Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5088

 1                           Tuesday, 19 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T.  The

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon to all.  May we have the appearances,

 9     please.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  It's Matthew

11     Olmsted, Tolimir Hans, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

13     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for the Stanisic

14     Defence this afternoon.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Good afternoon Your Honours, for Zupljanin

16     Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Am I correctly advised that there is a

18     preliminary matter with which we must deal before the witness comes in?

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, there is a protective measures

20     issue if we could go into closed session.

21             JUDGE HALL:  So we will move into is it closed session or private

22     session, I keep getting it --

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5089











11 Pages 5089-5094 redacted. Private session.















Page 5095

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Before the Prosecution begins, may we have your name

23     for the record, sir.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Muharem Krzic.

25             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your profession?

Page 5096

1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had several professions.  The

 2     last job I did was that of a diplomat.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  And your date of birth is when?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 19th of December, 1940.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  And your ethnicity?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Bosniak.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Well, having given testimony before previously in

 8     this Tribunal, you would be aware of the procedure whereby the side

 9     calling you, in this case the Prosecution, would have questions of you,

10     and then counsel for each of the accused would have a right to

11     cross-examine you, and after any questions arising out of that, that the

12     Prosecution may have, the Chamber may have questions of you.  So I would

13     now invite Mr. Olmsted to begin his examination-in-chief.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15                           WITNESS:  MUHAREM KRZIC

16                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

17                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

18        Q.   Mr. Krzic, have you testified previously before this Tribunal?

19        A.   Yes, on several occasions.

20        Q.   In which case in particular did you testify before this Tribunal?

21        A.   In the Talic case and the Brdjanin case.

22        Q.   Have you recently had the opportunity to listen to your testimony

23     in the Brdjanin and Talic case?

24        A.   Yes, I have.

25        Q.   And was this audio recording that you listened to an accurate

Page 5097

 1     reflection of your testimony in that case?

 2        A.   Well, I think that it was very accurate.  I didn't have the

 3     opportunity to compare documents because some statements were based on

 4     documents, but I think it was accurate.

 5        Q.   And, sir, if you were asked the same questions today that you

 6     were asked in the Brdjanin case, would your answers be the same?

 7        A.   Basically, yes.  I may -- I may add some details if I were asked

 8     these questions now.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would

10     move to admit this witness's 92 ter package, the testimony is 65 ter

11     Exhibits 9070 through 9074, and there's also 16 associated exhibits.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, with all due respect, the Defence

13     objects.  I'm not trying to split the hairs in two, but the rule is very

14     explicit when and how the 92 ter evidence can be offered as exhibits, and

15     I don't think that the witness gave the answers which allowed the -- my

16     learned friend from the opposing side to offer this as evidence.  Thank

17     you very much.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, I would be grateful if you could -- and

19     perhaps you may be reluctant to answer my question because then you would

20     be doing the Prosecution's job, but on the face of it I'm not sure that I

21     fully appreciate the basis of your objection to the application for the

22     admission of this witness who is called in the provisions of 92 ter.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, it must be my mistake.

24     Namely, the 92 ter rule provides a certain -- provides certain conditions

25     that have to be met in order that the witness statement and accompanying

Page 5098

 1     exhibits can be offered as evidence under the Rule 92 ter.  One of these

 2     conditions is that the witness confirms that he will give the very same

 3     answers on the very same question today as he did in his previous

 4     testimonies.

 5             Now, hearing the witness here, I don't think he confirmed that in

 6     the full length of -- or the full understanding of 92 ter because he

 7     said, I would confirm but I would add some other -- at least that was my

 8     understanding, that he would like to add some other information or sort

 9     of expand on his answers.  Therefore, therefore, I don't think that --

10     that is why I say it is not my wish to split the hair in two.

11             JUDGE HALL:  I was about to say, you did preface your remarks by

12     splitting hairs.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, but I'm concerned that if the witness wanted

14     to give more answers than he previously gave in the previous trial, then

15     I don't think that this package is legible for 92 ter.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, if memory serves, we walked this road

17     before about November or thereabouts, and isn't the practical reality

18     that although a witness is importing what he would have said on a

19     previous occasion, it is unlikely that because no two trials are

20     identical, that the details given in March of 2003 would necessarily be

21     the same as given in January of 2010?  Hadn't we had lengthy discussions

22     on this previously?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honour, but I think -- I

24     think this discussion that we had was aimed at the different points which

25     we were discussing at the moment.  I'm now strictly talking about the

Page 5099

 1     application of Rule 92 ter.  It says which are the conditions, and I

 2     don't think -- I don't think that the condition has been met with the

 3     answer that the witness has given.  Therefore, either my learned friend

 4     can, I don't know, explore that with the witness and then offer it on the

 5     92 ter, because I think at this point he was premature and that's why I

 6     objected, with all due respect.  I'm sorry to use --

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Let's hear from Mr. Olmsted on this.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.  The Prosecution respectfully

10     disagrees with the Defence on this issue.  The witness said that he

11     listened to his recording, it was very accurate, not just accurate, very

12     accurate.  And then he says that, yes, he would answer the questions the

13     same but he'd probably provide additional details.  Not different

14     details, additional details.  The issue here is, of course, truthfulness,

15     to answer the question truthfully, whether he could provide even more

16     information than he provided on the witness stand, I think probably every

17     witness would probably say that they could have provided more details,

18     sometimes they are not asked for more details, so.  But I could certainly

19     ask this witness whether he answered his questions truthfully.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, I note that the witness's answer as it was

21     recorded in the transcript was that the witness offered to add some

22     details to his previous testimony, and maybe what you should do now is

23     then to explore what these details are because otherwise we will be

24     unable to ascertain whether they amount to more than just details.  Hold

25     on a minute.

Page 5100

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, what we will do in order to save

 3     time is simply just to start out with the remarks that you have.  We are

 4     very aware of the objection made by Mr. Zecevic, and we understand

 5     Mr. Zecevic's objection to be that the witness raised the possibility

 6     that his testimony today might actually differ substantially from what he

 7     said in his previous testimony.  However, the Chamber notes that what the

 8     witness actually said was just that he might add some details and nothing

 9     more than that, and we interpret this to be nothing more than exactly

10     what the witness said, namely that he will stick to his testimony in

11     Brdjanin, but maybe a few details may be added that he, you know, failed

12     to present during his testimony in Brdjanin, but certainly those details

13     would not make his testimony today any different in substance from what

14     it was in Brdjanin.

15             Now, of course, there's always a margin of appreciation here and

16     so rather than trying to find out what these details may be, I think we

17     should just get on with it and then if you find at any point in time that

18     what the witness is now testifying differs substantially from what was in

19     his testimony in Brdjanin, I think then you should raise it, and that's

20     the way we will proceed.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.  Thank you.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, does this mean we are not going to be

23     admitting his 92 ter statement at this time?

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, we will be.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit numbers to be signed are

Page 5101

 1     P459.1 through P459.21.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:

 3        Q.   Mr. Krzic, I have one more additional question with regard to

 4     your background.  From 1991 through 1994, did you hold a political

 5     position in Banja Luka municipality?

 6        A.   Legally and formally, yes, but not in the municipality.  But on

 7     the political level when you say municipality, that could be understood

 8     as if I had been a municipal representative.  No, I was just the

 9     political leader of the party.

10        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  What position -- what

11     political leadership position did you hold during this time-period?

12        A.   First I was the secretary of the democratic action party in Banja

13     Luka when it was founded first.  Then I became a member of the Executive

14     Board.  And later at one point I was elected vice-president of the party,

15     but that was an ad hoc election within the Main Board when the president

16     left us and that president had been elected by acclamation at one

17     meeting, and then in September/October 1991 I was elected officially at

18     the Assembly meeting which included all the representatives of the SDA, I

19     was elected president.

20        Q.   How long were you president of the SDA for?

21        A.   For practical purposes, I was president as long as I lived in

22     Banja Luka, and formerly I remained president until I turned over that

23     duty in 1994 to another member of the Executive Board when we had a

24     meeting in Sarajevo.

25        Q.   I'm now going to show you a map of Banja Luka town and ask you to

Page 5102

 1     identify a number of locations on it.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  It's 65 ter Exhibit 10213.  And the witness will

 3     need a digital pen for this.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Excuse me, if I may interrupt.  Sir, if I

 5     understand you well, there is a difference between what you call the

 6     practical purposes of your Presidency until as long as you lived in Banja

 7     Luka and your formal being a president in 1994.  Is there a difference in

 8     time?  When did you leave Banja Luka?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I left Banja Luka in end October

10     1993.  I left for Zagreb.  In my absence, it was not possible to perform

11     that role any more, and I didn't wish to.  However, formally and legally,

12     I could be replaced only at an official Assembly meeting of

13     representatives of the SDA.  Banja Luka was then under military

14     occupation and it was not possible to organise such a meeting at that

15     time so I used the first opportunity to turn over my responsibilities to

16     another man to give him legitimacy.

17             There was a meeting of representatives who came from free

18     territories and some other representatives who lived abroad and at

19     meeting I turned over my duty.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Can we see the exhibit on the screen, please.

22     Perhaps if we could zoom out just first of all.  Very good.

23        Q.   Mr. Krzic, is this an accurate map of the centre of Banja Luka

24     town as it existed in 1992?

25        A.   I think so because I've seen the map before and especially when I

Page 5103

 1     see the images on the side in the legend.  Of course like any map of a

 2     large city it can be confusing at first, and I don't know how long it's

 3     been since I've seen its image in this form, but I do recognise certain

 4     localities that make things clearer.

 5        Q.   Now, along the margins of this map are photographs numbered 1

 6     through 5.  Please take a look at the first photograph labelled number 1

 7     and tell us what that building was in 1992.

 8        A.   Number 1 is, I think, the former, or perhaps even the current

 9     staff of the Krajina Corps.  Before that it was the staff of the Yugoslav

10     People's Army.

11        Q.   Could you mark on the map with a number 1 where that building is

12     approximately located.

13        A.   [In English] Just a moment.  Somewhere here.  Somewhere.  I

14     can't -- [Interpretation] I can't recognise the building itself.

15        Q.   Fair enough.  And this is not the most beautiful map, so just do

16     your best that you can to give the Trial Chamber an idea of generally

17     where they are located.

18             If you could look at the second photograph, could you tell us

19     what that building was back in 1992?

20        A.   Building number 2 is partially hidden by the trees, and it looks

21     to me like the annex building to the first one, the staff, but it's a

22     separate building where meetings were held, and it housed all sorts of

23     social events, celebrations, and inside there was a restaurant catering

24     to military officials, but sometimes also civilians.  It's just next to

25     this building number 2 very close.  Although it's really hidden by the

Page 5104

 1     trees.  It's hard to recognise it.

 2        Q.   Would this annex building also be known as the Dom JNA building?

 3        A.   Yes, it was previously called the Dom JNA, that is the hall of

 4     the JNA.

 5        Q.   Could you place a number 2 on the map as to approximately where

 6     that building was located?

 7        A.   It looks the same.  These are buildings of similar size.  I

 8     really cannot be precise, I'm sorry.  It could be a little to the left or

 9     a little to the right.

10        Q.   But I think you said it was right next to the 1st Krajina Corps

11     headquarters?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   I am sorry, Mr. Krzic, before you answer that next question.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, it appears that there was a mismark

15     on the map.  He was pointing to basically the same location as the 1st

16     Krajina Corps headquarters when he was trying to indicate where number 2

17     was, and then I think somehow it got mismarked down by the river there.

18     So I think if we could erase that mark.  Very good.

19        Q.   If you can look at photograph number 3.  Could you identify for

20     the Trial Chamber what that is a photograph of?

21        A.   This is obviously the Bosna Hotel, and I'll try to place it on

22     the map.

23        Q.   Yes, if you could put a number 3 on the map.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Krzic.  What sorts of events took place at the

Page 5105

 1     hotel Bosna back in 1992?

 2        A.   Well, in my opinion the most important event was the arrival and

 3     the presence in that building of the chairman of the Security Council --

 4     chairmen of the Security Council, Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, and the

 5     following developments.  There were many numerous -- there were numerous

 6     events and meetings of other nature, but from the viewpoint of the

 7     Democratic Action Party, it was the most important event.

 8        Q.   Please take a look at photograph number 4 and tell us what this

 9     building was back in 1992.

10        A.   This is the municipality building of Banja Luka.

11        Q.   And could you put a number 4 where that building is located in

12     Banja Luka.

13        A.   [Marks]

14        Q.   In relation to this building, where were the offices of the SDS

15     party?

16        A.   The SDS offices were opposite.  There was a park in between with

17     the monument to the fallen in the Second World War.  Nowadays, there's an

18     Orthodox church in its place, and the distance between two buildings was

19     about 100 metres.  This building housed the SDS offices, but very soon

20     afterwards they were joined by the HDZ offices and the SDA offices.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Krzic.  And let me remind you, try to answer just

22     my particular question.  I know you are trying to provide as much

23     information as possible for the Trial Chamber but since we have limited

24     time.

25             If you could take a look at photograph number 5, could you tell

Page 5106

 1     us what this building was back in 1992?

 2        A.   I recognise the former SUP building, Secretariat of the Interior,

 3     later renamed CSB, which means Security Services Centre.  The police,

 4     basically.

 5        Q.   And could you place a number 5 on the map approximately where

 6     that building was located.

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   Finally, we don't have a picture of this, but could you place a

 9     number 6 on the map where the Mali Logor prison was located in Banja

10     Luka?

11        A.   Sorry, you said which number?  6?

12        Q.   Number 6, that's correct.

13        A.   [Marks]

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  May this 65 ter exhibit 10213 be marked and

16     admitted into evidence.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

18             MR. OLMSTED:

19        Q.   Now, in your prior testimony you provided --

20             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise to the counsel.  The number will be

21     P460.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Sorry.

23        Q.   Mr. Krzic, in your prior testimony, you provided evidence

24     regarding the Serb plebiscite that was held in November 1991.  Prior to

25     that plebiscite, do you recall there being an SDS rally in Banja Luka on

Page 5107

 1     or about the 26th of October 1991?

 2        A.   Yes, I remember.

 3        Q.   Did you attend that rally?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Was that rally covered by the media in Banja Luka?

 6        A.   Yes, the media reported widely, but we also held a press

 7     conference on that rally.

 8        Q.   Now, I'd like you to watch a short news clip.  This is 65 ter

 9     Exhibit 2303 for which there is also an English and B/C/S transcript.  I

10     believe it begins at 12 minutes and 36 seconds.  If we could watch the

11     whole video and then, Mr. Krzic, I'll have some questions after we've

12     reviewed it.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             Anchor: ... while in Banja Luka the rally was freely held about

15     joint leaving all Serbs in one state.  There were plenty ethnic slurs.

16     In the meantime, there are attempts at disputing the national rights of

17     Muslims in Serbia by means of the Greater-Serbian oppression.

18             Today's meeting in the centre of Banja Luka decorated by

19     Yugoslav, Serbian and SDS insignia, explained the aims of the Serbian

20     people's plebiscite set for 9 and 10 November, their wishes regarding the

21     organisation of the country, the position of the Serbian people in it,

22     and the aims and jurisdictions of the Assembly of the Serbian people in

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina that was founded two nights ago.  The meeting was

24     opened by Predrag Radic, Banja Luka Municipal Assembly President with the

25     following message:

Page 5108

 1             "Twice they slaughtered us.  We have forgiven but not forgotten.

 2     If they try to do the same for the third time, we shall neither forgive

 3     nor forget, regardless of how non-Christian it may be."

 4             Judging by the placards recorded on video by Ljubomir Paljevic

 5     and the reactions of the people present, Europe and its decisions have

 6     faired poorly in Banja Luka.  Perhaps the strongest approval went to

 7     those who supported Slobodan Milosevic's refusal to sign The Hague

 8     documents.  Limited time allows us to play only some of the audio clips.

 9             Speaker, Nikola Koljevic, BH Presidency member:  We founded the

10     Serbian Assembly in order to respond in a democratic, human, and

11     civilised way - of which others proud themselves more than we do - that

12     we will defend the rights of our people but we won't deprive others of

13     their rights.

14             Reporter:  "Our legal system has been destroyed, we are

15     economically exhausted thanks to Ante Markovic, but we will not give up

16     the army," says Doctor Koljevic.

17             Momcilo Krajisnik, BH Assembly President:  "All the dark forces

18     have for various reasons been harnessed to destroy our common fatherland,

19     to tear us into pieces.  And I hope we won't allow that."

20             Reporter:  Why will the Krajina TV be formed?

21             Velibor Ostojic, Minister for Information in the BH Government:

22     "We want to tell Europe the truth, to talk about justice, to say what's

23     going on in these territories."

24             Radovan Karadzic, SDS BH President:  "The 9th and 10th November,

25     by voting to remain in a joint, federal state with all the Serbian lands

Page 5109

 1     and all those who wish to stay with us, we hope to, once and for all, put

 2     a circle by state where there will be no traitors, a state that will not

 3     fall apart every 20 years or so."

 4             Reporter:  We said that Europe fared poorly at today's meeting,

 5     most poorly perhaps in the part we cannot pass over in silence.  One of

 6     those who spoke said that Vienna can be turned into Hiroshima.  We shall

 7     put that down to careless formulation.  We will finish our report by

 8     quoting Nikola Koljevic's words, "It's better for us to vote and vote

 9     down than shoot at each other."

10             MR. OLMSTED:

11        Q.   Mr. Krzic, the video you just watched, what is that a video of?

12        A.   This is a rally, a mass meeting at which the then leaders of the

13     Serb political block spoke in favour of the refusal of international

14     political proposals with regard to the internal structure of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  There was preparation for -- for the Serb people to

16     state their position to that effect, but here what we can see here apart

17     from the different tone chosen by Dr. Koljevic, those are all flamboyant

18     speeches which insighted uprising, destruction with clear indications of

19     creating ethnically clean territories only for the Serb people.

20             Maybe I should add that one of the participants went as far as to

21     threaten -- to utter a threat which went beyond Bosnia-Herzegovina, which

22     was aimed at neighbouring countries in Europe.  And if I may refer to the

23     newspaper "Glas" of Banja Luka which is controlled by Banja Luka, and we

24     can see that it has a greater dimension because it's a call for the

25     destruction of large European cities and not with the conventional

Page 5110

 1     weapons but nuclear weapons --

 2        Q.   Excuse me --

 3        A.   This is a statement that the Serbs are ready to do that.

 4        Q.   Mr. Krzic, again, let me remind you to try to keep your answers

 5     short, and I'll try to keep my questions more directed so that we can

 6     proceed in a very orderly fashion here.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  I mean, Your Honour, why is it relevant?  It's

 8     1991, out of scope with the indictment.  The witness wasn't present at

 9     that meeting.  His comment is out of the scope of the video-clip.  Why is

10     relevant for this trial?  We are wasting time for this.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, this video is relevant.  It's all

12     events leading up to April -- the beginning of April of 1992, and it

13     gives -- it proceeded the plebiscite, so there's a number of issue that

14     are important to our case and so we would submit that it is quite

15     relevant.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, whereas the question of context, I see

18     what you are attempting to do.  The reality is, this is a 92 ter witness,

19     and Mr. Krgovic's observation about this being outside the scope of this

20     evidence appears to have merit, so let's move on to something else.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, this piece of evidence does go to the

22     creation, the formation of the joint criminal enterprise, so it is a

23     piece of evidence that we do want to admit.  The purpose of this

24     additional questioning of this witness is to bring in information that he

25     is aware of.  He did say that he was watching the media, it was well

Page 5111

 1     publicised.  He appears to be familiar with what is being said at this

 2     rally, so I think this is a relevant topic for this witness.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  We appreciate that everything has a context,

 4     Mr. Olmsted, but in order to make this trial manageable, let's keep it

 5     within the limits of what the -- within the scope of what this witness

 6     was tendered -- was called to testify to, having regard to the fact that

 7     he is a 92 ter witness.  It seems to be we are wasting time wandering too

 8     far afield.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Very well, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Mr. Krzic, in several places in your prior testimony you

11     described Banja Luka during the April through December 1992 time-period

12     as a concentration camp.  You also described in various -- the various

13     measures that were imposed by the Serb authorities on the non-Serb

14     population that forced the non-Serb population to leave the Republika

15     Srpska.  I'm not going to ask you to repeat what you previously told the

16     Tribunal, but I did want to ask some clarifying questions and show you

17     some documents that are on our exhibit list.

18             First of all, with regard to the dismissal of non-Serbs from

19     their employment, I would like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 159.

20             This document is headed the Krajina Autonomous Region Crisis

21     Staff, or the ARK Crisis Staff.  In 1992, Mr. Krzic, were you aware of

22     the existence of an ARK Crisis Staff, at least in Banja Luka?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And who were the members of this Crisis Staff?

25        A.   The president of the ARK by virtue of his position, and then the

Page 5112

 1     members were the chief of the CSB, he had to be a member, and there also

 2     had to be the representative of the army, and possibly not all the

 3     municipal parties but certainly for the Banja Luka municipality there was

 4     the mayor and others.

 5        Q.   In 1992, what kinds of decisions, just generally, was the ARK

 6     Crisis Staff issuing?

 7        A.   Some decisions were accessible to us, and I suppose that they are

 8     mentioned in some documents, but the consequences of the decisions could

 9     be seen on the ground.  We also have documentation about the laying off

10     of non-Serbs which started with executive positions.  The representatives

11     of the staff even personally spoke about these decisions in the media,

12     the printed media and the television.  They mostly did so in person.

13     Furthermore, the Crisis Staff called mobilisations.  And the Crisis Staff

14     also ordered some activities with regard to the property of non-Serbs.

15     So the range of their decisions was from purely military issues to issues

16     affecting the security of any non-Serb not only in Banja Luka but in the

17     entire territory.

18             I must say that there have been some decisions of a purely

19     psychological nature.  When I say that, I mean to make clear to the

20     Judges that such a rally at which extermination is mentioned certainly

21     isn't a folklore performance.

22        Q.   Now, would you hear about these ARK Crisis Staff decisions

23     through public statements or the media as well?

24        A.   Most often through the statements made by some members of the ARK

25     Crisis Staff, Mr. Brdjanin, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Radic, Mr. Kupresanin.  It

Page 5113

 1     was difficult to get information directly because some information was

 2     published and other was not.  But in practice, it was all implemented and

 3     acted upon without opposition.

 4        Q.   Taking a look at the 65 ter Exhibit 159, do you recall hearing

 5     about this decision about personnel of non-Serb ethnicity back in 1992?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   What was the effect of this decision on the non-Serb population,

 8     very briefly?

 9        A.   Initially, we assumed that this would only apply to managers of

10     companies.  It was understood as a very serious warning.  However, later

11     on it became clear that the decision applied to all non-Serbs in

12     positions where they could be replaced or where the others could do

13     without them, so the first ones to be affected were medical staff and,

14     you know, that medical staff is more important than any other.  Well, to

15     be brief I'll stop here.

16        Q.   Let's take a look at the second paragraph of the section one and

17     it states that the decision applies to all socially owned enterprises.

18     Mr. Krzic, in 1992 were companies in Banja Luka generally privately owned

19     or state owned?

20        A.   99 per cent were state owned or socially owned, and 1 or maybe 2

21     per cent may have been privately owned but they were mostly small shops

22     such as florist shops, bakeries, candy shops and the like.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, we are at the point for the usual

24     break.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 5114

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, just to ease my mind and to be sure

 2     that I'm on the right list of documents for use with this witness, the

 3     video-clip you mentioned, 65 ter 2303, is it on your list of documents?

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  It is on our list.  It's on our

 5     65 ter list and also the list for this witness.  And --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I have to check something, thank you.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, just because you reminded me, perhaps

 8     we he could have that marked for identification just for future

 9     reference.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Marked for identification since that's your

11     application.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P461 marked for identification, Your

13     Honours.

14             JUDGE HALL:  20 minutes.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             MR. OLMSTED:

20        Q.   Mr. Krzic, before the break you testified that 99 per cent of the

21     companies in Banja Luka were socially owned back in 1992.  Could you tell

22     us if a Bosniak or a Croat working for a socially-owned company lost his

23     or her job, what happened to his or her --

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Sorry, we may have a sound problem here.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have problems hearing.  I don't

Page 5115

 1     know why.  Can you please say something now.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:

 3        Q.   Mr. Krzic, can you hear us?

 4        A.   Now it's all right.  Yes, I can.

 5        Q.   I'll start again, Mr. Krzic.  Prior to the break, you testified

 6     that approximately 99 per cent of the companies in Banja Luka in 1992

 7     were socially owned.  Could you tell us if a non-Serb working for a

 8     socially-owned company lost his or her job, what would happen to his or

 9     her right to accommodation?

10        A.   In most of the cases the enterprise they worked in would

11     immediately raise the issue of accommodation.  But I wouldn't say that

12     this was done at a massive scale.  Later on, though, when the security

13     situation had worsened drastically, this was considered an important

14     element in taking back the apartment from that person.

15        Q.   And just so we are clear on this, later on when the security

16     situation worsened, what would happen if a person lost their job in one

17     of these companies?  What would happen to their accommodation?

18        A.   The argument was immediately raised that that person was no

19     longer entitled to accommodation and that person would first be suggested

20     to leave the apartment peacefully.  So it would be suggested to them to

21     apply to move out, and such agencies had already been established.

22             If they failed to do that, there would be drastic threats,

23     security threats, and they were sometimes realised.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, I suppose - or maybe I should ask

25     the witness directly - I suppose this only goes for the flats that were

Page 5116

 1     owned by the companies and not for every flat; is that correct?  I mean,

 2     I understand your testimony to be that if a person was fired from the

 3     socially-owned company in which he worked or she worked, then the flat

 4     that went with the job also was lost, but it could be that some of the

 5     workers --

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Overlapping speakers] ... in their own flats and

 8     my question was then if they would also lose the right to live in such

 9     non-company-owned flats?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

12             MR. OLMSTED:

13        Q.   Now, taking a look at this decision that's currently on the

14     screen, to what extent was this ARK Crisis Staff decision implemented

15     against non-Serbs in Banja Luka in 1992?

16        A.   I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question correctly.  Could

17     you please repeat.

18        Q.   Yes.  We have this decision here that states that only personnel

19     of Serbian ethnicity may hold certain positions, and my question to you

20     is to what extent this decision was, in fact, implemented in Banja Luka

21     in 1992?

22        A.   That measure was implemented gradually or successively.  If I

23     may, I'll mention a very telling example.  It was mostly implemented

24     successfully through a longer period of time.  When somebody was replaced

25     from a position, or not merely from a position, but possibly was laid off

Page 5117

 1     as a couple of hundred doctors were laid off in five or six months, the

 2     apartments were not taken away from them immediately, but once the

 3     situation had worsened and a Serb population was withdrawing from Croatia

 4     or other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the measure of taking away the

 5     apartment would follow.

 6             If a doctor, the head of a hospital in Banja Luka was replaced

 7     and he would be placed in a position of head of an infirmary, he would

 8     have had to leave his older, big apartment and move into a smaller one

 9     that went with his new position.  And over 400 people, I believe, doctors

10     and medical staff, were laid off, and once they lost their jobs for good,

11     they would have to leave their apartments and Banja Luka, and I can

12     mention the names of the heads of the hospitals.

13        Q.   Mr. Krzic, I want to refocus you on my question.  The decision in

14     front of you simply relates to personnel of non-Serb ethnicity being

15     removed from their post.  And perhaps you could tell us, if you could

16     provide us with an estimate, by the end of 1992 approximately what

17     percentage of the non-Serbs in Banja Luka municipality had lost their

18     jobs as a result of this kind of decision?

19        A.   I don't have any accurate estimates.  The closest most accurate

20     estimates I have are those about doctors and professionals in hospitals

21     and public health.  You know that medical staff is the most important

22     service for human life and a -- and at least 50 per cent of non-Serb

23     doctors and medical staff were laid off.  And the percentage that applies

24     to schools was roughly the same, and it would reach 100 per cent very

25     soon in the following year.

Page 5118

 1        Q.   How would you learn about these various dismissals of non-Serbs

 2     from their posts in companies or in the government?

 3        A.   It was sometimes made public because not only executive personnel

 4     but all work-places where non-Serbs worked were soon affected.  I don't

 5     know whether there was a special decision of the Crisis Staff of the

 6     autonomous region, but in practice it was called technological surplus

 7     which was possible because the country was at war.  But the measure that

 8     ensued was mass layoffs of non-Serbs, and you could read in the papers

 9     about it in "Glas."  And then these dismissals started at schools,

10     teachers were laid off under various pretext, whoever refused to write in

11     Cyrillic script was fired within 24 hours, and nobody ever complained,

12     it's clear why.  And I believe it was also the Crisis Staff that decided

13     that all those must be laid off who don't respond the call for

14     mobilisation.  And that decision and practice was applied also to the

15     entire family of that individual.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we'd like to admit 65 ter Exhibit 159

17     into evidence at this time.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P462, Your Honours.

20             MR. OLMSTED:

21        Q.   I'd like to show you a few "Glas" newspaper articles from between

22     April and July 1992.  And you've had a chance to look at these and review

23     them prior to testifying here today.  So we'll go through them -- we'll

24     view them quite quickly.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  The first one is 65 ter Exhibit 2800.

Page 5119

 1        Q.   And, Mr. Krzic, since you've reviewed these recently, I don't

 2     expect you to have to read through them all again, but just take a quick

 3     look to verify that you did in fact see them earlier.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  And let's now take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 2801.

 6        Q.   Mr. Krzic, if you could just verify that you took a look at this

 7     article before testifying here today?

 8        A.   Yes, I have.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  And, finally, if we could have on the screen 65 ter

10     Exhibit 2803.

11        Q.   Now, during the April to December 1992 time-period, could you

12     tell us how objective did you consider the "Glas" newspaper to be as far

13     as fairly reporting the views of all ethnicities in Banja Luka?

14        A.   Of course, at that time you could not look for objectivity in the

15     way you would in a democratic society, but we were happy when what we

16     were saying was reflected even approximately, and we continued to be

17     quite satisfied until about the middle, that is the end of 1991, and

18     beginning of 1992, and I'm talking especially about "Glas" which is a

19     regional newspaper, a daily.  And, of course, we could place our

20     interviews there, if necessary, in every issue, and this regular

21     reporting, I would say, continued until they started dismissing both

22     Croats and Serbs from the newspaper.  I think they even dismissed Serbs

23     who were in mixed marriages so that after that time we stopped giving

24     them interviews because each time we tried, we would end up reading a

25     completely different story.

Page 5120

 1        Q.   Just to be clear, towards whom did you believe the "Glas"

 2     newspaper to be biased after the beginning of 1992?

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, I believe the witness

 4     added a last sentence at the very end of 32, 18, and if it can be

 5     recorded because the transcript doesn't show that sentence which he said.

 6     Thank you.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:

 8        Q.   Mr. Krzic, did you hear my question?  I'll repeat it.  In your

 9     view, towards whom was the "Glas" newspaper biased after the beginning of

10     1992?

11        A.   Already towards the end of 1991 some bias could be felt,

12     especially towards the Croat population for understandable reasons.  And

13     then generally it spread to all non-Serbs, including the Romas and

14     others.

15        Q.   And just to be clear, was the "Glas" newspaper biased towards

16     non-Serbs, or was it biased against non-Serbs?

17        A.   Against, against.  I believe I'm speaking quite clearly.  I don't

18     understand why you were misled.

19        Q.   That's fine, Mr. Krzic, I just wanted to make sure it was clear

20     for the record.

21             Did this bias appear only to the "Glas" newspaper, or would it

22     apply to other forms of media in Banja Luka during this 1992 time-period?

23        A.   It applied to all the media.  For instance, in Radio Banja Luka

24     all non-Serbs were laid off, and they were not only laid off, but before

25     they were laid off, they were ordered to apply in a compulsory fashion a

Page 5121

 1     new type of organisation and editing both in the press and on the radio,

 2     and thus all the folk songs which were common to all of us had to be

 3     destroyed on videotape and in records, to be burnt in our yards.  Nobody

 4     dared risk put on a folk song with a Bosniak or a Croat background.

 5        Q.   Returning to the three articles I just showed you, and in

 6     particular the one in front of you right now, were these the kinds of

 7     articles that were appearing in the "Glas" newspaper concerning the

 8     dismissals of non-Serbs from their jobs?

 9        A.   Yes, that's true.  Except there's one idiosyncrasy you forgot to

10     mention.  When I speak of non-Serb population, I include mixed marriages.

11     For instance, in this particular article, the board of managers is an

12     Assembly of dervishes.  We see a reference to one of their leading

13     experts, Slobodan Cvijetic, an electrical engineer, who was leading a

14     company producing very sophisticated electronic products, but his

15     particular weakness is that he had a Croat wife, and this Cvijetic did

16     not immediately proceed with dismissing Croats from his institute, from

17     his company, and this is a typical example of, how shall I call it,

18     racist action.

19        Q.   Since you brought up this topic of Mr. Cvijetic, generally what

20     happened to Serb managers of companies who refused to implement dismissal

21     decisions against non-Serbs?

22        A.   They could not remain in their positions.  It was clear to

23     everyone.

24        Q.   In the third paragraph of this article in front of you, Exhibit

25     2803, Mr. Brdjanin is quoted as saying that:

Page 5122

 1             "Muslim and Croat executives have been replaced in almost 95 per

 2     cent of companies ..."

 3             Was that an accurate statement by Brdjanin at this time when this

 4     article was written?

 5        A.   It probably was.  I can see the names here of the people who were

 6     replaced, people with an international reputation as scientists and

 7     researchers, and I thought it was the end of 1992 here, but we see that

 8     he is giving this statement in July.  It's possible that he did not

 9     include by that time lower-level executives, such as heads of workshops,

10     et cetera.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, we would ask that 65 ter Exhibits

12     2800, 2801 and 2803 be admitted into evidence.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  We strongly object, Your Honours.  I believe my

14     learned friend thinks about -- is referring to the previous three

15     articles which he showed to the witness, the "Glas" articles.  Are these

16     the documents that you are offering for evidence?

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.  We are -- the one that's

18     currently on the screen which is 2803 as well as our two that the witness

19     had previously looked at that are essentially dealing with the same

20     issues.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, you know that the Stanisic

22     Defence has many times already explained why we feel that all these

23     articles from that period are -- cannot be relied upon.  This witness, in

24     fact, confirms that, he says they were biased articles.  These three

25     articles are nothing else but the press conferences or the interviews of

Page 5123

 1     Radoslav Brdjanin.  The Prosecution, thanks to the rules of this

 2     Tribunal, has the opportunity to offer adjudicated fact from the Brdjanin

 3     trial.  These documents are relevant for Brdjanin trial, and they have

 4     been presented there as evidence.

 5             The Trial Chamber came up to a certain conclusion concerning

 6     these particular documents.  I don't really see any need for us to get --

 7     to admit these documents.  First of all, they are not reliable, they are

 8     not relevant for the accused, and the third, the witness himself confirms

 9     that the "Glas" in 1992 was highly biased against non-Serbs.  Therefore,

10     the connection between this witness and these documents is non-existent.

11     Thank you very much.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, since you are on your feet, could you

13     remind me, I recall that this issue of the newspaper articles has arisen

14     before, and my recollection is that the previous practice of the

15     Tribunal, the jurisprudence, does not hold them inadmissible per se, but

16     my reservation is that the -- when we would have visited this before, the

17     question the nexus with the particular witness, could you remind me as to

18     how we may have dealt with it previously in these proceedings.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, as far as I know in majority of

20     the cases, these articles when offered were admitted.  We did -- we did

21     raise our objection, and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal stands on the

22     point, as far as I know, that it goes to the weight of the particular

23     document or evidence.  But just the same, I believe it is my duty to

24     raise the attention of the Trial Chamber to this because, Your Honours,

25     you have to keep in mind that all these articles which are offered are

Page 5124

 1     written within the relevant period of time in 1992, there's a war going

 2     on, and there's a special warfare which is done through media, which is,

 3     I believe, very clear from these articles from all sides.  Thank you very

 4     much.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, it strikes us that whereas as I

 8     indicated to Mr. Zecevic, we are quite aware that the jurisprudence is

 9     that newspaper articles are not, per se, inadmissible, that in this

10     particular case, we don't see how they assist the Chamber or add to what

11     the witness has testified to in terms of his own knowledge of these

12     matters, and we don't see that on balance that the articles themselves

13     have much of any probative value.  So that is why we are reluctant to

14     accede to the application that they be admitted.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, certainly you'll be able to take

16     whatever -- decide whatever weight you want to give these articles based

17     upon the testimony of the various witnesses.  However, these articles

18     certainly corroborate this witness's testimony.  They are written, as

19     Defence counsel mentioned, during the relevant time-period, they cover a

20     very relevant issue relating to persecution in Banja Luka which we do

21     charge in the indictment, and just for us to assume that you are going to

22     completely accept this witness's testimony without potential

23     corroborating testimony or evidence such as exhibits, articles, and

24     newspapers, which albeit may be biased towards the Serbs certainly

25     provide information as it to what information is going out to the

Page 5125

 1     community during this time period, and certainly this witness has

 2     testified that some of the information that Brdjanin was providing was

 3     most likely accurate, for instance the extent of the dismissals.

 4             And also let me just mention that Brdjanin is a member of the

 5     joint criminal enterprise in this matter, a member of the ARK Crisis

 6     Staff, so it is quite relevant to this case.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  I see your point, but I would alert you to this,

 8     Mr. Olmsted, that even if they were -- even if we were to admit them, it

 9     is something that the Chamber would have to consider very very carefully,

10     because as Mr. Zecevic succinctly pointed out, the newspaper articles

11     themselves were an instrument of warfare in this exercise, so at the end

12     of the day, the point of admitting them is something which isn't

13     immediately apparent.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber rules by majority that the documents

16     would be admitted.  So they may, accordingly, be marked as exhibits.

17     Judge Delvoie dissenting.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P463, P464,

19     and P465.

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, I'm a little bit reluctant to show the next

21     exhibit, but talk about taking the steam out of my drive here.  65 ter

22     Exhibit 2802.  If we could have that on the screen.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Krzic, this is another article that you had a chance to

24     look at prior to testifying here today.  And it's not from the "Glas"

25     newspaper.  It's dated 18 June 1992, and it discusses the dismissal of

Page 5126

 1     non-Serb employees from the hospital in Banja Luka.  And I believe

 2     earlier in your testimony you were talking about extensive dismissals of

 3     non-Serbs from the hospitals, and I ask you, does this generally -- is

 4     this generally consistent with your recollection as to what was happening

 5     during this time-period?

 6        A.   In principle, yes.

 7        Q.   What effect did these health care dismissals have on the rest of

 8     the non-Serb population?

 9        A.   The rest of the population non-Serbs were practically left

10     without health care.  There were no private physicians at the time.  Why

11     did they believe they were deprived of health care?  Because they did not

12     dare to go and see an exclusively Serbian medical staff.  They did not

13     dare because by that time there had been many cases when they were simply

14     refused admittance.  There were some serious patients with kidney

15     conditions who simply disappeared.  The treatment of such patients was

16     horrible.

17             Perhaps the best proof are non-Serbs with cancer who did not dare

18     go to the medical centre.  One doctor, Vesna Krmatic [phoen] a Croat,

19     distributed to them some sort of powder because she could not give them

20     real medicine for their condition.  That was the catastrophe that reigned

21     at the time.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, with all the caveats that were

23     expressed by the Trial Chamber and everyone else, may this 65 ter Exhibit

24     2802 be admitted into evidence.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't need to explain again why I object, thank

Page 5127

 1     you very much, Your Honours, but I do object.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:

 5        Q.   Let's move on to another topic --

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  Exhibit P466, Your Honours.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  I apologise.  I'm off my rhythm right now.

 8        Q.   In your prior testimony, you described how between April and

 9     December 1992 there were explosions practically every night in Banja Luka

10     resulting in the destruction of non-Serb businesses and homes.  Can you

11     tell us based on what you could see and what you knew and heard, what

12     were the police doing to prevent the destruction of non-Serb property?

13        A.   I know that non-Serbs in some very rare cases tried to get the

14     protection of the police, but I'm not aware that any perpetrators were

15     ever arrested except perhaps in some exceptions.  If a Croat or Bosniak,

16     for instance, knew somebody on the police force and bribed them, I'm not

17     aware of such cases, but I know that down-town let alone in the suburbs,

18     in all cases involving explosions, the perpetrators were neither

19     prevented from this action or arrested afterwards.

20             In the middle of the market, soldiers would come, supposedly

21     drunk, to beat up the owner of a flower shop, and if he did not sign over

22     his shop to them, he would be targeted by a bombing the same night.  I

23     know specific names for all these cases.  The police, to the best of my

24     knowledge, never did anything to prevent this.

25        Q.   In your prior testimony, you mentioned that the Serb authorities

Page 5128

 1     imposed a curfew in Banja Luka.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 107.

 3        Q.   Now, this document has in its heading the Autonomous Region of

 4     Bosanska Krajina Republic Secretariat for National Defence, and it's

 5     dated 4 May 1992.  Mr. Krzic, what was in your mind, what was the ARK

 6     Secretariat of National Defence around this time-period in 1992?

 7        A.   You can see from this order that they passed, among other things,

 8     security-related decisions for the entire municipality and beyond.  That

 9     is, they had unlimited rights of issuing orders and probably also of

10     holding people responsible.  It was their task to order mobilisation and

11     everything that follows from that.

12             So they were a body, I don't know what to call it, but obviously

13     in charge of the overall security situation among others in this area.

14        Q.   In May 1992, what was the ethnicity of the members of the

15     secretariat, if you know?

16        A.   As far as I know, they were exclusively of Serb ethnicity.

17     Mr. Kupresanin, Mr. Brdjanin, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Radic, General Talic,

18     before him it was Uzelac.  For awhile there was also the Prime Minister

19     Kasagic.  I don't know whether he stayed on later.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Let's look at number 4 of this decision, and

21     according to this document it imposes a curfew between 2200 hours and

22     0500 hours.  Who enforced this curfew in Banja Luka?

23        A.   Obviously the police.  Well, I don't want to say any more, the

24     police.

25        Q.   And from what you could see, was this curfew equally enforced

Page 5129

 1     against all the ethnicities?

 2        A.   Most certainly not.  For non-Serbs a violation of the curfew

 3     meant not only -- or constituted not only an offence to be sanctioned

 4     administratively, it was also a deadly threat because a non-Serb found on

 5     the street during the curfew would not only immediately be beaten up and

 6     robbed, but he also risked losing their life because such things happened

 7     also in plain daylight, not only during the curfew.  But this was also a

 8     warning for the entire population, including Serbs, I mean civilians, not

 9     to move about town.  I had -- personally had the chance to convince

10     myself that the town was completely empty.  This place, Copenhagen, is

11     also a quiet town, but there and then, you could hardly see anybody

12     because the times were unsafe and they could -- whoever moved about could

13     easily become evicted.  But it was also well known that this curfew was a

14     sort of indirect protection for those who went about robbing at the time,

15     entering houses, threatening with weapons, et cetera, so this was a kind

16     of protection for them.

17        Q.   And that leads to my next question, which is this curfew, what

18     effect did it have on non-Serb businesses?

19        A.   I have just told you that this was a total restriction, but

20     explosive devices against private property mostly went off during the

21     night.  Cultural facilities of non-Serbs were also mostly attacked at

22     night.  There are witnesses to confirm that it was the police who first

23     set fire to the mosques and when that didn't work out, they would return.

24     All that went on during the curfew.  There are witnesses to confirm that.

25             As for the property of non-Serbs in town, that was a town -- a

Page 5130

 1     time when they couldn't expect their property to be protected.

 2        Q.   Under number 5 of this decision, it requires the surrender of

 3     illegal weapons by 11 May 1992.  Who enforced this decision?

 4        A.   The police.

 5        Q.   And against whom was this particular decision enforced against?

 6        A.   Against non-Serbs, of course, for the simple reason that if it

 7     had been enforced against the Serbs, you would have had to deploy massive

 8     forces of the police to take away the weapons that were distributed at a

 9     massive scale to Serbs.  In the centre of town, there were deliveries of

10     huge quantities of weapons that were distributed to Serb families, so

11     this obviously didn't refer to these weapons, but such weapons for which

12     there were permits such as hunting weapons, et cetera, but those who did

13     have other weapons didn't bring the weapons to the police, but mostly

14     discarded them by the river or so because going to the police and openly

15     state that you belong to another ethnicity and have weapons, well, you

16     can imagine what that meant.

17        Q.   You mentioned the distribution of weapons around Banja Luka on a

18     massive scale.  Were you able to observe this happening, and if so, who

19     was distributing these weapons?

20        A.   I personally saw that in the local community of Hiseta there was

21     a restaurant called Baraka, and I was invited by some people I knew to

22     witness the distribution of weapons.  There were trucks there and with

23     boxes on it full of weapons and ammunition.  And in the evening it was

24     distributed.  And I received other information, similar information of

25     such weapons distribution also in the neighbourhood where I lived.

Page 5131

 1        Q.   Were the person --

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Sorry, I believe the witness explained which

 3     trucks, whom the trucks belonged to, so if you can please clarify this

 4     with the witness.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  That was going to be my next question.

 6        Q.   If you could be a little more specific as to the actual persons

 7     who were distributing these weapons that you observed.  Were they wearing

 8     any uniforms, did you recognise any of the individuals as being a member

 9     of any kind of organisation whether it be the military or the police or

10     another organisation?

11        A.   On this concrete case they were wearing plain uniforms, so they

12     were regular soldiers, not special units.  Olive green uniforms.  And I

13     looked at that from a distance, but I can't say that I saw the police on

14     that occasion.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe the witness said I couldn't.  I can't

16     say.  Thank you.

17             MR. OLMSTED:

18        Q.   And what about weapons that were lawfully owned by non-Serbs,

19     were they allowed to keep their lawfully-owned weapons?

20        A.   No.  They were ordered to return their weapons, and I was

21     rather -- when they came to my house on one occasion, they took the

22     weapon I had without any questions.  It was a small calibre pistol that I

23     really needed to defend myself because there had been shots fired at my

24     door.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we would move for 65 ter Exhibit 107

Page 5132

 1     to be admitted into evidence.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P467, Your Honours.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:

 5        Q.   In your prior testimony, you state that Serb authorities

 6     established a number of check-points throughout the Banja Luka town and

 7     municipality, and that non-Serbs were maltreated at these check-points.

 8     Can you tell us who was manning these check-points?

 9        A.   We can say that it was exclusively the police, although in the

10     early days in some parts of town there were attempts to organise, well

11     maybe not check-points, but joint patrols, that was in 1991, but that

12     soon came to an end.  Then the police took over exclusively and they wore

13     police uniforms.  Did you ask anything else?

14        Q.   No, I didn't, but I will now.

15             How were the police maltreating non-Serbs at these check-points?

16     If you can describe that briefly.

17        A.   They were asking for personal documents and if you showed them --

18     showed your documents, they sometimes wouldn't return them to you.  You

19     could be hit and it often happened, and if somebody tried to come from

20     the suburbs, if they were non-Serb and tried to bring agricultural

21     produce into town, they were either ordered to return or taken away or in

22     some cases they would have to discard them on the spot.  And the farmers

23     later tried to bring that into town through Serbs who were their friends,

24     so in such a way wood was brought into town, which was important to live

25     through the winter, and I also bought firewood from -- in this manner.

Page 5133

 1             So obviously one of the objectives was to prevent non-Serbs to

 2     move through town and keep them inside their enclaves.

 3        Q.   I want to move to another topic now.  In your prior testimony you

 4     mentioned that non-Serbs were evicted from their businesses and their

 5     homes, and these businesses and homes were then given to Serb soldiers

 6     who were returning from the front lines.

 7             Can you tell us who issued these eviction orders in Banja Luka?

 8        A.   There are some concrete cases that I know, but let me first tell

 9     you, often times there weren't any orders at all.  Simply if a Serb,

10     especially if they had come to Banja Luka with their family and wanted to

11     enter an apartment, they had force at their disposal and could do so by

12     force.  And I can mention an example from my own family.  My father and

13     brother were evicted from their apartment and came to me, and they were

14     evicted without any -- without any statement of reason.  Even the

15     president of Merhamet was evicted and another who didn't want to leave

16     his apartment, well, to him they placed a bomb there so that he fell

17     through the floor to the apartment below.

18        Q.   Let me stop you there.  Before we get off too much off track,

19     where you say that there were cases where orders were actually issued,

20     who would issue those orders?  Would there be an entity that would issue

21     an order evicting a non-Serb?

22        A.   As far as I know, the municipality Crisis Staff or staffs and the

23     removal agency, but I can't say what their share was in all that and what

24     the share of sheer force was.

25        Q.   In 1992 were you aware of a policy concerning property exchanges

Page 5134

 1     between non-Serbs living in Banja Luka and Serbs moving into the

 2     municipality?

 3        A.   Yes, I know that very well from my own experience.

 4        Q.   Please take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 143.  And we can see from

 5     the heading that this is an ARK Crisis Staff conclusion dated 28 May

 6     1992.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  If we can go to the second page in both the English

 8     and B/C/S and look at conclusion number 7.

 9        Q.   Now, conclusion number 7 states that:

10             "If Muslims and Croats, or members of the SDA or HDZ wish to

11     leave or move out of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, they must enable

12     the endangered Serbian people, against whom unprecedented genocide is

13     being conducted, to move collectively into their places, i.e., they must

14     facilitate an exchange based on reciprocity."

15             Mr. Krzic, was this generally the exchange policy that you were

16     aware of that was in existence in 1992?

17        A.   That was general knowledge, but I repeat, from the experience of

18     my immediate and -- immediate relatives and remote relatives and from my

19     own experience, I can tell you who was present there.

20        Q.   Were these exchanges voluntary?

21        A.   By no means.

22        Q.   Could you please describe to us how these exchanges actually took

23     place in Banja Luka in 1992?

24        A.   There were several variants.  There was also private initiative

25     where people would exchange property without accompanying documentation,

Page 5135

 1     I can mention examples for that too.  And when they went to Croatia or

 2     other places in Bosnia, they wouldn't find anything at all or, say, a

 3     barn instead of a house.  So the removal agency was first run privately

 4     by Ms. Perka and her husband.  They came to the apartment of my parents

 5     in 1991 and offered an exchange for a house on the island of Krk.  I

 6     immediately understood that if I were to do that, that act of mine would

 7     effect the other population very negatively so I refused.  The agency

 8     conducted a large number of both successful and unsuccessful exchanges.

 9     Some were fair and many others were unfair.

10             When we started sending such information abroad, then at some

11     point in late 1992, I believe, it was transformed into an official

12     removal agency which speaking of Banja Luka, was linked to the

13     municipality, and they had their own price list for these services with

14     the exchange of property or without.  First -- at first you needed a huge

15     amount of documentation, and people would sign that because they were

16     forced to do so, and later on it was all -- it all became very simple

17     because as Mr. Brdjanin said, it is important that they leave even if we

18     give them passports.

19        Q.   Just a clarification in your testimony just now you said that

20     they came to your apartment of your parents to offer an exchange in 1991.

21     Was that in fact the correct year?

22        A.   Yes, I think it was in late 1991.  I can find the exact date.

23     But certainly before April 1992.  Before the 4th of April 1992.  So the

24     efforts were being put into this willing exchange and departure as early

25     as that.

Page 5136

 1        Q.   Did the SDA or for that matter since you probably worked with

 2     them to certain respect, the HDZ, did they take a particular position

 3     with regard to these exchange -- these exchanges?  Were they opposed to

 4     it, or were they in favour of it?

 5        A.   I must say that both the SDA and the HDZ clearly condemned such

 6     activities and said so clearly at several press conferences.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, we would move for the admission of

 8     this Exhibit 65 ter 143 into evidence.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P468, Your Honours.

11             MR. OLMSTED:

12        Q.   Now, for those non-Serbs who did not exchange their properties,

13     what happened to their property if they left Banja Luka?

14        A.   Speaking about real estate, there was no chance for them to leave

15     it to somebody to look after their property.  That property was

16     immediately taken into possession by somebody else.  Mostly people who

17     returned from the front line or refugee Serbs from Croatia.  During later

18     periods such as 1993, the municipality put up their personnel there.

19     They would send a commission for such property and that it's in my case

20     and they evicted my parents in the process, and they developed a formal

21     institutional approach to that.  They would establish that willingly

22     abandoned property can be used for the needs of the municipal

23     institutions.  And that was the way of taking over such property,

24     including all furniture unless it had been taken away or stolen before

25     that.

Page 5137

 1             So if somebody would go to Zagreb provisionally, that was the

 2     most frequent place where people would go.  I went there for treatment,

 3     medical treatment, and even though I had a permission to go there, such

 4     people who left even for a short time couldn't go back to their property

 5     because it had already been occupied.

 6        Q.   I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 10216.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, you are a few seconds short of the next

 8     break.  Would this be a convenient point to interrupt your --

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE HALL:  20 minutes.

11                           --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, while the witness is being escorted

14     back to the stand, I would alert you that over the two hours you've

15     requested, you've exhausted 1 hour 24 minutes.  Sorry, 1 hour, 34

16     minutes.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm certainly making progress

18     here.  This is a unique witness in that we do not have non-Serb witnesses

19     from Banja Luka talking about what was going on in Banja Luka.  I'd ask

20     the Trial Chamber's a little bit of indulgence in case I go over that.  I

21     know that Defence counsel, we can ask them, I'm not sure whether they

22     oppose if we do so.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE HALL:  The guillotine will come down at two hours,

25     Mr. Olmsted.

Page 5138

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Otherwise, you could have chosen to lead this

 2     witness as viva voce witness.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  I'd like to jump ahead then and if we could have 65

 4     ter Exhibit 10214 on the screen, please.

 5        Q.   Now, this is a "Glas" article dated 16 April 1992.  Mr. Krzic, do

 6     you recall reading this article in 1992?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   This article describes a 15 April meeting that you attended in

 9     Banja Luka with Mayor Predrag Radic and SJB chief Vladimir Tutus in April

10     1992.  Do you recall attending that meeting?

11        A.   I do.

12        Q.   This article, if we scroll down a little bit, at least on the

13     English, reports that the reason for this meeting was a public statement

14     made by Stojan Zupljanin.  Could you tell us what precisely was the

15     statement by Zupljanin that prompted this meeting?

16        A.   Chief responsible for the general security of the citizens of

17     Banja Luka.  Mr. Zupljanin had all our attention whenever he spoke to the

18     press because he was not a politician, he was an officer of an

19     institution that was supposed to hold primary responsibility for us at

20     the time.  And when he stated that he could not guarantee complete

21     security, and mind you, security in this case means physical security and

22     the safety of our property, we found it shattering, and we could see for

23     ourselves that our security was in great jeopardy even then.

24        Q.   At this meeting with the government representatives and the

25     police representatives, what concerns did you raise to them?

Page 5139

 1        A.   Well, first of all, we stated the things that were common

 2     knowledge by that time.  If I recall well, the first thing mentioned were

 3     murders that were happening already without anyone being identified.

 4     Then we discussed the security of property, the daily looting and nightly

 5     explosions and bombings and of course one of the main things was that

 6     general panic had overtaken the town.  Everyone was wondering what was

 7     going to happen and many people could still vividly remember the horrors

 8     of the Second World War.  It was fear that drove us to speak to

 9     Mr. Radic.

10        Q.   Just to be clear for the record, the crimes that you described as

11     well as the statement made by Zupljanin, against whom were these crimes

12     being perpetrated?

13        A.   Well, for the most part against non-Serbs.  It's true that there

14     were also crimes against Serbs, but they were mainly accounted for by

15     settlements of personal accounts or settlements of accounts between two

16     or more mafia gangs who were sort of dividing up the territory and wanted

17     to have as big a chunk of the looting for themselves.

18        Q.   What response to all this information about the crimes and the

19     treatment of non-Serbs that you were conveying at this meeting did you

20     receive from the police and government representatives at that meeting?

21        A.   We were very disappointed by his response, the response of

22     Mr. Radic primarily, who said that the situation was even worse for Serbs

23     outside of the Bosnian Krajina.  He mentioned, and it is stated here, the

24     territory under the control of the HVO such as Tomislavgrad, et cetera.

25     We were astounded, and we saw a kind of continuity in that whatever was

Page 5140

 1     going on in Banja Luka was seen as reciprocity against what was happening

 2     to Serbs outside.  For instance, Dr. Koljevic said to the press and to

 3     the television, What are you up in arms for when 10.000 Serbs were

 4     dismissed in Croatia.  We made later some attempts through the

 5     headquarters of the Krajina Corps.

 6        Q.   Let me stop you there.  This kind of response that Radic gave to

 7     your concerns, was this unusual, or was this the typical response you

 8     would be receiving from authorities, the Serb authorities in Banja Luka

 9     when you raised these issues?

10        A.   It was the typical response for that time.  Later on as the

11     situation escalated, it was out of the question to even complain.  For

12     this also you have documents.  Anyone who complained, risked their life.

13     There is enough evidence of that.

14        Q.   Do you recall what was SJB chief Tutus's response to the issues

15     you were raising at this meeting?

16        A.   This, what's his name.  Excuse me, I can't remember the last

17     name.  I know it begins with a T.  Yes, yes, we have his name on the

18     record.  He tried to mention our representative on the police force,

19     Mr. Bajazit Jahic but by that time Bajazit Jahic had already been

20     dismissed as a Bosniak because he had refused to sign the document on

21     loyalty.  And this document on loyalty also implied availability for the

22     front line, the front line service.  His name was Tutus, is that who you

23     meant?

24        Q.   That's right.  Now, in your prior testimony, you mentioned

25     attending a meeting with Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen in Banja Luka in

Page 5141

 1     September of 1992 and at that meeting you raised once again a number of

 2     concerns regarding treatment of the non-Serb population in Banja Luka and

 3     elsewhere.

 4             When you met with Vance and Owen on that occasion, can you tell

 5     us the names of the Bosnian Serb officials who were present?

 6        A.   I cannot tell you who was present at the talks directly with Lord

 7     Owen and Cyrus Vance because various groups came to these talks.  We came

 8     as a group from the SDA.  There was a group from the SDS and from the

 9     HDZ, but I can't tell you who was sitting in the hall.  It was a hall

10     double the size of this one, and this led to a conference room where the

11     co-chairmen were sitting.  In that hall, at that hour you could see the

12     highest representatives of various community, Mr. Karadzic,

13     Mr. Kupresanin, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Brdjanin, I believe

14     Vukic was there as well.  I probably omitted some of them, but I can't

15     recall them.  But you can find more names in the documentation drawn up

16     at the time.

17        Q.   These individuals you just mentioned, were they present when you

18     were telling Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance about the various problems that

19     the non-Serb population was suffering in Banja Luka in 1992?

20        A.   We acquainted the co-chairmen not only with the situation in

21     Banja Luka but the entire Bosnian Krajina, and after that while they were

22     still in the offices and conference rooms, it was offered to hold

23     parallel with the talks press conferences.  I don't know whether we were

24     the first, and I was accompanied by Mr. Hadjagic vice-president, and it

25     was approximately as far as the door from the co-chairmen.  We had a desk

Page 5142

 1     facing about 50 reporters from all corners of the former Yugoslavia, but

 2     also many foreign reporters, and if I can draw a comparison to make it

 3     clearer, we stated at that press conference verbatim, everything that we

 4     had told the co-chairmen, so our communication with them was completely

 5     transparent and open to the public, and it could be broadcast not only in

 6     Banja Luka, but worldwide, truly worldwide because there were reporters

 7     from the US, France, Switzerland, Germany, from all over the world.  So

 8     indirectly or directly, if you wish, while we were waiting our turn to

 9     speak to Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, we familiarised them with the situation

10     with their own -- in their own territory, conditionally speaking their

11     own territory.

12        Q.   Just to clarify, this press conference where you reiterated all

13     these problems that were occurring for the non-Serb population in Banja

14     Luka, were the Bosnian Serb officials also present at that press

15     conference?

16        A.   Yes, they were sitting behind the reporters.  They had not left

17     the hall.  They did not leave.  In order to leave they would have to pass

18     by us because that was the only exit from that amphitheatre.  And I have

19     to correct you on one point, if you allow me.  We did not discuss only

20     problems because we use the word problem mainly to talk about minor

21     things, this was about genocide.  At that conference information was

22     given loud and clear about the Omarska camp, Manjaca camp, Susica near

23     Mrkonic Grad.  About the concentration camp of Trnopolje and the

24     massacres when hundreds of women, children, and men were killed.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I want to move on to one final topic.

Page 5143

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could bring up what has been admitted now

 2     as P459.10.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, we heard some evidence about SJB chief

 4     Tutus could you ask the witness he was SJB chief where?

 5             MR. OLMSTED:

 6        Q.   Mr. Krzic, you just heard the Judge's question.  Do you recall

 7     for what municipality was SJB chief Tutus the chief of?

 8        A.   I think it's the municipality of Banja Luka.

 9        Q.   Now, we are of moving --

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  My problem is, I don't find Banja Luka SJB on the

11     chart so I didn't find SJB chief Tutus.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  We'll have to look at those charts.  Banja Luka is

13     one of the indicted municipalities, and it should be there.  We'll

14     correct it if there's a mistake.  Sorry about that, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Now, I'd like to just briefly cover the issue of Vecici in Kotor

16     Varos.  You testified in Brdjanin that you were involved in the

17     negotiations with the non-Serbs in that village.  What we have before you

18     is a report that you wrote that's part of your prior statement that

19     discusses this event, these negotiations, but in the interest of time, I

20     want to jump ahead in it and get to a very important point.  You describe

21     how you were told to go to Vecici to negotiate with them to surrender in

22     this document, and when you arrived in Kotor Varos before going to Vecici

23     you met with some Bosnian Serb officials.  We would like to verify is

24     that at that meeting in Kotor Varos, which Bosnian Serb officials were

25     present?

Page 5144

 1        A.   When I arrived there, together with another Bosniak on the

 2     Executive Board of the SDA, and together with representatives of the HDZ,

 3     I met Colonel Peulic for the first time, and also Mr. Balaban.  I can't

 4     recall his first name now, but I recognised him from knowing his brother,

 5     a doctor in Banja Luka, very well.  Then there was Mr. Zupljanin, also

 6     Mr. Zdravko Pejic, a police commander in Kotor Varos covering also the

 7     territory of surrounding villages.

 8        Q.   To clarify, when you say "Mr. Zupljanin," is that the accused in

 9     this case?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Do you stand behind the information you provide in this report as

12     you testify today?

13        A.   Yes, if I can see -- well, this is my own report, although I'd

14     like to see the second page as well, if possible.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, could we look at the second page.  And

16     perhaps --

17        Q.   You are looking for the signature?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  If we could look at the last page then.  There it

20     is.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is my report done within

22     24 hours after the event.

23             MR. OLMSTED:

24        Q.   Now, I'd like you to look at 65 ter Exhibit 10215.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, is this document being tendered as an

Page 5145

 1     exhibit?

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  That's right, it's already in.  This is part of his

 3     92 ter package.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:

 6        Q.   Now, if you could just take a look at this document.  Did you

 7     receive a copy of this document in 1992?

 8        A.   I think I got the original, or one of the originals, because as

 9     far as I can remember, there was an accompanying report with this

10     decision which I can't see here.  There was an accompanying document

11     indicating even the colour of the stamp.  Anyway, I got this document

12     from a person who was in Kotor Varos.

13        Q.   Could you tell us who you got this document from and who he was?

14        A.   Is that absolutely necessary?

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, perhaps can we go into private session, and

16     he provides the name, if there's a -- that is a valid concern that this

17     is a person who is not before this Tribunal who might have some security

18     interests that we don't know about.

19             JUDGE HALL:  We move into private session.

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5146











11 Pages 5146-5147 redacted. Private session.















Page 5148

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.  Your Honours, I believe the rules are

12     and the jurisprudence is clear about this, the Prosecution have to ask to

13     amend the 65 ter list first and then we would be given the opportunity to

14     object or not object and then Your Honours will decide.

15             Now, I understand this is a shortcut, but I believe my learned

16     friend will follow up the procedure by asking for amendment of the 65 ter

17     list.  As far as the Stanisic Defence is concerned, we do not object to

18     this document being admitted to 65 ter list and to evidence.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  No objection for us.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Without having to repeat the rules which Mr. Zecevic

23     has kindly reminded you of, Mr. Olmsted, on your application by motion

24     without notice to admit this document -- to include this document on your

25     65 ter list and thus enable it to be admitted as an exhibit, there being

Page 5149

 1     no objection from the other side, the document may be admitted and

 2     marked.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And just one

 4     administrative matter.  I'm sorry.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P469, Your Honours.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Seems to be my trend today, to interrupt.  Just as

 7     an administrative matter, I showed him the document before, this was an

 8     article.  It was 65 ter Exhibit 10214.  We just asked that be marked for

 9     identification.

10             JUDGE HALL:  So marked.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Then, Your Honours, the Prosecution is done asking

12     questions.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 10214 will become P470 marked for

14     identification, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, what is the reason why you wish to

16     have the article tendered for -- marked for identification?  Because

17     normally when we do MFI pieces of evidence, we do it pending something,

18     and so what do you expect shall happen to allow the Chamber to finally

19     admit or possibly admit this article into evidence?

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honour, given the objections raised by

21     the Defence regarding other articles, this one was more just for context

22     purposes but at this stage we thought we'll mark it for identification

23     just so it's on the record with a P number in case we need to refer to it

24     again with another witness if it comes up.  Obviously there are other

25     names mentioned in there, some who may or may not be witnesses.

Page 5150

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  It seems to us that it would simplify matters if the

 3     document were admitted as an exhibit at this stage and it may be so

 4     entered and marked.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, in that case, Your Honour, I would welcome

 6     the opportunity to object again on the very same reasons why I objected

 7     earlier to newspaper articles.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  So sequentially your -- you repeat the objections

 9     that you have made in respect to similar matters today that is noted for

10     the record.  Thank you Mr. Zecevic.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  And Zupljanin Defence is also supporting this

13     position, for the sake of the [indiscernible] of time we didn't raise

14     after Stanisic Defence but for the record we are supporting this

15     position.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, and the record would so note.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, may I proceed with the

18     cross-examination?

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Witness, you gave a certain amount of statements

23     to the OTP beginning with 1994 to date?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   One of the statements was given in December 2000 and in February

Page 5151

 1     2001, do you remember that statement?

 2        A.   I don't know which statement you are talking about.

 3        Q.   I'm talking about your statement, your witness statement, the one

 4     you signed.

 5        A.   If it's signed by me, then I understand.  I thought you were

 6     talking about a document.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I would like to suggest that to be

 8     fair to the witness we give him a copy of his statement in a language he

 9     understands so he can follow.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] For the record, this statement is

12     1D03-0002 in e-court.  This is a statement by this witness from 2000 and

13     2001.

14                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer

15                           confer]

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The Chamber feels a bit uncomfortable -- right,

19     here it is, thank you very much.  We can now see the document.  We

20     thought that you were going to have a long discussion --

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, no, I just provided the hard copy to the

22     witness in all fairness to him in order that he can shuffle through it,

23     and the document is in e-court with the proper number.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Witness, did you have a look at the statement,

25     is it your statement from 2000, 2001?

Page 5152

 1        A.   The first page that I can see indeed is.

 2        Q.   Look at the last page to see your signature and your

 3     confirmation.

 4        A.   There's no signature, but I suppose that's it.

 5        Q.   There's no signature because you only signed the English version

 6     of the statement?

 7        A.   I cannot remember all the details.  You are probably right.  I

 8     signed only the English version because there was no time to have it

 9     translated then and there.

10        Q.   Let me then show you your statement in English to verify the

11     signature.

12             Just confirm this is your signature.

13        A.   It is.

14        Q.   Look at the last page or the one but last.

15        A.   Yes, it is.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Does the English version have the same dates as the

17     one I gave you before?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Could the usher give me back the

21     English statement to avoid confusion.

22        Q.   Witness, you recall, it's a very detailed statement over 40

23     pages?

24        A.   On balance I remember.

25        Q.   In addition to the facts from the relevant time that you

Page 5153

 1     described and in addition to your answers to specific questions, you also

 2     provided clarification of certain documents as well as passages from your

 3     book?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Do you recall that?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   That statement is not part of the 92 ter package and therefore I

 8     must ask you, do you stand by the statement that you gave as being

 9     truthful and that you replied truthfully to all you signed?

10        A.   I always strove to gave truthful answers.

11        Q.   Thank you.  So we have no reason to doubt that anything contained

12     in that statement is not true?

13        A.   But I must say that as far as I remember during the trial here

14     once there was discussion, but I don't remember the exact case, when a

15     discrepancy between the English translation and the Bosnian one was

16     identified, and it was clarified here in a way.

17        Q.   I understand you.  But apart from these inadvertent mistakes, the

18     facts mentioned in the statement are generally correct; right?

19        A.   Yes, as far as I know.

20        Q.   Tell me, Witness, you were the president of the SDA, of the Banja

21     Luka municipality; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   If I remember well, you were in that position from 1991 on; is

24     that correct?

25        A.   To be more precise, from the end of 1991 onward.

Page 5154

 1        Q.   Do you remember the initiative launched by the SDA and

 2     implemented in the territory of the Banja Luka municipality about the

 3     separation of some parts of the Banja Luka municipality and they becoming

 4     separate municipalities?  When I say that, I'm referring to the part of

 5     the Banja Luka municipality called Stari Grad old town, which is a part

 6     of Banja Luka city, and the settlement of Ivanjska in the Banja Luka

 7     municipality, according to that SDA initiative separate municipalities

 8     were to be established there toward the end of 1991 or in early 1992, do

 9     you remember?

10        A.   Yes, I remember, but I stress the fact that these were only

11     initiatives.

12        Q.   All right.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit P460

14     to the witness.

15        Q.   That's the map, sir, that you were looking at today with my

16     learned friend the Prosecutor, so if you can identify the Stari Grad part

17     of Banja Luka, can you please mark it with the pen that you have?

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I misquoted.  I would

19     like to see 65 ter 10213.  So as to avoid confusing the Chamber.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I say something before I do so?

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Yes, of course.

23        A.   As far as I remember, that initiative wasn't precise in terms of

24     territory.  I can't remember the local communities in question, I can

25     only roughly outline the territory.

Page 5155

 1        Q.   All right.  You will show us on the map once we see it.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] 65 ter 10213.  Your Honours, we

 3     have this map which is marked P460.  Oh, now we have it.

 4        Q.   Can you see it?  This is the map that the OTP showed you earlier

 5     today and just approximately because it isn't essential, show me which

 6     part of Banja Luka the Stari Grad is which under the SDA initiative

 7     should have become a separate municipality.

 8        A.   I believe that one part of this planned municipality of Stari

 9     Grad is not shown here.  It's along the right bank of the Vrbas River

10     toward Seher.

11        Q.   Okay, then do mark the part that can be seen on the map, please.

12        A.   [Marks]

13        Q.   And now to make it completely clear, can you mark the part that

14     was supposed to become part of the new municipality, could you mark it

15     with lines?

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   Thank you.  So the part that you marked with the blue pen would

18     be part of the municipality that was the object of the SDA initiative

19     that should have been separated from Banja Luka and become a separate

20     municipality; is that correct?

21        A.   No.  This territory -- yes, it is this territory, but the rest of

22     what you said is not true.  Can I explain?

23        Q.   Go ahead.

24        A.   Well, first of all, it was not a pure SDA initiative.  It was a

25     joint initiative in which the HDZ took part and the leftist parties as --

Page 5156

 1     are something, I don't -- whatever it's called, and then the planned

 2     municipality of Stari Grad shouldn't have been taken out of Banja Luka.

 3     The aim was the re-organisation of the bulkiest municipality in former

 4     Yugoslavia in line with the European principles.

 5        Q.   Sir, allow me to interrupt you.  I asked you a very concrete

 6     question so kindly answer it because our time is limited.  This isn't

 7     this significant.  I know I'm asking the question, and I asked you

 8     whether what you marked in blue on this map represents part of the Stari

 9     Grad municipality, and the SDA was one of those who initiated its

10     creation, irrespective of the intention of with whether it was supposed

11     to become a separate municipality or community of municipalities or

12     anything else?

13        A.   I must add something else, that there was an initiative board

14     headed by experts, but I wasn't part of that board, and from that aspect

15     I was not familiar with the exact limits of the municipality, but I did

16     know that all the municipalities were multi-ethnic and this one in

17     question was Serb dominated, were the Serb majority.

18        Q.   Sir, I do kindly ask you to listen to my question.  What you have

19     marked with the blue pen, is that part of the planned municipality of

20     Stari Grad in 1991 or 1992, yes or no?

21        A.   With a probability of 70 per cent.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document

24     into evidence.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

Page 5157

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D154, Your Honours.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we now please

 3     show to the witness, 65 ter 3144.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Witness, you can see this map here, the one on

 7     the left is the map of the Banja Luka municipality isn't it, roughly?

 8        A.   Yes, yes.

 9        Q.   Now, please, let me first ask you, there was also an initiative

10     for Ivanjska to become a separate municipality; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, I think so, but if you want to ask me about the borders, I

12     can't.

13        Q.   I'm not asking about the borders, I'm only asking about

14     geographical notions.  So the settlement of Ivanjska, is it right that

15     others were also planned such as Stricici?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Then Centar; right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Krupa na Vrbasu; right?

20        A.   I think so.

21        Q.   Bronzani Majdan?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Can you now use the same blue pen to mark these geographical

24     entities on the map.  Ivanjska, Centar, Krupa na Vrbasu, Bronzani Majdan

25     and Stricici, if you know where they are, approximately of course, just

Page 5158

 1     mark circles.

 2        A.   That's Ivanjska.  I don't think that Stricici is marked here but

 3     I can approximately mark where it is located.  And what else did you

 4     mention?

 5        Q.   Krupa na Vrbasu?

 6        A.   You said Centar approximately.

 7        Q.   So these are approximately the municipalities to be newly

 8     established?

 9        A.   Stari Grad isn't marked here as it should be hereabouts.

10        Q.   Yes, please do add Stari Grad.

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document

14     with the witness's marks into evidence unless the OTP object.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D155, Your Honours.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Sir, isn't it true that in some of these parts of the Banja Luka

19     municipality that were envisaged to become new municipalities, and in the

20     community of municipalities or association of municipalities of Banja

21     Luka, the Croats and Muslims were the majority population?

22        A.   I don't believe that in any municipality the Bosniaks are the

23     majority population.  I'm not sure that this applies to Ivanj ska though

24     because these supposed municipalities all have a mixed population, so I

25     doubt that anywhere there would be an absolute majority of one ethnicity.

Page 5159

 1     Whereas in the other municipalities that was possible.

 2        Q.   Which other municipalities are you referring to?

 3        A.   Well, if you speak about Stricici and the centre of town and even

 4     the so-called Stari Grad municipality was predominantly Serb populated.

 5     You could tell by the number of representatives in the town Assembly.

 6     And I'm convinced that the Serbs were the majority there.  So the

 7     intention was not to separate ethnicities.

 8        Q.   Then what was the intention behind this fragmentation of Banja

 9     Luka municipality?

10        A.   Even then experts irrespective of their ethnicity wanted to help

11     Banja Luka.  It wasn't actually us.  That was an initiative that goes

12     back to communist Yugoslavia.  The survey was made during communist

13     Yugoslavia and one of the authors was Dr. Osmanovic who also participated

14     here.  So this all stemmed from an economic survey which was made during

15     communist Yugoslavia, and as you know, communist Yugoslavia never --

16        Q.   Sir, I must interrupt you.  Communist Yugoslavia is no concern of

17     ours here.  I would like you to answer my question.  You remember that

18     you were criticized at the time in early 1992 that is, that you are

19     creating municipalities with a Muslim majority out of parts of the then

20     Banja Luka municipality, do you remember that?  Were you criticised, yes

21     or no?

22        A.   I don't remember such criticism.

23        Q.   But do you remember that you gave an interview to the newspapers

24     and which you say no matter what they are saying it isn't true that we

25     want to create municipalities with a Muslim majority in parts of the

Page 5160

 1     Banja Luka municipality?

 2        A.   Well, I would have to see that interview, but isn't that actually

 3     corroborating what I said a minute ago?

 4        Q.   Well, I'm actually wondering why a local journalist is asking you

 5     about creating municipalities with a Muslim majority, and you are here

 6     telling us that Serbs were the majority in some of these parts?

 7        A.   Well, yes, absolutely.

 8        Q.   Let me just show you something to refresh your memory lest

 9     somebody should think that I want to confuse you or lead you astray.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Could we now please show the

11     witness document 1D03-0156.

12        Q.   Can you see this?  Is this an interview you gave, sir?  It says

13     on the side 17th of January, 1992, and underneath it says "Muslimanski

14     Glasnik," is that so?

15        A.   If I can give you more detailed --

16        Q.   No, no, no, I just want to know whether you remember this

17     document and whether this is an interview you gave?

18        A.   This is an interview that was taken from "Oslobodenje".

19        Q.   But that's your interview, isn't it?

20        A.   I have to read it first.  I have trouble remembering and this is

21     very small.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Could you please enlarge the

23     version in the language that the witness understands, please.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, you have two minutes before the break.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  I know, Your Honours, I just want to deal with

Page 5161

 1     this.  I'm not offering this as ...

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my interview, but what

 3     do you want to know?

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   You see, at the very end of this interview of yours?

 6        A.   No, I can't see it.

 7        Q.   It's under the other document.  The last paragraph.  And you say

 8     here too I want to stress that this isn't about the establishment of

 9     Muslim municipalities but about the streamlining of the two big current

10     municipality of Banja Luka, et cetera.  Do you remember?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to deal

14     with another topic now, so this may be a convenient moment.

15             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment to resume in this

16     courtroom tomorrow at 9.00, and I would remind the witness that having

17     been sworn, you cannot communicate with the lawyers from either side in

18     this matter, and in such conversations as you may have with anybody

19     outside the courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony before the

20     Tribunal.  So thank you, sir, you are excused to return at 9.00 tomorrow

21     morning.  We rise.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.

24                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day of

25                           January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.