 and then I got on my bus. I did not participate in the operation of

21 gathering people.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

23 Judge Vassylenko, please.

24 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Witness DD, you testified about three

25 incidents, the incident in Hambarine, Kozarac, and Prijedor, which took

Page 9651

1 place between the 22nd of May -- 22nd of May and 30th of May, 1992. Where

2 had you been when these incidents occurred?

3 A. At home. The third incident happened on the 30th of May. That is

4 when I was for the first time assigned to provide a security for the

5 police building in Ljubija, on that same evening.

6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Next question: Did you personally know at

7 least some persons involved in these incidents?

8 A. I already said that I knew some people in the first incident, that

9 is, on the 21st of May. And as for the others, no.

10 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And whom did you know?

11 A. I knew the persons who fell victim to the accident in the car on

12 the 21st of May. I didn't know all of them. I knew three of them, three

13 of the six.

14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Can you name them.

15 A. Sinisa Mijatovic, who was injured; Miroslav Lulic, who is now

16 dead. He subsequently committed suicide. And Nedeljko Antunovic. I

17 believe that he was also injured at that time -- I'm sorry, Sinisa

18 Mijatovic and Ratko Milojica were injured. I didn't know Ratko Milojica

19 at the time. I also didn't know the late Lukic and the other Milojica.

20 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Did these persons belong to the army or the

21 police or paramilitary formations?

22 A. The military.

23 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Next question: While visiting Trnopolje camp

24 for the second time with the purpose to see your friend, had you a chance

25 to contact your relatives detained in the camp?

Page 9652

1 A. I've already said that I did have contacts with all of them, with

2 both my cousins and the friend, and I've already said it. I've said it

3 several times. And I've already told you what we were talking about, what

4 was the reason for which I went there. I did have contacts with them. I

5 told them how they were, how they were treated, and so on and so forth.

6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And one more on the last question: Have you or

7 your father ever tried to reach municipal authorities in order to get your

8 relatives released?

9 A. I didn't. And as for my father, I don't know. I can't speak for

10 my father. I only know that my father put his name on the guarantee for

11 one of my uncles. I really can't tell you who he might have contacted. I

12 really don't know. This wasn't important at the time. The most important

13 thing for us was for my relatives to get home. How this was to be done

14 was of minor importance.

15 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Very well. I have no more questions.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Judge Argibay, please.

17 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Good afternoon, sir. I have two or three very

18 simple questions.

19 A. Good afternoon.

20 JUDGE ARGIBAY: I hope you can that answer very shortly.

21 As a person who has done your military service, were you aware

22 that the army had barracks in Prijedor and that that was the place for a

23 brigade who was first number 43, I think, and then 143, and then 343?

24 Were you aware of the existence of that brigade?

25 A. I was aware of the existence of that brigade. The barracks

Page 9653

1 were --

2 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. Just stop there. And then I'll continue.

3 Because if not, you are going to give an explanation that I don't need.

4 Do you know how many men composed that brigade?

5 A. I don't know. There were also reserve soldiers who had been

6 mobilised, so I wouldn't be able to give you the number of the men in the

7 brigade.

8 JUDGE ARGIBAY: I don't know the exact number. More or less.

9 Would you tell me there were 500, 1000, more than 1000?

10 A. I really can't tell you. I don't know the number. Whatever I

11 might tell you, I'm afraid would be wrong. I know that the brigade was

12 rather large. And given the fact that it was a brigade -- a brigade

13 usually has a certain number of men in it. It has a certain strength. I

14 don't know how much it is.

15 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. Then just turning to those episodes or

16 those events that you were talking earlier in your testimony just some

17 days ago. You told us for the incident in Hambarine of the name and

18 number of soldiers that were wounded or dead. And then after, you told us

19 about the driver who was killed in the Kozarac - I'm sorry for the

20 pronunciation of the names - in the Kozarac incident two days afterwards.

21 And then you told us that there was a false -- an attack by Bosniak forces

22 on Prijedor on May 30th. Correct? And you said that this force that

23 attacked Prijedor was around 200 men. You told us so, this in the

24 transcript on the first day.

25 And I want to ask you: Do you know - you were very well informed

Page 9654

1 over these events and the incidents - do you know what arms this group of

2 200 men had?

3 A. I assume that they had their personal infantry long-barrel weapons

4 or side weapons. I really don't know. They had automatic weapons,

5 semi-automatic weapons.

6 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Did they have tanks?

7 A. As far as I know, they didn't.

8 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Trucks?

9 A. I wouldn't be sure about trucks.

10 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Rockets?

11 A. Rockets and zoljas.

12 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. And the last one, if I may: Do you

13 remember what road did you take from your city to Prijedor hospital when

14 you were driving some ill person to Prijedor? Do you remember the road?

15 A. There's just one road. There is just that one shortest route from

16 my place to Prijedor, which is about 12 kilometres.

17 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. And inside the city of Prijedor, you have

18 the same road to go to the hospital?

19 A. Through Prijedor there are obviously several streets one can

20 take. I mostly took one way or one route. If I had a map, I could show

21 you that that route went by Prijedor hotel, by the Orthodox church, by a

22 place called Ereza. Then the police building, the building of the

23 municipal assembly.

24 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay.

25 A. And then on towards Ravno.

Page 9655

1 JUDGE ARGIBAY: That's enough.

2 Just listening to you, and you just answer my next question, that

3 you passed the police offices building on your way to the Prijedor

4 hospital. Have you ever seen queues of people in front of that building

5 in the period we are talking about? That means -- you were [redacted]

6 [redacted] from June 1992 on. Let's say from June 1992 to September 1992,

7 have you ever seen queues of people -- lines of people in front of the

8 police building in Prijedor?

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The words [redacted]please be redacted

10 from the transcript. Thank you.

11 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Oh, sorry.

12 A. Thank you. I understand your question, but I can't remember. I

13 can't give you an answer to this question. Maybe I didn't pay too much

14 attention to any such thing.

15 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Thank you.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask Defence counsel, any questions in re?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Court's permission, I do, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then before we have the break, we need some

19 clarification. Did we find out whether or not there was such a letter as

20 indicated by Defence counsel?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: We found a copy of a letter that was sent on the

22 4th of December. Apparently it was in Ms. Korner's office and apparently

23 it was delivered after she was away.

24 I'll give the Court our copy. And I do have some comments about

25 the contents, but it will be --

Page 9668

1 of Serb nationality -- there were many people of Serb nationality who

2 tried to protect their Muslim and Croat neighbours, who disagreed with the

3 persecutions and the crimes that were happening against them? This wasn't

4 the Serbian people of Prijedor doing this. This was specific

5 individuals. Correct?

6 A. Well, I assume not the person who signed the papers of their own

7 free will. Maybe those who had some interest in signing such documents,

8 they -- they did that. There are all kinds of people, you know.

9 Q. I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear, but there were many people, many

10 Serbian people, who disagreed with the crimes against their neighbours and

11 who tried to protect Muslim and Croat neighbours, correct?

12 A. Of course there were such people. I don't know their number. I

13 wouldn't be able to tell you the percentage either. I don't personally

14 know any such information.

15 Q. Is it correct, though, that the atmosphere was such in Prijedor

16 and the atmosphere with the authorities that it was understandable that a

17 woman, like the one we just spoke about in private session, would want to

18 keep that name of that particular person who had helped her secret,

19 because for some people, for some Serbs it was dangerous for it to be

20 known that they helped their neighbours?

21 A. I guess that it was so. I don't know why they kept it secret.

22 Again, as I said, I was not interested in knowing that. What was

23 important was for this friend to be able to go back home.

24 Q. From your position that you've talked about, the power of the

25 military, it's your position, as I understand it, that the military could

Page 9669

1 choose who would be the leader of the civilian government; is that

2 correct?

3 A. I have said that it was the military who took over in a peaceful

4 way, and it is my assumption, which does not have to be correct, that they

5 were in the position to elect the civilian authorities until somebody

6 would be put in that position. That's my assumption. I wouldn't be able

7 to tell you the correct -- or the appropriate answer.

8 If the military was influential, especially some of its officers,

9 then they might have had influence on the civilian authorities as well.

10 Q. I understand you've been testifying based upon your assumptions of

11 what was occurring in Prijedor. So you would assume that if a civilian

12 leader was not cooperating, the military would have removed that leader,

13 correct?

14 A. I don't know. It may have been so. From the position that I am

15 in, I wouldn't be able to tell you. As for Dr. Stakic, maybe it wasn't

16 the military who appointed him. Maybe it was not the military who told

17 him, "You're just going to be a figure person and you're going to have to

18 say whatever -- do whatever we tell you to do." I don't know whether

19 it -- whether that happened in that way.

20 Q. Sir, were you aware of public interviews by Colonel Arsic,

21 television interviews, for example, where he said he kept the civilian

22 authorities very well informed about military matters in Prijedor, and are

23 you aware of public interviews by Dr. Stakic where he indicated that

24 cooperation between the civilian and military authorities in Prijedor was

25 very good?

Page 9670

1 A. I'm not familiar with such interviews. I've already told you that

2 I was not interested in the media, especially immediately upon the

3 breakout of the war. I wasn't following the media almost at all.

4 Q. As a person living in Prijedor, during the period from May through

5 September of 1992, did you see any evidence, and if so, please explain it

6 to us, any evidence of conflict between the military, police, and civilian

7 authorities in Prijedor?

8 A. I can't remember any such evidence. I wasn't interested in the

9 political situation. I wasn't into politics at all.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further

11 questions.

12 Just for the Court's information, the interview -- okay. Sorry. I

13 have no further questions. Thank you.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: No further questions.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This concludes the testimony of Witness DD.

16 May I finally ask you: Did you, when coming to The Hague, feel

17 under some pressure by whomsoever to be quite precise? This is not

18 related at all to the Defence -- but under pressure of other persons

19 living together with you in Ljubija or other persons you are working with

20 or you're a subordinate to?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: We are in open session, Your Honour?

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let us hear the answer in closed session -- in

23 not closed session. It will be too difficult. In private session.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may be heard. The Defence has a

25 position. We would like it in open session. Just, I want on the record

Page 9671

1 to note our position on that.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the witness: Do you believe it would

3 help you to answer the question truthfully when we hear your answer in

4 private session? Will it assist you in answering my question?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can easily give it in an open

6 session.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then please do so.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not experience any political

9 pressures either in my institutions -- institution where I work or by any

10 of my neighbours, citizens of Ljubija, or anybody else. I came here of my

11 own will, nobody persuaded me to come here -- and "here," I mean the

12 gentlemen from the Defence, regardless of the circumstances that may have

13 prevented me from coming here.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You only should know that whenever you feel it

15 necessary to add something or to clarify something, it is open for you to

16 contact the Court in writing or through the Defence if you feel it

17 necessary. Thank you for coming. This concludes --

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: May I, Your Honour, ask if the Court cares to

19 inquire. The OTP would like to permission of the witness to disclose his

20 transcript in other cases, specifically the Brdjanin case.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you understand the question? Do you agree

22 that your transcript is used as well in one or other cases, especially the

23 case Prosecutor versus Mr. Brdjanin in order to avoid that you have to

24 appear a second time here in The Hague? Do you agree?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is up to you, Your Honours, to

Page 9672

1 decide whether my testimony is relevant. As I've already told you, I'm

2 here of my own will to help the Honourable Court to come to the truth

3 regardless of the final outcome of this procedure.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. You didn't answer my question.

5 Do you agree that your testimony is used in other cases on the

6 basis of the transcript you can see before you as well? This is one rule

7 aiming at -- that the witness has not to appear another time in The

8 Hague. Do you agree that this transcript, that what is written down from

9 your testimony, is used in other cases as well?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that the transcript will

11 protect my identity. And if that is the case, I don't have any objections

12 to the transcript being used as an exhibit in any other trial.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then this is accepted under the same

14 protective measures as applicable during this testimony.

15 Thank you for coming.

16 May I ask the usher to escort the witness out of the courtroom.

17 Wait a moment.

18 Is my understanding that also the next witness appears under

19 pseudonym?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: That is correct, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be then DE. And also voice and face

22 distortion.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to make a correction,

24 if I may.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We'll reopen the testimony of Witness DD.

Page 9683

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Witness DE, I'm going to ask you some questions now relating to

4 time specific to the spring and summer of 1992. To the best of your

5 recollection, sir, prior to - meaning before - April 30th, 1992, did you

6 reside in the area that you mentioned to us, namely Gornja Ravska?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can you share with us prior to April 30th, 1992, whether all the

9 homes in the area or town that you lived were ever damaged, shelled,

10 bombed, or otherwise looted.

11 A. No.

12 Q. Sir, let me ask you the question from the period of April 30th,

13 through May 22nd, 1992, do you recall if any of the homes within the

14 village within which you resided were ever shelled, bombed, destroyed,

15 burned, or looted?

16 A. In my village not a single house was ever shelled, bombed, or set

17 on fire to this date.

18 Q. Witness DE, if I may, with the Court's permission -- thank you for

19 your answer. However, just for our purposes, I'd like to just get an

20 answer for certain time periods. So let me ask the general question: At

21 any time during the spring and summer of 1992, from April 30th, 1992,

22 through September 30th, 1992, were any of the homes in the village in

23 which you resided at that time shelled, bombed, burned, or destroyed, or

24 otherwise looted?

25 A. During that period of time, not a single house was either set on

Page 9684

1 fire, shelled, or in any way destroyed.

2 Q. At that time, just so that I'm clear, the ethnic composition of

3 the town in which you resided was predominantly Croatian, with the

4 exception, I think, as you've testified, four to five homes which were

5 persons who had the Serb ethnic background, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you tell me in the spring and summer of 1992, namely prior to

8 April 30th of 1992, were you employed?

9 A. No. I went to school.

10 Q. Share with us, if you will, where you attended school.

11 A. In Prijedor. The secondary machine school.

12 Q. Just so that we're clear, it is the city of Prijedor that you

13 attended school, correct, in the very centre city, correct?

14 A. Yes, in Prijedor. The name of the school is the machine

15 energetics secondary school.

16 Q. And from the period after April 30th, 1992, through and including

17 the date in which the schools close for the summer session, did you

18 continue to go to school on a regular and daily basis?

19 A. I attended school until the 22nd of May, 1992.

20 Q. Can you share with us specifically the time period that's of most

21 interest to us, April 30th, 1992, through May 22nd, 1992, whether you

22 continued to go to school on a regular and daily basis.

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Court's permission, I'd like S1 to be

25 placed on the ELMO be the usher so he can perhaps share with us the route

Page 9685

1 that he took to go to the school.

2 A. I cannot read what it says. Gornja Ravska, Ljubija, Hambarine,

3 Prijedor.

4 Q. Your daily journey from April 30th, 1992, through May 22nd, 1992,

5 was done with which mode of transportation?

6 A. By bus.

7 Q. Public bus transportation, correct?

8 A. Yes, public bus transportation.

9 Q. At that time, sir, from April 30th through May 22nd, 1992, did you

10 have classmates of ethnic backgrounds different than your own?

11 A. Yes, I had classmates who were of different ethnicity.

12 Q. Such as what, sir?

13 A. For instance, Haris Jakupovic.

14 Q. And what is Mr. Jakupovic's ethnic background, to the extent that

15 you know?

16 A. Well, he's a Muslim, a Bosniak.

17 Q. Do you recall, sir, during the period in question that we're

18 discussing, April 30th, 1992, through May 22nd, 1992, whether Bosnian

19 Muslims continued to go to school, as you did, on a daily and regular

20 basis, as you did, in April 30th through May 22nd, 1992?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you, as you sit here, sir, recollect your classmate,

23 Mr. Jakupovic, who is a Bosniak Muslim by his ethnic background, attending

24 school during that entire period on a daily and regular basis?

25 A. Yes.

Page 9686

1 Q. Share with us, if you will, whether or not you proceeded to go to

2 school in the week or so after May 22nd, 1992.

3 A. I didn't go to school from the 22nd of May until sometime in

4 June -- I don't remember the exact date -- due to the incident which took

5 place in the village of Hambarine. The reason being the fact that there

6 was no transport from Prijedor.

7 Q. When does the school session in the Prijedor municipality

8 typically and more specifically in 1992, when would it end?

9 A. On the 15th of June, 1992.

10 Q. Likewise during this period of April 30th through May 22nd, 1992,

11 did you have an opportunity, sir -- did you -- if I can strike the

12 question, because I think I need a foundation -- a foundational question

13 first. If I may, Your Honour. Thank you.

14 Let me ask you this. I apologise, Witness DE. In your school,

15 during the period of May 30th through May 22nd, 1992, were there teachers

16 who taught students of all three or more ethnic backgrounds, namely

17 Serbs -- teachers who were of the Serb ethnic background, teachers were of

18 the Croatian ethnic background, and teachers of the Bosniak Muslim ethnic

19 background?

20 A. I personally had both Serb and Bosniak teachers.

21 Q. Let me focus my question on the period of April 30th through May

22 22nd, 1992. Do you recall whether those teachers of Serbian and Bosniak

23 backgrounds, whether they continued to teach on a daily basis to you and

24 other students at that time period?

25 A. Yes.

Page 9687

1 Q. In 1992, the spring and summer, sir, with respect to your town,

2 was there a Catholic church or a religious institution within that town?

3 A. In my town there was a church, which actually still exists, which

4 did not suffer any damage during the war.

5 Q. Just so that I'm clear, during the spring and summer of 1992, was

6 this Catholic church ever bombed or shelled?

7 A. No, it was neither bombed or shelled.

8 Q. Was it ever burned or any attempts to burn or loot the Catholic

9 church in your hometown?

10 A. No. There were no such attempts.

11 Q. Share with us, sir, if you were ever in the military.

12 A. Yes, I was. I was in the military from the 10th of October, 1994,

13 until the 15th of February, 1996. It was my regular military service that

14 I did during this period of time.

15 Q. During the spring and summer of 1992, specifically April 30th

16 through September 30th, 1992, were you, sir, in light of the fact that

17 you're Croatian, were you ever harassed by anyone?

18 A. During that time, I was not harassed by anyone.

19 Q. During that same time period, namely April 30th through September

20 30th, 1992, were you ever beaten up or did anyone strike you?

21 A. No. No one harmed me or beat me.

22 Q. During that time period, sir, were you ever humiliated or caused

23 to have upon you any mental suffering or to be degraded in any fashion?

24 A. No, I was not degraded.

25 Q. During this time period, April 30th, 1992, through September 30th,

Page 9688

1 1992, had anyone at any time attempted to forcibly transfer or deport you

2 from your hometown to any facility or institution?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Likewise, sir, with respect to your family, your parents, were

5 they ever harassed, beaten, humiliated, or asked to leave their hometown

6 during the period of April 30th through September 30th, 1992, by anyone,

7 including people of the Serb ethnic background?

8 A. My father lived in the Republic of Slovenia, where he worked

9 during the war. Me and my mother, we were at home, and no one ever

10 harassed us or struck us.

11 Q. In the town in which you lived in the spring and summer of 1992,

12 did you, sir, observe, see, or hear of anyone within your town of those

13 100 and so homes being beaten, humiliated, insulted, degraded, or

14 otherwise offended?

15 A. Yes, these things happened. In June or July -- July, I think it

16 was, five individuals were taken away from my village, from their homes,

17 that is. They were allegedly taken to Omarska. After all these events,

18 four left for third countries. As for the fifth one, there's no

19 information as to his whereabouts.

20 Q. Did there remain in your town in the spring and summer of 1992

21 other able-bodied men of military age other than those five that you've

22 just shared with us were taken to Omarska?

23 A. Other residents remained at their homes.

24 Q. So other able-bodied men, were they ever harassed, humiliated,

25 beaten, or otherwise degraded during the period of April 30th through

Page 9689

1 September 30th, 1992?

2 A. As far as I know, no one ever touched them.

3 Q. I'd like to focus if we can on the day of April 30th, 1992, sir.

4 Do you recall that date and what, if anything, significant happened on

5 that day?

6 A. The 30th of April? 1992, right?

7 Q. Correct. The 30th of April, 1992.

8 A. No.

9 Q. You mentioned the date of May 22nd, 1992, as being an incident at

10 the village or hamlet of Hambarine, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you share with us, sir, whether or not or what information

13 you have in connection with this incident on May 22nd, 1992.

14 A. Well, what happened, at least the story went around - whether it's

15 true or not, I don't know, because I was not there --

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I would make an objection just to the

17 value -- the relevance of testimony. If the witness is only, again,

18 relaying hearsay as to what happened, unless he talked to someone who was

19 there directly or -- if it's simply unspecified hearsay, I just -- my

20 objection is relevance.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And this would be true for a line of questions

22 previously.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure I understand. Which previous lines of

24 questions the Court is referring to, with all due respect.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The line of questions -- I don't think it's of

Page 9690

1 relevance in this abstract way Defence counsel is asking questions to the

2 witness, and whether or not one single witness was aware of some alleged

3 incidents may be not of this relevance. But when it comes now down to

4 this abstract question, as we can read it on page 63, line 1, following,

5 in fact we have to intervene and ask for more concrete questions.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Witness DE, I'm trying to just establish whether or not you knew

8 and had information relating to an incident which occurred on May 22nd,

9 1992. I'm not asking you to share that information that you had, but

10 whether you understood that an incident occurred on or about that date in

11 the village of Hambarine. And then I have several questions relating to

12 your personal observations after that, with the Court's permission.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But it's necessary to have a break now,

14 and then we'll continue after the break with your line of questions.

15 The trial stands adjourned until 6.00 sharp.

16 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

19 And may I ask the usher to escort the witness out of the

20 courtroom.

21 [The witness stands down]

22 In the meantime, I want to confirm that the Trial Chamber will sit

23 in this case on Friday from 9.00 to 12.30 and from 14.00 to 15.30 hours.

24 The second part will take place under Rule 15 bis because one of the

25 Judges has already scheduled a flight and this can't be rescheduled.

Page 9691

1 As regards the witness before us, I think there are no longer any

2 relevant questions to put to this witness. When we were confronted with

3 the admission of this witness, we took it that it would be Gornja Ravska.

4 The Defence should be aware, and no doubt they know that Gornja Ravska

5 and -- Donja and Gornja Ravska are no longer part of our case. It was

6 acquitted under 98 bis.

7 What we have as a summary of the testimony, it is exhausted and it

8 doesn't make sense at all and it is therefore not relevant. Whether or

9 whether or not a, at that time, 16-year-old person has some third- or

10 fourth-hand knowledge about whether or not an incident happened in the

11 area. So therefore, if the Defence is not able to identify additional

12 relevant questions, this would conclude the examination-in-chief.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. The Defence does believe

14 that the witness is relevant for a number of reasons, specifically some of

15 the which the testimony was outlined, namely to refute the testimony by

16 several OTP witnesses regarding the functions of schools, whether they

17 operated, whether teachers were discharged, whether students continued to

18 go within a critical period within the indictment.

19 Likewise, with all due respect to my learned friend from the OTP,

20 we did not have any intention to ask this witness to regurgitate or to

21 repeat any hearsay items that he'd learned as a result of the Hambarine

22 incident, the Kozarac incident, or the attack on Prijedor. However, we

23 believe the witness continues to be an important witness, since according

24 to his testimony, based upon my recollection, and that which is reflected

25 in the testimony, after the attack on Hambarine, he continued to go to

Page 9692

1 school. The route that this witness shared with us that he took from

2 Gornja Ravska --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We heard all this.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand. He can tell us from personal

5 knowledge, information, and observations what he saw going through

6 Ljubija, Hambarine, and then to Prijedor. I think it's important and I

7 think it will refute issues both that go to widespread and systematic

8 attack, the nature and extent and the severity of the purported damage

9 that was done at Hambarine.

10 Here is a witness who at that time continued to travel after the

11 22nd, and I think his insights may assist us in determining whether or not

12 from the witnesses that the OTP called, if in fact every home was

13 destroyed, as they suggest, every home was burned, shelled, and looted.

14 This witness, I believe, will have testimony relevant to those factors.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We already heard the witness on this. And as I

16 stated before, it's absolutely misleading already the proffer you provided

17 for us, and we do not accept that you continue with the line of

18 questioning which is absolutely irrelevant for the case, because it's no

19 longer part of the fourth amended indictment relating to Donja and Gornja

20 Ravska. And we heard the witness and the statement -- his statement on

21 the way to school and back from school during a certain period of time.

22 So everything what is covered and expected by the Defence under the

23 proffer has already been established.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, I don't think it has. For

25 example, if I may, Your Honour, I would ask him concretely, did he view

Page 9693

1 the Hambarine area and the homes, since I believe he took that road

2 through Hambarine, after May 22nd, 1992. And I believe I would follow up

3 with the question, if it's in the affirmative: What is it that you

4 observed during your travels after that time? We believe it goes to

5 refute and contradict certain allegations that were put to this Court and

6 brought before other witnesses that the OTP called. If the Court doesn't

7 think it's relevant that -- whether there were only the homes on the

8 street or near the street that were shelled during the incident on May

9 22nd, as opposed to the entire village, as the OTP has alleged, then make

10 it clear for us. Our intent is to have him, through his travels, share

11 with us that which he saw, not strictly within his village but in the

12 villages in which he travelled during that time period.

13 Also, we believe it's important that this witness will share with

14 us the present situation, both in Hambarine and in the Prijedor

15 municipality, because the Court has on several occasions shared with us

16 their mandate and request to determine whether there is a continuation and

17 revitilisation or return of persons who had left in 1995. I think this

18 witness, having continued to live there during that entire ten-year period

19 can share that information with the Court, if you'd like.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Make I hear the submission by the Prosecution.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, well, we don't object to those

22 questions, but I think they've been handled -- they've been already

23 testified to by the last witness, as far as the road. Counsel didn't make

24 an actual proffer of what this witness would testify to, but assuming he

25 would testify -- he travelled on the road and saw 40 or 50 houses

Page 9694

1 destroyed, if that's the proffer, I don't think that's particularly

2 relevant at this point.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think that also the witness understands. The

4 Defence counsel shall limit the questions to the route from his home to

5 school but no other questions as reflected that a 16-year-old witness

6 could testify that "there was no organised genocidal plan in Prijedor,"

7 as we can read it from the proffer. This doesn't make sense at all.

8 So please conclude immediately your examination-in-chief on the

9 basis and limit it to the route from home to school, and then we'll

10 continue immediately.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for Your Honour, if I may. I would like, with

12 the Court's permission, to ask the witness a question for a point of

13 clarification that was raised on page 55, lines 10 through 15 in private

14 session, if I'm permitted to just ask him a point of clarification on

15 that.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we can do it in five minutes.

17 Please escort the witness into the courtroom.

18 THE REGISTRAR: I have one slight correction for the record. On

19 Friday we'll start at 9.30 and not 9.00.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is there a specific reason?

22 Mr. Ostojic, please proceed.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Witness DE, a couple more questions with respect to the date or

25 incident of May 22nd, 1992. After that date, sir, after May 22nd, 1992,