Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17478

 1                           Thursday, 18 November 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Matthew Olmsted,

13     Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith, for the Prosecution.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

15     Mico Stanisic is represented today by Ms. Whittaker and

16     Slobodan Cvijetic.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

18             There is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the

19     Judges and I don't know whether there is going to be a formal application

20     made by -- I assume it's the Prosecution today about the apportionment of

21     time today, or am I being premature?

22             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honours, I can raise it formally.

23     Ms. Pidwell had raised it informally because of a shortage of time.  It

24     is in the hopes of being able to finish the next witness today so that he

25     doesn't have to stay over the long weekend, and because we have a

Page 17479

 1     videolink scheduled for Monday, we were hoping if we could have an extra

 2     session today we might be able to finish the upcoming witness as well as

 3     this one.  I know Mr. Olmsted has some discussions with the Defence about

 4     how long they anticipate further cross on this witness.  I think

 5     Mr. Aleksic said he needed probably no more than one session.  The

 6     Stanisic team indicated they may have no questions.  Mr. Olmsted then has

 7     15 to 30 minutes.  Ms. Pidwell said maybe one session and I don't know

 8     how much the Defence has for the second session.  But that's the hope and

 9     that's what I have been asked to bring to your attention and make a

10     request, if we could have an extended sitting.

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regarding the coming

13     witness, ST-258, our initial estimate was based on the Prosecution's

14     estimate.  It was first three hours and then after we got the interview

15     of that witness, the English transcript, I said we would need not more

16     than one session.  However, we received last night the proofing notes,

17     where the witness changed his story entirely regarding certain facts as

18     compared to the interview.  So I'm not sure any longer that we could do

19     the cross-examination in just one session, although I'll try.

20             And we also received the motion for protective measures for the

21     same witness, from which we see that the Prosecution intends to lead this

22     witness regarding facts completely different than the adjudicated ones,

23     so I will certainly take longer in examining him than I had planned.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, you mentioned something by the way about

Page 17480

 1     a videolink for Monday.  Could you remind me as to what time that is set

 2     for?

 3             The reason why I'm asking is that the latest version of the

 4     calendar that has been published doesn't indicate that we are sitting on

 5     Monday.  Could you remind me as to -- sorry.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 8             MR. HANNIS:  It's my understanding that Monday we were scheduled

 9     to sit in the afternoon, partly because the witness [Overlapping

10     speakers] ...

11             JUDGE HALL:  [Overlapping speakers] ... I now remember that.

12     Yes, yes, yes, yes, thanks.

13             MR. HANNIS:  And with regard to Mr. Krgovic has said and maybe I

14     can make a suggestion that we inquired to see if there is availability of

15     a courtroom and as we progress this morning, maybe at the end of this

16     session or at the end of the second session, we will have a better idea

17     whether there is any possibility to do it.  If it appears it is

18     impossible, then I guess you can make that decision at the time.  But --

19     I just suggest that maybe we keep an open mind and if there is a room

20     available we can have it on stand by, in case that might work out.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE HALL:  At least we're all on notice.  Thanks.

24             Good morning, Mr. Witness.  The -- I remind you you're still on

25     your oath.

Page 17481

 1                           WITNESS:  MEVLUDIN SEJMENOVIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Aleksic, having benefitted from your lengthy

 4     introduction yesterday, we look forward to your continuation of your

 5     cross-examination proper this morning.

 6             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 7                           Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic: [Continued]

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sejmenovic.

 9        A.   Good morning.

10        Q.   First of all, let me ask you, during the proofing for this case,

11     did you have the opportunity to re-listen to your evidence in other

12     cases?

13        A.   Only a small part of it, because the -- the material is vast.

14        Q.   Just very briefly on the subject of distribution of power,

15     division of power in Prijedor.

16             In the Kovacevic case on pages 366 to 370, you said that one of

17     the pre-election promises of the SDA was that, ultimately, a Muslim would

18     be elected chief of police, that is, head of the SUP, which met with the

19     opposition of the SDS, because their candidate, as you said, was

20     Simo Miskovic.  And, furthermore, you said that problem, that issue, was

21     resolved to the advantage of the SDA with the appointment of

22     Mr. Hasan Kolondjic [phoen] as chief of the police of Prijedor, and then

23     you said in lines 1 to 6, page 368:

24             [In English] "But, of course, it was only after very long and

25     difficult negotiations and it was in consultation with our central party

Page 17482

 1     boards SDA and SDS, respectively.  And in the end, the SDS had to accept

 2     the principles that been agreed upon at the level of the republic."

 3             [Interpretation] Also, on page 369 in the same case you said:

 4             [In English] "Everything that happened at the level of the

 5     republic was then transferred to the level of the municipality.  This was

 6     especially the case with the SDS, and when it comes to Prijedor, the SDS

 7     did not fully follow the directives from the SDS office in Sarajevo.

 8     Very often they would block the implementation of certain things for

 9     which they had orders."

10             [Interpretation] Do you remember giving this evidence?

11             Mr. Sejmenovic, do you remember saying this?

12        A.   Generally speaking, I remember.  I agree with the quotations

13     you've read.

14        Q.   In the same case, probably in cross-examination, you were asked

15     about the same thing.  And then you said:

16             [In English] "Yes, and after that, the leadership of the SDS and

17     SDA agreed in Prijedor," in Prijedor, probably, "to divide this post in

18     such a way.  But I did say that this was done only after the

19     intervention, after the urging from the leaders of the republic level, as

20     far as I remember, because I was not present.  But I know that this was

21     the only way to solve the problem because SDS did not agree at the local

22     level to completion [sic] of the allocation of power in this manner."

23             [Interpretation] Finally, you said that you personally put that

24     problem forward in Sarajevo, and then you said, Mr. Kadiric, said, Let

25     them have this position.  Let their man have it.

Page 17483

 1        A.   Which position?

 2        Q.   We're talking all the time about Mr. Talundzic.  Ultimately, the

 3     Municipal Board of the SDS, after the intercession from their

 4     headquarters, agreed that Mr. Talundzic take that post.

 5        A.   Yes.  But Kadiric is not from the SDS.  You said Kadiric said,

 6     Let their man have it.  Kadiric was from the SDA.

 7        Q.   Quite correct.  It was a conversation between Mr. Srdjo Srdic and

 8     Mr. Kadiric?

 9        A.   That is possible.

10             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 2D02-2121.

11        Q.   Mr. Sejmenovic, this exhibit was shown to you previous in the

12     Brdjanin case.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Aleksic, can we have a tab number, please.

14             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 27.  I'm sorry.

15             If we have the body of the text enlarged, that's a conclusion in

16     the middle.

17             In B/C/S, can we zoom in on the middle of the page.

18        Q.   Do you remember this exhibit being shown to you?  It's a part of

19     a large exhibit of the Prosecution in the Brdjanin case.  It's one page

20     from the Official Gazette in Prijedor.  And in this conclusion, number

21     116, it says:

22             "The Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality does not accept and

23     considers as invalid any and all decisions by the Crisis Staff of the

24     Autonomous Region of Krajina adopted before 22nd June 1992."

25             And then point 2:

Page 17484

 1             "The Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality shall implement all

 2     the enactments submitted to it and adopted after 22nd June 1992 by the

 3     Crisis Staff of the autonomous region."

 4             And just one more document and then I'll put you the -- put to

 5     you my question.

 6             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] It's 2D02-2122; tab 28.

 7             This is the B/C/S.  Thank you.

 8        Q.   This is another conclusion of the same Crisis Staff of Prijedor

 9     made two days later where they say:

10             "The Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff shall not apply any

11     enactments adopted by the government of the Autonomous Region of Krajina

12     until such time as the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina has

13     re-elected all members of the government in a manner ensuring equal

14     representation of all municipalities through the election of their

15     candidates to the government."

16             Now my question, Mr. Sejmenovic:  Bearing in mind in your earlier

17     evidence in the Kovacevic and other cases, as to the behaviour of the

18     local SDS towards the headquarters, it follows from these documents that

19     they did perhaps not as they pleased but they decide autonomously what

20     they would and wouldn't apply and they were rather pig-headed, weren't

21     they?

22        A.   No.  No, sir.  These were two entirely different periods with

23     entirely two different presidents of the SDS.  In the first time, after

24     the election, the president was Mr. Srdjo Srdic.  We had co-operation

25     with them in certain periods.  It was even good.  While Srdic was

Page 17485

 1     receiving criticism from the level of SDS in Sarajevo and criticism from

 2     the local level saying that Srdjo Srdic was not pushing their political

 3     agenda quicker.  I inquired about certain of these things.  And because

 4     Srdjo Srdic was not pushing the political agenda of the SDS fast enough,

 5     he was replaced and Simo Miskovic was elected in his place.  That's about

 6     the -- that level.

 7             As for the Autonomous Region of Krajina, the authorities in that

 8     region were in a certain kind of conflict with other authorities.  I know

 9     that some time after this period, even Kupresanin was replaced from his

10     position, and around that time, the autonomous regions were abolished

11     completely.  Something else was established in their place.  And

12     jurisdiction was given to local levels and other services.

13        Q.   You said something similar answering the questions of

14     Mr. Ackerman in the Brdjanin case.  You said it looked like a struggle

15     for power in the area of Banja Luka.

16        A.   And Prijedor.  In Prijedor, in fact, the power of the SDS was

17     firm, powerful and untouchable.  There was no competition at all, no

18     rivalry.

19        Q.   Perhaps we are not on the page sage, Mr. Sejmenovic.  I meant the

20     Serbian authorities in Prijedor and the Serbian authorities in

21     Banja Luka.  I'm talking about that struggle for power.  Because they are

22     saying, We are not going to apply your decisions until you elect our

23     representatives to the government.

24        A.   Yes, you can see that from these documents.  But I'm trying to

25     say that it was a time when the whole government of the Autonomous Region

Page 17486

 1     of Krajina was falling apart.  What their political relationships were, I

 2     don't know.  But I know that all formal, legal relations functioned

 3     impeccably.

 4        Q.   On this subject another few questions.

 5             You talked yesterday and earlier about that meeting in Banja Luka

 6     which was supposed to take place in September, including Mr. Karadzic and

 7     international representatives, and you mentioned in your earlier evidence

 8     that, on that occasion, you saw Mr. Srdjo Srdic who was furious and

 9     yelling.

10        A.   Yes, yes.

11        Q.   And he said that he was furious that all the power was given to

12     presidents of municipalities.

13        A.   Yes, local power that related to municipalities.  Now, what was

14     behind it --

15        Q.   And the regions were abolished.

16        A.   Yes, the regions were abolished by Karadzic.

17             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we get exhibit

18     numbers for these two documents that the witness discussed.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I don't mind the line of questioning.

20     They certainly can put their case to this witness.  But this witness

21     would be completely unfamiliar with these decisions.  He hasn't even been

22     asked whether he was aware that these two decisions were even issued.  He

23     wasn't a member of the Serb Crisis Staff during this time period.  He was

24     in hiding.

25             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, if

Page 17487

 1     we are going to apply that principle, then this witness talked about many

 2     things, and yesterday he discussed a document of the 5th of July, which

 3     Simo Drljaca sent to the CSB Banja Luka.  He has certain knowledge.  He

 4     commented on the document.  He said he was aware of it.  He spoke about

 5     the meeting in Banja Luka, which had to do with the fact that all the

 6     power was vested in presidents of the municipalities, and from this

 7     document, it follows precisely that it was a tug of war between Serbs,

 8     between local officials and -- and those in Sarajevo and Banja Luka.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  On a different tact, Mr. Aleksic, I notice that both

10     of these items are excerpts from the Official Gazette.  Correct me if I'm

11     wrong, but wouldn't the gazette form part of the law library?

12             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think this

13     part is.  It's an Official Gazette of Prijedor municipality.  And these

14     two or three sheets are part of a large Prosecution exhibit from the

15     Brdjanin case.  I'm not sure it's in our law library.

16             JUDGE HALL:  No, it mightn't be in the law library.  I'm

17     asking whether -- assuming that it is something that is relevant for our

18     purposes whether because it an is excerpt from the Official Gazette

19     whether it should not be -- rather than exceptionally exhibited, be part

20     of the law library, that's the question I'm asking.  I can't recall as I

21     sit here how we have dealt with other items from the Official Gazette.

22             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  But this was a

23     local decision of the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor.  As far as I

24     understand things, the law library includes documents from the republic

25     level and the federal level, from the times of the SFRY, laws, decrees,

Page 17488

 1     bylaws; but this is a specific conclusion of the municipal assembly.  I

 2     don't think it's in the law library.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  You had something to say, Mr. Olmsted.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.

 6             My objection was aimed at the fact that this is not the

 7     appropriate witness to admit these particular decisions because no

 8     foundation was established.

 9             However, if Your Honours believe it is something that should go

10     into the law library, the Prosecution doesn't object on that ground.

11             JUDGE HALL:  No, that was a question that I raised because as I

12     said, I observed that it was part of the Official Gazette, but counsel

13     has pointed out that heretofore we have not included within our concept

14     of the law library -- what shall I call -- regional bits of official

15     documents, if I may call them that.  We have confined it to, shall I say,

16     national bits of material.  So -- so -- this is not -- if we were to

17     include this in the law library it would not be consistent with what we

18     had done previously.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  I think that we have, Your Honours, included some,

20     at least, regional material.  I think the ARK Crisis Staff

21     Official Gazettes are in the law library.  I would have to confirm that

22     with our law library expert.  But at any rate, the Prosecution would take

23     the position that there's no reason to draw a distinction between

24     something at the national level or the regional level or the municipal

25     level.  If it is an Official Gazette document, it seems that it falls

Page 17489

 1     within the scope of the law light library.  We certainly would want to be

 2     using these kind of documents.  We have been using them and want to use

 3     them during the Defence's case.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  And, Your Honours, I have just been alerted that

 6     this document is in the law library, so ...

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  The one we are looking right now is definitely in

 9     the law library.  We can let you know in a minute with regard to the

10     second one.

11             Yes, Your Honour, both are.

12             JUDGE HALL:  So we move on.

13             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Let's move on.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, might I finish my

15     answer?

16             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   I'm sorry, we don't have enough time.  Please bear with me.  We

18     have quite a few other subjects to cover.

19             Mr. Sejmenovic, you knew Mr. Simo Drljaca before the events of

20     30 April 1992; is that correct?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   In the Stakic case, on pages 45581-82, Ms. Korner was examining

23     you, and she showed you a document which was a dispatch of 30 April sent

24     by Mr. Simo Drljaca.  I won't show you that same document now.  And she

25     asked you the following:

Page 17490

 1             "[In English] Before the 13th of April, had you come across

 2     Simo Drljaca?

 3              "A.  I only saw him several times.  I knew him by sight.  I did

 4     not have any direct contact with him, by virtue of my function.  I did

 5     contact with Mr. Talundzic but I did not have any such contact with

 6     Mr. Simo Drljaca, but I did knew -- know him.  I saw him several times."

 7        A.   Can I answer?

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Is it correct, this, that I just read?

 9        A.   You asked me whether I knew him.  In our language, "knowing

10     somebody" means meeting him, talking to him.  Now, whether I'd seen him,

11     whether I would recognise him is a different issue.  Of course, I saw him

12     a few times, but I never contacted with him.  For example, I don't know

13     your colleague, but I've seen him.

14             So it's correct what I said.  I did see him on a few occasions,

15     but I never had any contacts with him.

16        Q.   But you knew what he looked like.

17        A.   He had a very unique voice, and I sort of knew what he looked

18     like.

19        Q.   In the same case, in the Stakic case, on page 4772, you were

20     shown a video, and the video said the following:  That Mr. Simo Drljaca

21     was explaining the situation to foreign journalists.  So Ms. Korner said:

22             "Could we stop the tape for a minute."

23             And asked you the following?

24             [In English] "Mr. Sejmenovic, Simo Drljaca that we see there

25     talking to the foreign journalist, had you seen him at the camp before

Page 17491

 1     that?  This is in Omarska."

 2             [Interpretation] She was referring to Omarska.

 3             You replied:

 4             [In English] "No, I had not, not before that.

 5             "Q.  Did you actually know Simo Drljaca?

 6             "A.  I knew that he was with the police.  I saw him several times

 7     on various occasions, but I did have -- didn't have any direct contact

 8     with him."

 9             [Interpretation] This was in 2002, when you were shown this

10     video.  And when you knew both his name and you knew what Simo Drljaca

11     looked like; is that correct?

12        A.   Sir, that is identical to what you read out a moment ago.

13        Q.   Four years before that, in 1998, in the Kovacevic case, you were

14     shown the same video, and on page 567, the question was on page 566,

15     Judge May asked:

16             [In English] "Who was the man on the tape?"

17             [Interpretation] And you replied:

18             [In English] "This is Mr. Simo Drljaca."

19             [Interpretation] That was in 1998.

20             And then on the next page, it was the same video, just a little

21     further on in the footage.  The Prosecutor asked you whether you can

22     recognise the person who was in the middle of the still.

23             And you said:

24             [In English] "Yes, it was Simo Drljaca, the police chief in

25     Prijedor."

Page 17492

 1             [Interpretation] In the same case, the Kovacevic case, similarly

 2     to all other cases, you testified about the meeting that was held with

 3     the SDS leadership in mid-May.  So on pages 422 to 427 in the Kovacevic

 4     case you were asked who was present at that meeting.

 5             And you said:

 6             [In English] "From the SDA, Becir Medunjanin attended the

 7     meeting, Mr. Islam Bahonjic, Mr. Meho Tursic, Mr. Ilijaz Music and

 8     myself."

 9             [Interpretation] And then on the next page you said:

10             [In English] "In that office, in addition to Mr. Miskovic, was

11     Mr. Dusan Kurnoga, Slobodan Kuruzovic, then an angry woman.  I had never

12     seen her before.  I don't remember her name.  And then another -- another

13     or two people, I cannot state their names at this point."

14             [Interpretation] And then you were asked whether the meeting

15     started immediately and you said that you had to wait for Zeljaja and

16     Arsic to arrive.  All that happened on the 8th of July, 1998.

17             Then in the same case, five days later, you were cross-examined

18     and you were asked who was present at these meetings.

19             You said the following:

20             [In English] "The officials at that meeting didn't speak much.

21     Slobodan spoke, and Mr. Simo as well."

22             [Interpretation] And then on page 626, you said:

23             [In English] "... half an hour later, Mr. Zeljaja and Arsic and

24     another soldier or a military officer who you did not know arrived; isn't

25     that correct?

Page 17493

 1             "A.  Yes."

 2             "Q.  Did anyone else arrive with them?

 3             "A.  I don't remember whether anyone else arrived with them.

 4     There were some persons present there previously and I had mentioned

 5     them."

 6             [Interpretation] On the next page, you said:

 7             [In English] "I already stated that Kuruzovic was present as well

 8     as Miskovic.  Dusan Kurnoga was present and there were another one or two

 9     persons whom I did not know.  They were in civilian clothes.  I assume

10     that they were not members from the SDS leadership," [Interpretation] and

11     so on.

12             Do you remember that being your evidence?

13        A.   Yes, mainly.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Aleksic, could you just help us out.  Which

15     of the denied adjudicated facts does this -- all of this concern?

16             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this relates to the

17     fact that both the police, the army, and the SDS acted practically

18     together.  And the police forces also participated in the attack on

19     Kozarac.  This was the meeting that preceded that.  And this is a part of

20     this witness's evidence that he mentioned for the first time after

21     18 years; namely, that Mr. Simo Drljaca was at that meeting.

22             If the Chamber is of the opinion that I needn't challenge the

23     witness's testimony in that regard, I will move on to something else.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, I just wanted to be sure that we are

25     keeping ourselves within the limits of the denied adjudicated facts.  And

Page 17494

 1     I'm still not sure that this is the case, but let's hear Mr. Olmsted.

 2     What did you want to say?

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             It's not in dispute that this witness, in his prior testimony,

 5     was not able to identify Simo Drljaca at this mid-May 1992 meeting with

 6     Simo Miskovic and others.  He said that there was two people who were not

 7     identified, so the issue here with regard to identity is whether he was

 8     subsequently able to identify that person at the meeting.  And this

 9     hasn't been put to him yet, and I think that is the point that needs to

10     be asked.

11             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] What's the point of me asking that

12     question?  What's the point of that?  I started reading to the witness

13     his testimony of 12 years ago and eight years ago.  He was then shown the

14     same video and he knew who Simo Drljaca was, what he looked like, and

15     what his name was.  He testified for three weeks in the Stakic case.  And

16     the video was shown again and the meeting was discussed again, and

17     yesterday he said that he was introduced as an official of public

18     security.  He'd never used that term before.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A security officer, not from public

20     security.  There were two security officers.

21             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Military?

23        A.   No.  The military security man, Arsic called him, My security

24     officer.  And those other two men were called security officers.

25        Q.   Sir, but this is something completely new now.

Page 17495

 1        A.   Allow me --

 2        Q.   I won't get into arguments with you.  Don't assist me.  I will

 3     ask you the questions, if the Chamber will allow me.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Witness, I would like to know in everything

 6     that has been read to you as your prior testimony, that, at one point, if

 7     the reading was more or less complete, at one point you named the name of

 8     Simo, nothing else.

 9             Right, Mr. Aleksic?

10             What -- what did you mean by Simo, or who did you point out by

11     Simo?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, every time, and in

13     every case, when I was asked about this, I listed the names of people

14     whom I knew and whom I'd had contacts with.  There were people there who

15     I didn't know.  And some of them were introduced as security officers.

16     One of them who was sitting next to Major Zeljaja was called, My security

17     officer by Arsic.  He was from military security.

18             As for the people who I didn't know, I merely mentioned them as

19     being present at the meeting and I said that they spoke.  However, one of

20     these people reminded me very much, because of his unique voice and his

21     hair, of a person whom I later saw on that tape.  I didn't know

22     Simo Drljaca personally.  I had seen him on a few occasions.  I sometimes

23     saw him in civilian clothes.  I sometimes saw him in police uniform.  And

24     he looked somewhat different in a military uniform from how he looked in

25     civilian clothes.

Page 17496

 1             With a certain degree of certainty, I said that I assumed that

 2     this was Simo Drljaca.  That was my reply.  I wasn't decisive and said,

 3     Yes, Simo Drljaca was present.  My opinion is that that was him, except I

 4     didn't know the man personally, so I couldn't say, Yes, that was Simo.

 5     That's what this was all about.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 7             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   One other question on this issue.

 9             But as I said, it was 12 and eight years ago, respectively, that

10     you were shown the video footage.  And in the past couple of days, you

11     never said that, yes, it was Simo Drljaca.

12        A.   Well, I wouldn't dare to do so even now.  I wouldn't dare say,

13     yes, this is Simo Drljaca.  I know that it was a man from public

14     security, and, based on the footage that I was able to see later on, the

15     individual reminded me of Simo Drljaca.  What we need to draw a

16     distinction between a resolute statement without a doubt or -- or

17     uncertainty and a statement which isn't certain.

18        Q.   In the Stakic case, 4609 is the page, you were asked:

19             [In English] "You say that Miskovic refused to start without the

20     military being there.  Did the officers, Arsic and Zeljaja arrive?"

21             [Interpretation] Your answer is:

22             [In English] "Arsic, Zeljaja and two other officers arrived, four

23     all together.

24             "Q.  Did you know who those two other officers are?

25              "A.  No, I had never seen them before.  One spoke in the Ekavian

Page 17497

 1     dialect which means that he was not from Prijedor but from Serbia proper.

 2     And he was the chief of security.  At least that's how he was introduced

 3     by Colonel Arsic, chief of Security Service or Intelligence Service."

 4             [Interpretation] At the end of page, you were asked about the

 5     fourth officer.  Both the third and fourth, that is:

 6             [In English] "And what was the security officer?  Did you see

 7     what rank he was -- what rank he was?

 8             "A.  I don't remember seeing a rank but it's possible that he was

 9     a major.

10             "Q.  And the other officer, was he introduced in any particular

11     way?

12             "A.  The other officer was not introduced.  He never said a

13     word."

14             [Interpretation] It follows from this, that it was yesterday that

15     you mentioned for the first time a person from public security and we

16     understand that you weren't sure if it was Simo Drljaca or not.

17        A.   Please allow me to answer.  There were security officers present,

18     and Arsic, a military commander, referred to one of them as his security

19     man.  So they were security officers, one of whom was Arsic's.  I don't

20     know who the other ones belonged to.

21             And let me tell you one other thing:  When they stepped into the

22     room, they all looked the same to me.  They all wore camouflage uniforms.

23     I didn't pay attention to any details.  I was focussed on the substance

24     and the discussion at the meeting.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 17498

 1        Q.   Mr. Sejmenovic, let me try to expedite my examination.

 2             As for the uniforms and insignia worn by these armed men - let us

 3     call them that - you testified on this score in several cases.  It was

 4     for the first time yesterday, 18 years later, 18 years after the events

 5     and eight years after your testimony on this, that you mentioned that

 6     some of theme wore blue police uniforms?

 7        A.   I don't think that's true, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  I object to the question, because it is very vague

 9     and ambiguous.  Which men wearing which uniforms at what time?

10             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Let's take it step by step then.

11        Q.   You referred to the period after the attack on Kozarac and said

12     that you personally observed the movement and actions taken by Serb

13     soldiers, as you called it.

14             In the Tadic case, page 938, you said:

15             [In English] "Some of them were uniformed completely, some of

16     them wore jeans and a military shirt above it.  Some were younger, some

17     were older.  I recognised one of these younger soldiers.  I heard some of

18     them, two of them, I heard talking in an accent or dialect which does not

19     come from the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I guess that were young

20     soldiers from Serbia because did how they -- dialect was.

21             [No interpretation]

22             [In English] "Q.  Did you see any of the insignias of the

23     uniforms of any of these soldiers or paramilitary troops?

24             "A.  They buried -- they were some without any insignias.  Some

25     had insignia of the Serbia army, some had insignia which I don't really

Page 17499

 1     distinguish them.  Those from Vukovar had insignia of the so-called

 2     Martic Militia, this army, there were all sorts of them.

 3             [Interpretation] In the Kovacevic case, 527 --

 4        A.   May I give you my comments on this?

 5        Q.   Wait for me to finish and then I will put my question to you.

 6             So I have already put it to you that your testimonies differ.

 7             So in the Kovacevic case, 527:

 8             [In English] "Q.  I could -- how were you able to tell that that

 9     are Serbian forces?

10             "A.  I could conclude that based on the insignia.  I watched them

11     from a short distance.  I was hiding in the grass or the bushes by the

12     road and I also knew it because one of the Ukrainians that I have

13     mentioned, in order not to be shot, has forced to put on the uniform and

14     become a member of the Serbian army.  He gave some information."

15             [Interpretation] Page 529 to 530 you say:

16             [In English] "I saw few soldiers.  They had insignia, two or

17     three types of insignia.  The police of region of Krajina, they were --

18     was the JNA insignia and also some insignia I hadn't seen until that

19     time.  I saw mixed groups.  Some of them had the full uniform on.  Some

20     wore jeans and military-type shirt.  There were people who were younger,

21     some were older, and I list them in conversation which -- what strange to

22     me."

23             [Interpretation] And you again referred to the Ekavian dialect or

24     accent.

25             In the Stakic case, again you say:

Page 17500

 1             [In English] "I saw soldiers carrying the SAO Krajina insignia or

 2     Martic police, as they were referred to at that moment.  There were

 3     regular JNA soldiers too.  There were police officers from Prijedor who

 4     were soldiers.  They were wearing soldier military uniforms.  They were

 5     civilians, too, from neighbours recognised those civilians wore military

 6     uniforms or parts of military uniforms.  That was a mixture of

 7     everything."

 8             [Interpretation] Yesterday, you said that you saw three groups of

 9     soldiers, one group was wearing complete uniforms; the second group had

10     ten soldiers among them and two wearing dark blue police uniforms; and

11     the second -- the third group, you said, was a mixed one comprising

12     persons who had full uniforms and partial uniforms.

13             Can you tell Their Honours which is the interpretation you stand

14     by?

15        A.   I stand by each and every one.  These were answers to the

16     specific questions that were put to me which were similar questions but

17     not identical.

18             Sir, you need to distinguish between the various locations I was

19     describing.  I already told you that I was able to observe these events

20     on three occasions.  On three occasions.  You were now referring to the

21     contradiction in the description of the ethnic cleansing at two different

22     locations.  And they differed.  I could explain and describe to you each

23     and every one of these occasions but it would take some time.

24             Now, the first example you mentioned, and I'm quoting you, as you

25     were quoting to me, that there were uniformed individuals, save for some

Page 17501

 1     others.  Well, to me, anything other than uniform was a -- were -- was

 2     civilian clothes.  I wasn't even describing those who weren't in

 3     uniforms.  I said that some wore full uniforms, others only parts of

 4     uniforms.

 5             The second occasion involved APCs -- or, rather, that was the

 6     last occasion when I was observing a specific location and there I saw

 7     mixed uniforms.  My answer would largely depend on the person putting the

 8     question and the persons intention of inquiring after details.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move on to another topic.

10             Did you know that in the Prijedor public security station on the

11     29th of April, a meeting was held, attended by Mr. Cehajic, the president

12     of the municipality; Mr. Mujadzic, SDA president; and Mr. Simo Miskovic

13     from the SDS.  They met with the chief of police, Talundzic.

14             Were you informed of this meeting?

15        A.   No, I was not, Your Honour.

16             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up Exhibit 1D150.

17        Q.   On this issue, you testified in the other cases as well, that, if

18     I remember correctly, on the 8th of April, orders or instructions came

19     from the Republican Territorial Defence Staff concerning mobilisation of

20     TO units.

21             Do you recall that?  We will come to the document later.  Please

22     answer my question first.

23        A.   Yes.  I do know that a Republican TO Staff was set up.  I don't

24     recall what sort of an order was issued.  I recall that later on there

25     followed an order on mobilisation, whether it was dated on the 8th of

Page 17502

 1     April, is not something I can tell.

 2             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can the B/C/S version be somewhat

 3     enlarged, please.

 4        Q.   The order was sent by Mr. Alija Delimustafic to all public

 5     security stations on the 29th of April.  Through this order, he is

 6     basically conveying Mr. Hasan Efendic's order, he was the commander of

 7     the Republican TO Staff, wherein Mr. Delimustafic orders, under 1:

 8             "All roads in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 9     being used by units of the former JNA for pulling out materiel and

10     equipment are to be completely blocked in direct co-ordination with the

11     Ministry of Interior."

12             Under 2:

13             "Larger areas with military installations from which they are

14     trying to pull out materiel and equipment are to be blocked by using

15     various man-made and natural obstacles which will shall be guarded by the

16     units of the Territorial Defence of the republic of BH and the MUP."

17             And under 3:

18             "Unannounced convoys of former JNA units and convoys without a

19     MUP escort shall not be allowed to leave the barracks or to communicate

20     within the territory of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."

21             Were you familiar with Mr. Delimustafic's order?

22        A.   In your earlier question, you used a term which is not

23     appropriate for this document.  Mobilisation of the Territorial Defence

24     is one thing, and operative orders, such as this one, are quite another

25     matter.  The republic had issued orders for additional mobilisation of

Page 17503

 1     Territorial Defence earlier on; whereas, this particular order is an

 2     order on activities to be carried out.  The command of the municipality

 3     of Prijedor TO Staff was in Prijedor.  The makeup was mixed in terms of

 4     ethnicities and political parties.  At the level of Prijedor, not even an

 5     order on the mobilisation of the TO could be implemented because of the

 6     obstructions that existed within the TO Staff.

 7        Q.   Sir, this order, however, states that through various man-made

 8     and natural obstacles, which are to be secured by the TO and the MUP.  So

 9     this involves both the TO and MUP units.  Were you familiar with an order

10     of this sort?

11        A.   I wasn't informed of this particular order.  But I was familiar

12     with the fact that - and you will agree with me - an -- a combat order

13     cannot be issued to a Territorial Defence structure that had not been

14     previously mobilised.  This is what concerns the TO.

15             Now, the MUP operated the way it did.  This order could

16     definitely not have been implemented, to my knowledge, either through

17     official structures or otherwise, because the local policy was heading in

18     quite a different direction.

19        Q.   Sir, what I'm telling you is that this dispatch by

20     Mr. Delimustafic and a similar order by Mr. Hasan Efendic were, in fact,

21     the reason why the takeover took place in the Prijedor on the 30th of

22     April.  Will you agree with me?

23        A.   I'm sorry, I can't give you a yes-or-no answer, sir.  I can't.

24     Several towns had, by that time, been burned in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the

25     time the dispatch was issued.  Massacres occurred.  That's one thing.

Page 17504

 1     There were cannons around Prijedor.  Battery positions were placed around

 2     Kozarac much earlier than the order itself was issued.  So this could

 3     have been used as a motive for something, because the SDS authorities

 4     knew well what the position of the TO was.

 5             The fact of the -- a fact of the matter is that the SUP chief,

 6     Hasan Talundzic, did not carry out this particular order de facto and

 7     de jure.  He could have produced immediately an order based on this one.

 8     Why?  Well, because there was no intention of having this implemented in

 9     Prijedor, to begin with.

10        Q.   And were you at this meeting on 29th of April in Prijedor?

11        A.   No, I wasn't.  But I didn't have this document either, and you're

12     asking me about the document.  So I am fully entitled to speak to this

13     document as well and the time-period involved.

14        Q.   As regards the Territorial Defence, in addition to what you said,

15     that in early April, the republic staff ordered the mobilisation of TO

16     units, in the Tadic case you said there had been constant communication

17     between the republic TO staff and local staffs and that a decision was

18     made also in Kozarac to re-enforce the TO.

19             Then the Presiding Judge asked you when that decision was taken.

20     And on page 975, you answered that it was seven or ten days before the

21     meeting in Prijedor, which was in mid-May.

22             Do you remember testifying to this?

23        A.   Yes, something like that.

24        Q.   After the meeting in Prijedor held in mid-May, as you said, you

25     testified in other cases and here that meetings were held in the local

Page 17505

 1     commune and that a meeting was held in the school-house in Kozarac, the

 2     primary school.

 3             Do you remember that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   You were also asked on page 647 and 648 in Kovacevic case:

 6             [In English] "The purpose of the meeting was to have a large

 7     number of people make a common decision that would be supported by

 8     everybody."

 9             [Interpretation] You were asked:

10             [In English] "How was the decision reached at the meeting and

11     what was the decision?

12             "A.  The decision at the meeting was for us to abide by the laws

13     of Bosnia-Herzegovina because we did not recognise the state that was

14     created by the Serbs.  Decision was made to follow the instructions of

15     the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and our authorities."

16             [Interpretation] To avoid going through your extensive testimony

17     in the Stakic case and others, you have been asked many questions here

18     about the Territorial Defence, the local defence in Kozarac.  But you

19     answered most of them by saying that you didn't know that you have no

20     such information.  You said you didn't know how many establishment TO

21     units there were in Kozarac and around.  You don't know how many men

22     these units had.  You don't know how many policemen, in total, there were

23     at the police station in Kozarac, or what kind of weapons and how many

24     weapons had.  And you didn't know who the wartime commander was in

25     Kozarac.  And that you don't know, because you were not part of the

Page 17506

 1     command structure in Kozarac, but you signed up as a regular citizen.

 2             Is that fair to say?

 3        A.   In part.

 4        Q.   Do you know who Sead Cirkin is?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Who is he?

 7        A.   Sead Cirkin was appointed -- or, rather, took over the

 8     organisation of the Territorial Defence just before the war started.  I

 9     think it was very little time before the attack.  He was a former JNA

10     officer who was demobilised after being wounded, returned home to

11     Kozarac, and then he was engaged to do this work.

12        Q.   Does that mean that he was the TO commander in Kozarac?

13        A.   No, no.  Please.  Perhaps he was at that moment when he took over

14     that work, but until then, no.  Until that time, it was someone else.

15        Q.   Who was that someone else before Cirkin, if you know?

16        A.   I know of several people.  It could have been one of them.  I --

17     I can't say.  I'm afraid to make a mistake.  I just don't know.

18        Q.   Last Friday and yesterday you mentioned a tank that was placed at

19     the intersection just before entering Kozarac.  And you said at page

20     17386 that the tank was placed there towards the end of April and

21     remained there until the beginning of May.

22        A.   It was an approximate time-frame.

23        Q.   Please wait.  I'll give you time to answer.

24             In Kovacevic on page 498, you said the tank was placed there on

25     3rd May 1992 and stayed there for a few days.  And on page 643, you said

Page 17507

 1     that at the time when the tank was placed there, the local population

 2     from the other side of the road set up a check-point as some sort of

 3     protection.

 4             Do you remember saying that?

 5        A.   Well, perhaps at that time I remembered the exact date.  This

 6     time around, I find it more difficult to remember dates.  But I know that

 7     when the tank was brought and the barrel of the gun was trained at

 8     houses, I know that local residents placed logs on the road so that if

 9     the tank were to move, it couldn't move so easily towards the settlement.

10     The tank remained there for a while, and then it was taken away.

11        Q.   You were asked yesterday if you knew that, on the 24th of May,

12     the military column in Jakupovici was attacked, and you said you doubt

13     that that was true, precisely because the tank was in that intersection

14     from the beginning of May.

15        A.   It must be a mistake, and I will ask for the audio recording,

16     because I didn't say that.

17             Because it's impossible to associate these two locations.  There

18     must be a distance of 6, 7 kilometres between them.  What I can tell you

19     and what is related is this:  When the tank was placed there, it created

20     a lot of fear.  That fear remained.  And perhaps what happened in

21     Jakupovici was a result of that fear.  And a big question is whether this

22     tank arrived firing or -- or not.  And even that event in Jakupovici, I

23     only heard stories about it.

24        Q.   In early evidence, and yesterday as well, you said that after the

25     30th of April you had no contact with the SDA leadership.  I mean

Page 17508

 1     Mr. Mujadzic and the part of the leadership who --

 2        A.   With some of them I did; with others, I didn't.

 3        Q.   You don't know if he had any negotiations with Mr. Miskovic after

 4     the 30th of April, and if he did, what kind?

 5        A.   No, I don't know that.

 6        Q.   You also testified that in other villages on the other side of

 7     Prijedor - Hambarine, Carakovo, Ljubija, Rizvanovici, Biscani - they had

 8     Territorial Defence, but since they were on the other side of Prijedor,

 9     more than 10 kilometres away, you don't know what happened there after

10     the 30th of April?

11        A.   I just heard news from the radio and we could see with our own

12     eyes what happened when the artillery started targeted that area.

13        Q.   Do you know Mr. Edo Sadikovic?

14        A.   I don't know Edo; but I know Veso Sadikovic, the doctor.

15        Q.   Do you know who Slavko Ecimovic from Carakovo is?

16        A.   I know Zivko Ecim.  I don't know Slavko Ecimovic but I know Zivko

17     lived there before.

18        Q.   Do you know that the Muslim forces attacked Prijedor town on the

19     30th of May, 1992?

20        A.   I heard that from Serbian sources, the Serbian radio and their

21     police communications, and that's the only interpretation of events I

22     heard.  I was unable to hear the other side of the story at the time.

23        Q.   I quite understand.  You also testified that after the 30th of

24     April, you don't know what happened in Prijedor itself.  You attended

25     these meetings twice, but you did not leave in Prijedor.  You were in

Page 17509

 1     Trnopolje and Kozarac on that side where you were in hiding.

 2        A.   I told you about the details and the atmosphere in Prijedor from

 3     that day when I went there.  Otherwise, I was not there.  I don't know.

 4             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I

 5     will review my questions during the break and I would appreciate another

 6     ten minutes, perhaps, with this witness.  Because Mr. Cvijetic will not

 7     examine at all.  And if I need, I will need only a little -- I'll just

 8     organise a little during the break.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.

10             So we take the break, to resume in 20 minutes.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

14             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness

15     comes in, I don't have any more questions for this witness.  But since we

16     learned only yesterday about that alleged meeting to which delegation was

17     sent from Kozarac to Banja Luka, we had no time to verify that

18     information, and this information is something that he -- the witness

19     received from hearsay or double-hearsay, and I'm not in a position to ask

20     him questions about this meeting.  I have no other questions to put to

21     him.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.

23             And, Mr. Cvijetic, you confirm that you decline

24     cross-examination?

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

Page 17510

 1             JUDGE HALL:  And will there be any re-examination?

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.  I'm sorry.  I apologise.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  I just want to cover some areas that were raised

 5     during cross-examination that might be useful for this Trial Chamber.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Witness, while you were on your way in, counsel

 7     for Zupljanin indicated that he, in fact, has no further questions of you

 8     so his cross-examination is complete.

 9             And counsel for Mr. Stanisic has confirmed that he doesn't intend

10     to cross-examine.

11             So I invite Mr. Olmsted to re-examine you.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry.

14             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Sejmenovic.  Thank you for your answers.

16                           Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

17        Q.   Sir, during cross-examination, you stated that Srdjo Srdic was

18     replaced by Simo Miskovic at some stage as the leader of the SDS in

19     Prijedor.  Can you tell us what was Miskovic's relationship like with the

20     SDS in Sarajevo, from what you could observe?

21        A.   I cannot, Your Honours, because Miskovic was not in the statement

22     parliament and Srdic was.  I also had an opportunity to travel with Srdic

23     and to spend time with him at the parliament but not with Miskovic.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's have on the screen 2D128.

25        Q.   And these are the minutes of the extraordinary session of

Page 17511

 1     Prijedor Municipal Assembly held on 17th of February, 1992.

 2             Sir, it is clear from these minutes and also from what Mr.

 3     Aleksic read into the record yesterday that the debate, or one of the

 4     main issues in the debate, was whether a proposal for the dissolution of

 5     the assembly, the Prijedor Assembly should be placed on the agenda.  Can

 6     you tell what was the position of the SDS leadership Simo Miskovic,

 7     Milomir Stakic, with regard to the dissolution of the assembly?

 8        A.   The SDS, vigorously advocated the dissolution of the assembly,

 9     not only at this session but even months earlier.

10        Q.   And it's also clear from the minutes that the SDA and HDZ

11     leadership were not in favour of dissolving the assembly at that point in

12     time.  Can you explain why?

13        A.   It was their position because dissolving that legitimate organ

14     with the prevailing atmosphere, it would have been impossible to either

15     hold new elections or form a new assembly.  And the SDS, at the time of

16     this session, of which we have the transcript, had already established

17     its own assembly, a para-state Serbian Assembly.

18        Q.   And I was reading through the minutes last night and I noticed

19     there was talk about republican-wide elections being held later that

20     year.  Was that another reason why there was really no need to hold a

21     by-election at this stage?

22        A.   That was another reason not to hold elections within such a short

23     time because the presidents of the political parties, Karadzic,

24     Izetbegovic and others, had agreed to hold elections within a year.  That

25     was by the end of that year.

Page 17512

 1        Q.   During examination-in-chief, you stated that even though there

 2     was this disagreement between the SDS and the other parties with regard

 3     to division of power within the municipality, that the government in

 4     Prijedor was still able to function.  The assembly was still able to

 5     meet.

 6             Given that state of affairs, was there really a need to dissolve

 7     the assembly?

 8        A.   No.  As far as the operation of the assembly is concerned,

 9     Your Honours, it had all the necessary conditions to work and it could

10     work normally with the consent of the SDS as it had worked previously for

11     months.  All the prestigious but followed sessions were convened,

12     sessions were held.  The very fact that the secondary departments of

13     power had not been distributed did not block the work of the assembly.

14     The assembly was a legitimate organ and it sat in its full composition.

15     Also the municipal government functioned in the same way, in its full

16     composition or, rather, the Executive Board as we called it at that time.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Can we turn to page 13 of the B/C/S of this

18     document, page 9 of the English.

19        Q.   Now, we see after Miskovic speaks we see that someone by the name

20     of Islam Bahonjic speaks.  Who was Mr. Bahonjic?

21        A.   Islam Bahonjic was a municipal deputy and a member of the broader

22     SDA leadership in Prijedor and he also went to negotiate in Prijedor to

23     those negotiation meetings when the takeover happened.  And he is one of

24     the men who never returned.

25        Q.   In the second paragraph, he asks what I believe is a relevant

Page 17513

 1     question.  He says:

 2             "We all know that the SDS has created its own assembly so why

 3     this interest in dissolving this civilian assembly?"

 4             Now you have already just mentioned that it was -- you were aware

 5     in the media, from the media, that the SDS had created its own assembly.

 6     Was this question that Mr. Bahonjic posed in the minds of many of the

 7     non-Serb representatives at this meeting?

 8        A.   That is precisely the point of all this session and all the

 9     debates with the SDS.  It was obvious to all of us.  The SDS wanted to

10     dissolve the assembly, did not want to allow a new assembly to be formed.

11     They wanted to proclaim a state of emergency and to impose their own

12     authorities they had already prepared.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, I would like to ask one

14     clarification question.

15             Mr. Witness, you speak about Islam Bahonjic who went to

16     negotiate -- to those negotiation meetings when the takeover happened.

17     And is he one of the men who never returned.

18             I seem to remember that yesterday you spoke about two meetings,

19     one they came back from, and a second one, they never returned from.

20     That's right.  But I seem to remember that you were talking then about a

21     meeting in Banja Luka and now you say it's in Prijedor.  Can you clarify

22     which one of the two?  Where -- where -- where were those meetings held?

23     In Prijedor or in Banja Luka?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, that is

25     Islam Bahonjic, the man from the minutes, he was present at the second

Page 17514

 1     meeting in Prijedor and this delegation was led by the chief of the

 2     police, and Bahonjic was a member of that delegation together with some

 3     other people.

 4             After this second meeting, this delegation never returned.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And was the first meeting held from Prijedor as

 6     well?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first meeting with the police

 8     was also held in Prijedor.  It was also led by the chief of police, and

 9     they were allowed to come back to Kozarac, and then on the second

10     occasion, neither he returned, nor anybody in that delegation.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  And perhaps can I clarify this issue with regard to

13     the Banja Luka meeting, if I show him a document that's on the Defence's

14     exhibit list.

15             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't ask him any

16     questions about this topic.  I didn't use a document.  I don't think this

17     is the right way to go about this.  I believe the Prosecution doesn't

18     have the right to use these documents.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, I'm simply doing this as an aid

20     for the Trial Chamber, but I am at a bit of a disadvantage here because

21     the Defence have decided not to cross-examine on this issue of the

22     Banja Luka meeting and I want to have this witness be able to clarify

23     this issue so perhaps we don't have to call him back a second time to

24     address this issue.

25             JUDGE HALL:  And this relates to the adjudicated fact in respect

Page 17515

 1     of which this witness was called?

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, certainly.

 3             It is relating to events in May 1992 leading up to the shelling

 4     in Kozarac.  These are -- this is the ultimatum that was finally issued

 5     that resulted in the shelling.  So this time-period is -- I can actually

 6     give the facts, if Your Honours believe it is necessary.  But it comes

 7     directly out of his examination-in-chief as well.  Just for the record,

 8     I'm referring to this meeting in Banja Luka in which Stojan Zupljanin

 9     participated in.  And Judge Delvoie's question, he was trying to clarify

10     the Prijedor meetings versus the Banja Luka meetings.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Aleksic.

12             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, that question

13     was never raised in cross-examination and no document was shown.  Of

14     course, His Honour Judge Delvoie asked the question, and the witness may

15     respond without being shown any documents.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  The question that the Chamber had asked didn't touch

18     on this particular issue of this meeting in Banja Luka.  So, therefore,

19     this isn't something that arises out of cross-examination.

20             So let's move on Mr. Olmsted.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.  If I may just clarify one

22     matter with this witness.

23        Q.   Sir, the -- during your examination-in-chief, you mentioned there

24     was a meeting in Banja Luka as well.  Is that separate from these

25     Prijedor meetings?  That's all I'm asking, just to clarify whether there

Page 17516

 1     was another meeting.

 2             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Same objection.  We have the

 3     decision of the Chamber on this matter.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

 5             JUDGE HALL:  You need not answer that question Mr. -- yes,

 6     Mr. Olmsted.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:

 9        Q.   Very well.  You were asked during cross-examination where you

10     actually -- read to you some of your former testimony regarding the

11     presence of the police during cleansing operations in the Kozarac area

12     following the shelling.  And I want to draw your attention to your

13     testimony in the Stakic case.  This is at transcript page 4709.  And

14     you're talking about these operations, and you state that:

15             "During each of these operations they killed several people.

16     Almost as a rule in a group of 30 houses, there would -- as a rule be two

17     or three victims," et cetera.

18             Then later on, Ms. Korner asks you:

19             "You talk about they, the Serbs, who do mean by that?  Was this

20     army or police or a mixture of both?"

21             And you responded:

22             "I mean all of them."

23             Do you stand by that -- that answer?

24        A.   Of course, I do, sir.  We saw them wearing various different

25     kinds of uniforms and in different locations.  On one occasion during

Page 17517

 1     this process of ethnic cleansing in the Trnopolje and Omarska camps, and

 2     in Prijedor after the takeover of power.

 3        Q.   Let's have on the screen 65 ter 466.

 4             Sir, during cross-examination you were shown two decisions by the

 5     Prijedor government from June of 1992 and you were asked a number of

 6     questions regarding the relationship between the Prijedor government and

 7     the ARK regional government.  And I want you to take a look at this

 8     decision, number 18, which is on the organisation and work of the

 9     Prijedor Crisis Staff.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we could just turn to the last page.

11        Q.   We see that it's dated 20 May 1992.  And if we look at

12     Article 11, which is on this page, it says:

13             "The provisions of the constitution, the law, and decision [sic]

14     adopted by the Assembly, the Presidency and ... government of the Serbian

15     Republic of BH ... and the responsible organs of the Autonomous Region of

16     the Banja Luka Krajina have been and shall remain the foundation for the

17     work of the Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff."

18             So, sir, at least in May 1992, there was no conflict, at least no

19     apparent conflict, between the Prijedor authorities and the ARK

20     authorities?

21        A.   No, there weren't.  In my early evidence, I said what I heard

22     about this conflict, and I believe that in one of my testimonies I said

23     what Kupresanin had told me; namely, that it was difficult for him to get

24     a document for me to leave the area.  And it was then that I realised

25     that he was in a political conflict, and I think I can say literally with

Page 17518

 1     Vukic, with Brdjo, as he called him, or Brdjanin, and with Zupljanin.  He

 2     needed to get a document for me from the police, but the recommendation

 3     for me was not to seek this document from the police, instead he gave me

 4     this document with the seal of the practically non-existent Autonomous

 5     Region of Krajina.

 6        Q.   Let's look at P555.  And, Your Honours, I believe that last

 7     document is in the law library as well.  If not, of course, it should be

 8     added to it.

 9             This document is a dispatch from CSB Banja Luka to all SJB chiefs

10     dated 4 May 1992, and I just want you to take a look at item 1 through

11     which the CSB Banja Luka conveys the decision by the ARK government that

12     the full and public mobilisation on the entire territory of the

13     Autonomous Region of Krajina is hereby ordered.

14             Sir, do you recall in May 1992 hearing announcements to this

15     effect?

16        A.   Yes, through the media.

17        Q.   And you said you heard it through the media.  Who was issuing

18     these announcements?

19        A.   It was on the Banja Luka TV, and you could also hear it on local

20     radio stations.  But I know that this was announced on several occasions

21     on television.  I don't know in what form.  And also on the radio

22     stations.  I can't quote what exactly was said, but we know that there

23     was order for general mobilisation.

24        Q.   And if we look at number 4, the CSB Banja Luka conveys the ARK

25     government's decision that a curfew is to be introduced.  Do you recall

Page 17519

 1     hearing announcements on the Prijedor local radio to that effect as well?

 2        A.   I know that a curfew was introduced.  I believe it might have

 3     been even a day or two before the 4th of May that a curfew was introduced

 4     in the Prijedor area, and it was in place until further notice.  It was

 5     not abolished until the attack on Hambarine and Kozarac.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's look quickly at 65 ter 10216.

 7             And, again, Your Honours, this should be a document is that in

 8     the law library.

 9             This is the Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.

10     And if we could turn to page 6 of the B/C/S, page 13 of the English.

11             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what's the tab number of

12     this document?

13             MR. OLMSTED:  There is no tab.  This is a document that I brought

14     up in response to your cross-examination regarding the relationship

15     between the ARK and the Prijedor government.

16        Q.   I want you to take a look at decision number 45.  It states:

17             "The proper municipal organs of administration shall be informed

18     of all abandoned property, which shall then be proclaimed property of the

19     state and placed at the disposal of the municipal assemblies."

20             And if we look at the end of this decision, it's numbered

21     03-513/92 and it's dated 19 June 1992.

22             If we could now look at 65 ter 492.  This is tab 12.

23             And this is a proposal for a decision on proclaiming abandoned

24     property, property of the state, and it's from 1992.  In the first

25     paragraph it states that:

Page 17520

 1             "This decision is made pursuant to, among other laws, the

 2     decision of the Crisis Staff of the ARK number 03-513/92 dated 19

 3     June 1992."

 4             And under item number 1 it states:

 5             "All abandoned property (real estate and moveable items) of

 6     persons who have left the territory of Prijedor municipality, and of

 7     persons who participated in the armed uprising is temporarily proclaimed

 8     state property, the Prijedor municipality becoming entitled to all

 9     possession rights."

10             After the attack on Kozarac, do you recall hearing announcements

11     to this effect over the radio?

12        A.   Yes.  There were some practical things that happened in the field

13     which confirmed this.

14        Q.   And can you explain that just briefly to us.

15        A.   Here's a specific example: During the last mop-up operations, the

16     army seized certain property, cars or tractors, and in some cases they

17     issued papers to the owners, saying that this was an order to seize their

18     property and that it had been issued by the municipality.  I know that

19     some people received such documents.  And soon in Trnopolje, the Serbian

20     forces approved very near the camp certain Serbian families to move into

21     the houses of people who were only 500 metres away in the camp with their

22     families.  This wasn't spontaneous.  During the time that I was in the

23     field, they had already moved into several houses.

24        Q.   You mentioned "some people."

25             To your knowledge, were there any Serbs who had their property

Page 17521

 1     confiscated after they left the municipality pursuant to this decision?

 2        A.   No, there weren't.  There weren't.  Only -- it related only to

 3     non-Serbs.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.

 5             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, an

 6     intervention for the transcript.  42, line 3:

 7             [In English] "... that it had been issued by the municipality."

 8             [Interpretation] I believe the witness said, "I don't know who

 9     issued this."

10             And as for tendering this document, this is a proposed decision.

11     There is no date, there's no seal, there's no signature, that's one

12     thing.  It's only a draft.

13             And the second thing, this document and the one shown before are

14     not identical; for example, Article 1 which Mr. Olmsted read.  So I

15     oppose tendering this document.  We have the testimony of the witness

16     about what his knowledge is.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, these arguments seem to go to weight.

18     This witness was able to testify that he did hear this type of decision

19     announced over the radio.  He also knows that it was implemented and he

20     gave examples of its implementation.  So --

21             JUDGE HALL:  That's the testimony.  But if -- as Mr. Aleksic

22     says, this is only a draft.

23             So wouldn't that be admitting it -- isn't that an attempt to give

24     it a higher status than it, in fact, has?

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honour, again that's an issue of weight.

Page 17522

 1     This witness says that he heard this kind of decision issued over the

 2     public radio and, therefore, that -- we would contend indicates that the

 3     decision was, in fact, passed and implemented.  Because otherwise it

 4     wouldn't be announced over the radio, it wouldn't have been implemented

 5     in the field.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Aleksic.

 9             MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] The witness wasn't saying this for

10     this document but the previous document which is already in the law

11     library.  And also, I didn't pursue this line of questioning.  It would

12     be very general.  I didn't go into this specific line of questions.  If

13     that's how we understand things, then Mr. Olmsted could take this entire

14     Official Gazette and show every single document to the witness.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, the issue at stake here is whether

16     there was co-operation between the ARK government and the government in

17     Prijedor.  There -- this document is directly linked to an ARK

18     Crisis Staff decision that I showed this witness previously.  This one we

19     agree is a proposal.  It's a draft.  However, because it was announced

20     publicly at some stage, it, therefore, must have become -- or, at least,

21     we're going contend that it became official and this simple corroborates

22     the testimony of this witness.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HALL:  We have the witness's testimony.  It is not

25     necessary -- without ruling definitively on the objections made by

Page 17523

 1     Mr. Aleksic, this document would not be admitted.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, may I beg the Trial Chamber's

 3     indulgence to mark it for identification in the event that we can use it

 4     for another witness who will perhaps know more and be able to

 5     authenticate it further?

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  The evidential problem remains that it is only a

 8     draft and whereas arguments could be made as to the -- what weight should

 9     be attached to it, I would suggest -- well, I should say it seems to me,

10     Mr. Olmsted, that as the Prosecution's case winds up, you find there's a

11     witness in respect of whom this document could be usefully used, then we

12     could return to it.  But I don't see the need to even mark it at this

13     stage.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Sir, just one more topic I want to cover very briefly with you.

16             You were asked a few questions regarding the expansion of the

17     Kozarac TO and I want to see if we can clarify the time-line here.

18             Now, you have testified regarding this meeting in mid-May with

19     the SDS leadership and others at which this ultimatum was issued to

20     surrender weapons or -- and other things, or, as Commander Zeljaja

21     stated, Kozarac would be flattened.

22             Now, after this meeting, you've testified that you returned to

23     Kozarac, and you conveyed this ultimatum to the leadership in Kozarac.

24     My question for you is:  Is this when the decision was made to expand the

25     TO, to start going around and getting lists of volunteers to determine

Page 17524

 1     whether it's possible to increase the size of the TO to provide a

 2     defence?

 3        A.   That was the period when intensive activities were underway to

 4     turn the TO into a proper establishment.  The establishment of the TO

 5     practically started the same day when we returned from the meeting at

 6     which the ultimatum was issued.  We didn't even manage to finish this

 7     list.  There was no time and there was no opportunity to go visit

 8     somebody for a second time and ask for their consent.  You could notice

 9     about the lists that a certain number of people were said not to be at

10     home.  There was no time to go back the next day or the day after and see

11     whether that particular person was at home.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we thank you for your assistance to the

14     Tribunal.  Your testimony is at an end, and you're now released as a

15     witness and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.  Thank you,

16     sir.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

18                           [The witness withdrew]

19                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Hannis, is it still your position that we

21     should still try and have an extended session this afternoon with

22     Witness ST-258?

23             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think I would ask Ms. Pidwell to

24     speak to that.  She can address it more competently that I can, I think.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

Page 17525

 1             MS. PIDWELL:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Good morning to you, Ms. Pidwell.  Can you help

 3     us out?

 4             MS. PIDWELL:  It's really a matter for -- it's really hard to

 5     estimate how long Defence will be in their cross-examination of this

 6     witness.  I anticipate I will be no longer than a session.  He is only

 7     speaking to two adjudicated facts.  The Defence previously -- or have

 8     stipulated to three of them, so the OTP original estimate is now reduced.

 9     He has never testified before.  So it's hard to predict how he'll go.

10     But I'm not aware -- well, Mr. Krgovic indicated earlier that his

11     cross-examination may take a session.  I don't know if he is able to

12     provide any more of an assistance in the estimates at this stage, because

13     there has been no change in circumstances since then.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic, what are you -- what are your

15     estimates?

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can't give you

17     accurate estimate.  I looked through the statements of this witness, and

18     he is constantly changing them.

19             In August of 2010, he changed what he had said before.  I see now

20     in the proofing note he said something other than what he had said in

21     August.  So a lot will depend on what he is going to say in court.

22             You might have noticed that we do our -- that we focus our

23     cross-examination depending on the relevance of a witness.  I believe

24     that this witness is more relevant to the Defence of Mr. Zupljanin, so I

25     will try and talk to my learned friend, Mr. Krgovic, so that he would do

Page 17526

 1     most of the cross-examination, and if anything remains uncovered, then I

 2     might have some questions, but I can't confirm to you that I won't have

 3     any questions at all.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Inasmuch as there is a courtroom available this

 7     afternoon, from what counsel on both side versus indicated, it seems that

 8     we should begin, on the assumption that there is a real likelihood that

 9     we could, with the one extended session this afternoon, complete this

10     witness.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE HALL:  So we would have the extra session this afternoon.

14     But the first step is that we have been alerted that an application is to

15     be made in respect of this witness.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  To make assurance doubly sure, counsel for the

18     Defence are agreed on the extra session this afternoon, are they?

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we finish earlier,

20     the problem is if we go beyond that one session.  I don't know how long I

21     will take.  It depends on the answers the witness will provide.

22             I went through the application for protective measures, and again

23     I see that the Prosecutor has expanded the application.  The witness will

24     speak to two adjudicated facts only.  Now, the Prosecutor, in his

25     application for protective measures, states that the witness would

Page 17527

 1     testify to other facts as well, so it is very difficult for me to tell.

 2             I will do my best to complete my cross-examination within the

 3     extra session we have, but I cannot guarantee that.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  That was all I wanted confirmation of, Mr. Krgovic.

 5     We haven't gotten to the question of protective measures yet.  But the --

 6     I just needed to know whether counsel for the Defence was on board with

 7     the -- what I understand to be the -- what we are going to do, that we

 8     will be begin on the assumption that, with the extra session, we could

 9     complete this witness.  And once we -- I appreciate that you don't know

10     exactly where you're going to go.  I fully understand that.  But the

11     common agreement is that there's a possibility that we could so complete

12     and, therefore, we will begin.

13             Now, the matter of the application, which is before us.

14             MS. PIDWELL:  Yes, Your Honours.  A motion was filed yesterday

15     and I don't think there's been a formal response from the Defence in the

16     short time-frame.

17             The witness is ready to address Your Honours directly on his

18     concerns, if you so require.  It's one of the situations we've become

19     familiar with over the past few months where the witness raises the

20     issues arriving here in The Hague for the first time and his concerns are

21     set out in the motion and if Your Honour would say like more

22     clarification or particulars, he is ready to address you formally.

23             JUDGE HALL:  So although the Defence would not have had an

24     opportunity to respond because of the recency of the filing, we propose

25     to adopt the usual course of calling the witness in and examining him and

Page 17528

 1     the Defence will have an opportunity, if they wish, to ask any questions

 2     before we rule.

 3             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness is

 5     brought into the courtroom, if the witness will testify to the

 6     adjudicated facts in respect of which he has been called, and if he will

 7     testify to the matters as envisaged, the Defence will have no problems

 8     with that.  Adjudicated facts do not require protective measures.

 9             However, if the witness will testify to what has been stated

10     under paragraph 3 of this motion about Stojan Zupljanin and other

11     matters, we will have difficulty with that, because the Prosecutor's

12     intention is to go beyond the scope of matters the witness was called for

13     to begin with, and this is the third or the fourth witness who has had

14     his scope of testimony expanded.  And it is through the back door in the

15     third half-time, so to speak, that the OTP seems to attempt to have

16     evidence admitted.  And that's the problem I have with this course of

17     procedure.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             JUDGE HALL:  So we will go into closed session to hear the

21     witness's -- to hear the witness on the application.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24                           [Closed session]

25   (redacted)

Page 17529











11 Pages 17529-17535 redacted. Closed session.















Page 17536

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12                           --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Inasmuch as the ruling that was made just before the

14     adjournment was made in closed session, I now repeat it in open session

15     and it also provides the opportunity to clarify what may not have been

16     clearly articulated at the time it was delivered.  The only application

17     on which the Chamber rules is the application for protective measures in

18     respect of the witness who is about to be called, and -- but the Chamber

19     anticipates that what was highlighted in the written motion that it will,

20     in the course of this witness's testimony, also have to rule on the

21     question of whether the Prosecution will be permitted to ask questions

22     beyond the specified adjudicated facts dealing with a particular meeting,

23     which is -- the details of which appear in the motion.  And the

24     anticipated ruling that the Chamber may give on that, which was a factor

25     in the ruling that it makes, in terms of protective measures, is that the

Page 17537

 1     witness is afforded the protective measures of a pseudonym, and voice and

 2     face distortion.  And in respect that separate ruling, it is by a

 3     majority; Judge Harhoff dissenting.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  The -- I believe we already have the witness's name

 6     and ethnicity on the record.  If we could go into private session so that

 7     the usual preliminary questions can be asked by the Bench and then we

 8     will revert to open session, yes.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17538











11 Pages 17538-17547 redacted. Private session.















Page 17548

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in open session.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Pidwell, do you intend to go into the

 5     takeover as such?

 6             MS. PIDWELL:  Yes, I do.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Is that within the scope of adjudicated facts?  I

 8     suppose you're referring to 521, but there the takeover is only mentioned

 9     as a date.  That's -- that's a time-line.

10             MS. PIDWELL:  520 is the adjudicated fact.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Pardon?

12             MS. PIDWELL:  520.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  520, yes.

14             MS. PIDWELL:  Yes, sir.  And it talks about the involvement of

15     the police in the takeover on the 11th of June.  This witness will give

16     evidence about his detention on that day.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It talks about -- about the involvement -- the

18     involvement of the -- of the police in detaining Serbs and Croats; right?

19     Not the takeover as such.

20             MS. PIDWELL:  Sir, that -- that's correct.  I'm going to ask him

21     questions about the day before, what he was doing, and what happened to

22     him personally on that day.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Very well.

24             JUDGE HALL:  So the question is whether, in your submission, this

25     falls within the -- having regard to our earlier rulings which I needn't

Page 17549

 1     repeat at this stage, whether this is within the context of the

 2     adjudicated facts indicated.

 3             We -- the -- I -- I come back to where we began, that we haven't

 4     yet ruled on whether you would be permitted to do that and you needn't

 5     repeat what you would have said.  It's just that we need to make a ruling

 6     for the record.

 7             MS. PIDWELL:  I have, in fact, covered that, Your Honour,

 8     already.  I intend now to go to the essence of the adjudicated fact.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  The -- questions I thought you had covered that.  I

10     wasn't sure where we were going.  Because it would have been necessary

11     for me to indicate for the record that the permission for you to go -- to

12     lead that was a majority decision in which Judge Harhoff -- Judge Delvoie

13     dissented.

14             So although it is after the fact, I'm, nevertheless, putting it

15     in for the record.

16             Please continue.

17             MS. PIDWELL:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Sir, we are in open session now, so if you could just please be

19     careful in -- not to mention any names or any facts that can potentially

20     identify you; and if we get into some difficulty, we will go back into

21     closed session.

22             Without saying what position you held, did you go to work on the

23     10th of June, 1992?

24        A.   Yes, I did.

25        Q.   Was there anything unusual that occurred on that day that draw --

Page 17550

 1     was drawn to your attention, or was it just a normal working day?

 2        A.   It was a normal working day.

 3        Q.   Was your boss present at work on that day?

 4        A.   He was.

 5        Q.   And was your deputy present at work on that day?

 6        A.   He was.

 7        Q.   Do you recall what time you went home?

 8        A.   I went home after work, around 4.00 in the afternoon.

 9        Q.   And did anything unusual occur that night that was brought to

10     your attention?

11        A.   Nothing unusual until 11.00 in the evening, when all the lights

12     went out in town and all the telephone lines got cut off.

13        Q.   Had that happened previously in your area, or was this the first

14     time?

15        A.   The electricity would get cut off if the weather was bad, but

16     that wasn't very often.  This would have happened if circumstances were

17     bad.  And the same thing happened this night.

18        Q.   The next day, what time did you leave your home to go to work?

19     (redacted)

20     (redacted)

21     (redacted)

22     (redacted).  And from further away, I could hear

23     shooting.  It was a Muslim holiday, Bajram.  There's a village above

24     Kotor Varos called Ravne and I thought that after the morning prayer

25     people were celebrating their religious holiday by shooting in the air.

Page 17551

 1     That was a custom in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             As I walked further towards the police station, near the primary

 3     school I noticed some armed men, and they had red berets on their heads.

 4     They had flakjackets, leather gloves, long-barrelled, and with insignia

 5     of Republika Srpska.  They also had short-barrelled weapons and

 6     handcuffs.   (redacted)

 7     (redacted)

 8     (redacted)

 9        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... could we redact, please,

10     page 71, lines 9 to 11 and also lines 21 to 23.  I think at this juncture

11     it may be better to go back into private session, Your Honours.

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17552











11 Pages 17552-17576 redacted. Private session.















Page 17577

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back kin open session.  Thank

14     you.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   We are in open session now and when you answer my questions

17     please be careful not to identify yourself by mentioning the position you

18     occupied or any names, et cetera.  Use formations like, The place which

19     I -- where I worked, and, My job, et cetera.

20             Now, at the last set of questions from Ms. Pidwell was based on

21     that video film of your interrogation.  Basically, in that video footage,

22     you did not say anything that would incriminate you.  You did not imply

23     yourself in any of the illegal activities, such as arming, and you did

24     not say you had any direct knowledge about the distribution of weapons.

25        A.   Yes.  I believe that in no way, by no action, or word, did I

Page 17578

 1     incriminate myself or participate in any way in preparations for armed

 2     insurgency.  I always tried to be a professional and act professionally,

 3     although I was not a career policeman.  I thought that a policeman should

 4     treat everyone equally, Serb, Croats, and Muslims.  And I never

 5     participated in any form of self-organisation.

 6        Q.   And in this video we see when you say, I have no direct

 7     knowledge, that's the first thing you say, I have no direct knowledge,

 8     nor did I in any way participate in the distribution of weapons.

 9        A.   Yes.  What I said in that interview is, as we termed it in the

10     police, for public purposes.  And I said what I heard from the rumours,

11     from street talk, what was going around, what stories circulated in pubs

12     and bars and in the streets.  I also heard from one HDZ session that the

13     HDZ had those radio stations.

14             Shall I continue?

15        Q.   I'll show you the transcript of what you are quoting.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see -- it's 65 ter 672.

17     Tab 16 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.  Not to be broadcast, please.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, did you say tab 16?

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, 15, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  15.  Yes, I see it now.  Thank you.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Sir, this is from a meeting.  I will not say of which body.  You

23     can see that.  And here among the people present, you see your name.

24     Look at the top.  5th of March; right?

25        A.   Yes.  I can see my name.  I was invited to that meeting.  It's an

Page 17579

 1     expanded meeting of the HDZ held on 5 March 1992.  I was invited to

 2     present the security situation in the area of Kotor Varos.

 3        Q.   Look at the agenda.  Paragraph AD 1, second paragraph, and the

 4     last sentence says:

 5             "We also have communications, so it will be easier to inform all

 6     check-points."

 7             That's true; right?

 8        A.   Yes.  This is a reference to those radios.

 9             Now we live in modern times, we all have cell phones, but at that

10     time the municipality of Kotor Varos was very badly covered by the public

11     telephone network.  I don't know what the party meant with this.  If they

12     had already been preparing for war, it was much too early and very

13     sensitive.  And from what I know, there were communications between HDZ

14     party leaders in various villages, because, at that time, the -- the

15     municipality was not fully covered by telephone.  And these

16     communications, of course, could be also used for war purposes.  And when

17     we were detained in Maslovare, we asked Mr. Pejic to have secret

18     negotiations with Mr. Mato Bjelobrk, who was supposed to organise the

19     surrender of these radio -- radio stations.  I don't know whether that

20     talk ever took place, because I was detained but I know this man,

21     Bjelobrk, was later killed.

22        Q.   [No interpretation]

23        A.   That's right.  It's about these radio stations but even I did not

24     know these details until I came to that meeting.

25             MS. PIDWELL:  [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, I

Page 17580

 1     don't think the question was recorded.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC:  I noticed that.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] I'm sorry, sir, my question was not recorded

 4     because all -- because of all there turning off and turning on of

 5     microphones.

 6             I asked you if these were the radio stations discussed at this

 7     meeting.  Are they the same radio stations that you mentioned in the

 8     video - that was the essence of my question - right?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10             MR. KRGOVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I have an

11     exhibit number for this document.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As exhibit number 2 -- okay.

14             As Exhibit 2D00-129, under seal, Your Honours.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Apart from that interview -- in fact, do you remember whether

17     everything was recorded in that video or were you questioned beyond what

18     was shown in the footage.

19        A.   I think the video shows it all.

20        Q.   And in that interview, as far as I was able to see, you did not

21     say anything that could incriminate you or could indicate your

22     participation in anything illegal.

23        A.   I was in no way involved, so I could not incriminate myself, and

24     I always assumed that if I got involved in something, it couldn't be good

25     for me.

Page 17581

 1        Q.   The Prosecution asked you about your status, if you were a

 2     policeman or a military man.  And I'll ask you about a certain quandry we

 3     have about certain documents.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 2D13 shown to the

 5     witness, please.

 6             This is a list from the Croatia Republic of Herceg-Bosna, the

 7     defence ministry, a list of persons recorded in the Defence Department or

 8     the draft office of Kotor Varos.

 9             Can we show ERN -- I won't tell you which number of the page it

10     is for a reason.  It's ERN 0714620.  0071-4620.

11             [In English] Can we go to a private session for a moment,

12     Your Honour.

13                           [Private session]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 17582











11 Pages 17582-17602 redacted. Private session.















Page 17603

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours, for the record, we are back in

13     open session.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Sir, we thank you for your assistance to the

15     Tribunal.  You are now released as a witness and we wish you a safe

16     journey back to your home.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

18                           [The witness withdrew]

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good-bye.

20             JUDGE HALL:  And the shutters can be raised again.

21             We are grateful to the interpreters, the court reporters, the

22     remainder of the support staff, and, indeed, the accused themselves for

23     accommodating the witness who, otherwise would have had to have been --

24     would have had to remain here over what would have been an extended

25     weekend in order to complete his testimony.

Page 17604

 1             So we will take the adjournment now, to reconvene in this

 2     courtroom on Monday afternoon, at what point we are scheduled to receive

 3     the testimony by videolink of a witness.  We are in receipt of a motion

 4     from the Prosecution in terms of protective measures in respect of that

 5     witness and we would begin on Monday afternoon by asking the Defence for

 6     their oral responses to that -- to that application, which they would

 7     have had the ...

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Unless, of course, they're in a position to do it

10     now.  But I didn't ...

11             So we aren't pressing you to do it now, but as I said we get your

12     responses on Monday afternoon.

13             There is one small matter that does concern the Chamber,

14     Ms. Pidwell, and it is the experience with the witness who has just been

15     released, in that the modified protective measures and having to go into

16     private session for such an extended period of his testimony, when,

17     effectively, the entire testimony is taken in closed session so that is

18     something we would have to bear in mind in the future, should we have to

19     consider future applications.

20             But we take the adjournment now to Monday afternoon, and I wish

21     everyone a safe weekend.

22                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.12 p.m.,

23                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of

24                           November, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.