{short description of image}

  1. 1 Monday, 3rd May, 1999

    2 (Open session)

    3 (The accused entered court)

    4 --- Upon commencing at 2.59 p.m.

    5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your

    6 Honours. Case number IT-95-14/2-T, the Prosecutor

    7 versus Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez.

    8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The witness, please.

    9 Mr. Kovacic, we'll go on until 4.15, if we

    10 start now, take a break for a quarter of an hour then,

    11 and then we'll have an hour's further hearing and

    12 finish at half past 5.00.

    13 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Yes, I

    14 understand. But perhaps this is a good time, since

    15 we're talking about that, I need to apologise to the

    16 Court. When you asked me on Thursday, I said I would

    17 need about an hour to complete this, but one whole

    18 topic somehow was hidden among my papers, and I do

    19 think that I shall need two, two and a half hours, if

    20 we proceed as you just told us.

    21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    22 (The witness entered court)

    23 WITNESS: EDIB ZLOTRG (Resumed)

    24 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:

    25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Zlotrg.

  2. 1 A. Good afternoon.

    2 Q. First of all, I would like to adduce into

    3 evidence D4/2, which was not translated into English

    4 last week. Meanwhile, we received the translation, so

    5 that I should like to -- if I may remind you, that is

    6 the record of the investigation on site. It was only

    7 in Serbo-Croatian, and now we also have the English

    8 translation of it.

    9 Witness, let us try and save some time. On

    10 Thursday, we talked at great length about disorder in

    11 the town, if I may call it, quite a number of crimes,

    12 et cetera, and we mentioned also other units which were

    13 there, that is, men who were there. Do you remember a

    14 group of Herzegovinians of the HVO who were there and

    15 who were called Herzegovinians there?

    16 A. It was a regular unit of the Croatian Defence

    17 Council which however had marks on its shoulder of

    18 unity, and they were quartered at the elementary school

    19 in Dubrovica. And they took shifts, so the units took

    20 shifts. It was the same unit, but other companies

    21 would come.

    22 Q. Right. But are you aware that that unit or

    23 rather its men came from outside the municipality of

    24 Vitez?

    25 A. Yes, but they were members of the Croatian

  3. 1 Defence Council. Yes, right, fine.

    2 Q. But tell us, "Yes" or "No", did they come

    3 from outside the municipality of Vitez?

    4 A. [No audible response]

    5 Q. You have to say it, because on the record it

    6 doesn't show when you nod your head.

    7 A. I don't know if they all came from outside

    8 the municipality of Vitez, but there were quite a

    9 number of men that I did not know. Where they came

    10 from, I do not know. I mean I really don't know where

    11 they came from, because we had no access to them. We

    12 did not talk to them, we had no contact with them.

    13 They simply engaged in terrorising the population of

    14 Muslim origin.

    15 Q. Is it true that some people -- or at least

    16 have you heard of the name that people call them,

    17 Herzegovinians?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) At this point

    20 in time, I should like to tender another document into

    21 evidence. It was already tendered in the Blaskic

    22 case.

    23 Unfortunately, Judge Bennouna, as again I do

    24 not have the French translation, I did ask for the

    25 French translation, and I thought it would be here, but

  4. 1 it was not. But I can ask for it, if you like, later

    2 on.

    3 THE REGISTRAR: Document D10/2.

    4 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    5 Q. Witness, I should first like to draw your

    6 attention to the person who signed the document. Is it

    7 the same person, Ivan Budimir, that we talked about so

    8 far?

    9 A. I cannot say anything from the signature. I

    10 do not know the signature of Ivan Budimir. But from

    11 what is printed above, I presume it is him.

    12 Q. Will you please look at item 2 of the

    13 document? Does the wording of item 2 correspond with

    14 the situation that was there? Does it fit into the

    15 picture that you described to us?

    16 A. Yes, but it was a small unit. It was

    17 subordinated to a superior command. That is, it was

    18 subordinated to the command commanded by -- to the

    19 commander, Ivan Budimir, since it is his signature.

    20 And we have the brigade commander, and the military

    21 commander was responsible for suppressing it.

    22 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, how do you know that that unit

    23 was subordinated under the command of the same unit

    24 which -- to which Mr. Cerkez also belonged to?

    25 A. Well, following some military doctrine, a

  5. 1 smaller unit arriving in the territory of a larger unit

    2 is to be subordinated to its command, to the command of

    3 the larger unit.

    4 Q. But on Thursday, you told us that you knew

    5 nothing about military rules and regulations.

    6 A. No, not of the HVO, but I know how it is in

    7 the Armija, and I suppose that that is the case of all

    8 armies. And at any rate, look at the films. You will

    9 see always that when a unit comes into the territory of

    10 the local unit, they'll be subordinated to it, if, of

    11 course, the local unit is larger. That is my

    12 assumption.

    13 JUDGE MAY: One moment. It's not working.

    14 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    15 Q. So it is your assumption; you are not certain

    16 about that?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. It's a rule. And you told us that you were

    19 not conversant with the internal issue or structure?

    20 "Yes" or "No", please.

    21 A. No.

    22 Q. Thank you. So we can proceed.

    23 You also spoke, in relation to the subject

    24 about the accused [indiscernible], they trained in the

    25 town at the time later in '92 to late '93, and I shall

  6. 1 quote to you an example, another note by Mr. Budimir,

    2 and I shall ask you if you know something about that

    3 particular event. And this is another document I wish

    4 to tender.

    5 Will the usher please take care of that?

    6 This is another document which was used in

    7 the Blaskic case.

    8 Judge Bennouna, you wouldn't believe it, but

    9 there is a translation of this particular document.

    10 THE REGISTRAR: Document D --

    11 JUDGE MAY: D11/2, is it?

    12 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    13 Q. I should like to ask you two questions with

    14 regard to this document, and please answer me only

    15 "Yes" or "No" just to speed matters up. We do not

    16 need any explanation.

    17 First, I should like to ask you something

    18 about the first part of the document, where we have

    19 those items 1 and 2 with the introductory sentence, and

    20 the paragraph just below. Could you read that,

    21 please?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. [No interpretation]

    24 A. It is a hand-held rocket.

    25 Q. Such events, do they remind of you some other

  7. 1 incidents that you mentioned that had been happening

    2 around the town? Could one say that this was one of

    3 the incidents that happened?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Does it perhaps remind you of some of the

    6 incidents that you listed among your reports, 37 or

    7 something?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. So --

    10 THE INTERPRETER: The answer is "evidently,

    11 no." The interpreter apologises.

    12 Q. So, this incident happened later?

    13 A. The answer, this is not reported our station.

    14 Q. Zoran Krizanovic is a Bosniak or a Croat?

    15 A. Croat.

    16 Q. So there were some Croats who suffered damage

    17 at least in this particular case?

    18 A. Yes, but if this is the time there about,

    19 this is very scant information, and there were

    20 eyewitnesses of when Zolja was fired, and Croat

    21 eyewitnesses, and unfortunately they say it was Croats

    22 who fired this Zolja.

    23 Q. Just a moment, just a moment, Witness,

    24 please. All I'm asking you, does this show that some

    25 Croats were victimised too? I wasn't asking you where

  8. 1 the Zolja came from, nor let it imply that. Does the

    2 name Zoran Krizanovic tell you that he was a Croat?

    3 A. Yes, but because --

    4 Q. No. Please, I mean, only "yes" without "but"

    5 or anything. Does this also tell you that it is a

    6 record here that the Croat [indiscernible] the damage

    7 also?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. I'm not talking about who attacked him. The

    10 other party can ask you.

    11 A. A disobedient Croat.

    12 Q. And although explosive devices were thrown in

    13 different places, we do not know who suffered damage, I

    14 mean, who were the owners of objects that were damaged?

    15 A. That is what this report says.

    16 Q. In keeping with what you told us, these are

    17 evidently incidents which were reported in the part of

    18 the town under the control of the Croat side?

    19 A. Yes.

    20 Q. Thank you. During the examination-in-chief,

    21 you said, among other things, and I shall try to quote

    22 you, you said on the 8th of January, '93, in front of

    23 the Public Security Station in Vitez, the Croatian flag

    24 was hoisted and the flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

    25 taken down. I emphasise, you said it was on the 8th of

  9. 1 January, '93, so it is the very beginning of 1993.

    2 A. No, that is a mistake. On the 21st or,

    3 rather, towards the end of November, we formed the

    4 station in Stari Vitez, and in October, when we were

    5 driven out, in '92, that is when the Croatian flag was

    6 hoisted.

    7 Q. So this was October, '92. All right. I

    8 apologise. Tell me, please, so you are relating this

    9 flag to events of October?

    10 A. Yes, at the station.

    11 Q. All right. So which flag of

    12 Bosnia-Herzegovina was taken down? Will you please

    13 tell us what flag was that?

    14 A. Well, it is -- this is obviously -- there was

    15 either a misinterpretation or some misunderstanding.

    16 There is -- at the checkpoint at the railway station, I

    17 would have to go through my notes now, in 1992, it was

    18 a mixed checkpoint of civilian police and military

    19 police forces.

    20 Then if I'm correct, Vladimir Jukic led the

    21 group when members of the Croatian Defence Council and

    22 the Croatian police drove away all members of the

    23 Muslim nationality and took down the flag of the

    24 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the white flag with

    25 lilies, and left the Croatian flag. On the building of

  10. 1 the police station in Vitez, as far as I know, the flag

    2 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina has never been

    3 hoisted there because Croatian gentlemen were rather

    4 irritated by that, and we simply did not put it up.

    5 Q. Let's leave it at that. You said that a

    6 white flag with lilies was taken down. That was the

    7 flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    8 A. Excuse me.

    9 Q. Yes. I'm describing it. In October 1992,

    10 the flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina, white lilies. Tell us,

    11 please, what decision -- why is it the official flag?

    12 Why do you say it is the official flag of

    13 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who proclaimed it the flag of

    14 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    15 A. I don't know. I know that I perceived it as

    16 my own. I know that it was hoisted in front of the

    17 United Nations buildings. I know that the whole world

    18 recognised it, and that the Croats refused to recognise

    19 it, well, there's nothing I can do about it.

    20 Q. What about the other ethnic groups of Bosnia

    21 and Herzegovina, did they consider this to be their own

    22 flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina too, for example, the Serbs?

    23 A. As far as I know, no.

    24 Q. Tell me, please, do you know when the

    25 official flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established

  11. 1 as such by the relevant decision or the relevant body

    2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    3 A. You would have to ask a politician that

    4 question. I really don't know.

    5 Q. I beg your pardon?

    6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I don't think we're

    7 going to be much assisted with this line of argument.

    8 Can we move on, please?

    9 MR. KOVACIC: No, I'm finished with that.

    10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    11 Q. Among other things, when you were telling us

    12 about the time when you could not work as a policeman

    13 because you were driven out of the station, you hadn't

    14 established the new one in Stari Vitez yet, you

    15 mentioned at one point that in November 1992, you

    16 carried out an on-site investigation in connection with

    17 the killing of two members of the Territorial Defence,

    18 and you were there as a criminology technician. You

    19 were there simply to assist the military police of the

    20 Territorial Defence?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Well, then I have two questions in that

    23 regard. Were you paid for that work?

    24 A. No.

    25 Q. You did that on a voluntary basis?

  12. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Was that perhaps work duty that was

    3 proclaimed?

    4 A. No. No, I was an employee of the Ministry of

    5 the Interior.

    6 Q. Did the military police have a criminology

    7 technician at the time, the TO military police?

    8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.

    9 Q. Wasn't Mr. Ramo Vatres their criminology

    10 technician?

    11 A. Mr. Ramo Vatres was head of the criminology

    12 department, and he was an inspector.

    13 Q. Was he a qualified criminology technician by

    14 training, though?

    15 A. Well, you would have to ask him. Really, I

    16 don't know. I know that he was involved in operations,

    17 but whether he was a technician by training, that, I

    18 really do not know.

    19 Q. You did not work with him before that in the

    20 police?

    21 A. No.

    22 Q. All right. At that time, we're talking about

    23 November 1992, you claim that that organisation was

    24 still called the Territorial Defence?

    25 A. Please, don't take my word as far as dates

  13. 1 are concerned. I really don't know when these names

    2 were changed. And then, after all, it was after the

    3 pressure exerted by the Croatian side that the TO

    4 changed its name. They were simply seeking ways and

    5 means of preventing a united army from existing.

    6 Q. Please, could you just give me "Yes" or "No"

    7 answers? Could you tell us at least approximately when

    8 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was founded? Give us

    9 the season of the year, at least.

    10 A. I don't know. We were very busy in terms of

    11 organising the police station. I really don't know.

    12 Q. Thank you. That's an answer too. Thank

    13 you.

    14 Now I would like to put a few questions to

    15 you in relation to Mr. Cerkez, whom you mentioned. So

    16 let's try to go through all of this as quickly as

    17 possible. You said that Cerkez, before the JNA

    18 aggression began against Bosnia and Herzegovina,

    19 rather, against the Serbs, he worked in the SPS in a

    20 similar job as you did in the police.

    21 A. I imagine it was similar to my work. What he

    22 exactly did, that, I don't know.

    23 Q. Do you know perhaps whether this similar work

    24 was some kind of an executive position in the SPS or

    25 was he a clerk of sorts or what was he?

  14. 1 A. As far as I know, it wasn't really a

    2 management job, so I don't know.

    3 Q. Tell us, you even mentioned Mr. Cerkez's

    4 mother. You said that she worked as a cashier in a

    5 shop. Are you sure that this was in a shop?

    6 A. Well, she worked at the department store.

    7 Q. What was that?

    8 A. At the department store.

    9 Q. Are you sure it's the department store?

    10 A. Well, as far as I can remember, because I've

    11 known this woman since I was a young boy.

    12 Q. You mentioned Cerkez's mother and father.

    13 However, you didn't say more about that. Did you know

    14 them better? You said that you repaired the father's

    15 car, so you knew them.

    16 A. Well, Cerkez worked at the post office. He

    17 was a PTT mechanic, if I'm not mistaken. He was

    18 involved, that is to say, in telephones.

    19 Q. Did you ever have the impression that that

    20 family as a family had a nationalist view of things,

    21 that they treated people differently in terms of their

    22 ethnic background?

    23 A. No, because he wouldn't have been friends

    24 with my sister-in-law who is a Serb and my

    25 brother-in-law who is a Muslim.

  15. 1 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that Mario Cerkez

    2 had a very good relationship with your late brother?

    3 A. As far as I know, they were not family

    4 friends, but they did have a good relationship.

    5 Q. Were they involved in sports together?

    6 A. No.

    7 Q. Tell me, please, in view of the post held by

    8 Mario Cerkez in the HVO command, as you said, at the

    9 hotel, what do you know about that? First of all, who

    10 was staying at the hotel at the time, for example, in

    11 mid 1992?

    12 A. We were not allowed access to the hotel, so

    13 according to what I heard when I talked to Croats, I

    14 imagined that he did hold a command post.

    15 Q. Did you ever hear of an institution called

    16 the municipal staff of the HVO?

    17 A. No. No. No, I told you a few minutes ago,

    18 we had many problems within the police. We were driven

    19 out twice, and then there were questions of

    20 organisation, et cetera, but I said that he was

    21 commander of the staff. I don't know whether it was

    22 the municipal staff or the staff of the brigade,

    23 because I said even then that I did not know his exact

    24 post, and I was not familiar with the organisational

    25 structure of the HVO.

  16. 1 Q. Did you perhaps hear anything about Cerkez

    2 being in Novi Travnik at a given point in time?

    3 A. I know that he was a candidate. I think that

    4 Zeljko Sajevic was supposed to be there, Zeljko Sajevic

    5 from Vitez, and Cerkez, and I was surprised when I

    6 heard that Cerkez went to the command, because Sajevic

    7 was a member of the municipal staff of the Territorial

    8 Defence. He was a worker, rather. And when the

    9 commander of the municipal staff of the Territorial

    10 Defence was away, then he would replace him, and I

    11 thought that Sajevic would be in this joint command. I

    12 don't know the exact period. I'm just telling you

    13 about what I heard when I talked to Croats, and you can

    14 probably look at the records of the HVO.

    15 Q. So if I understood you correctly, you know

    16 that Cerkez was in Novi Travnik, in the command there?

    17 A. Well, on the basis of what I managed to hear

    18 from my Croat friends, because our movement in Vitez

    19 was restricted, let alone going to Travnik. I mean,

    20 that would have been lunacy.

    21 Q. We're talking about November 1992, the

    22 beginning of that period?

    23 A. Even then, even then, the members of the

    24 Croatian Defence Council will take away my official

    25 pass even and look at it in Nevic Polje, and it was not

  17. 1 really a good idea for Muslims to move around because a

    2 lot of them ended up locked up.

    3 Q. Since you mentioned Mr. Sajevic, you said

    4 that he was a candidate, but you don't know what kind

    5 of a candidate. Do you know that he was a member of

    6 the same command in Novi Travnik with Cerkez?

    7 A. No, I really don't know.

    8 Q. You don't know?

    9 A. I really don't know. I also don't think that

    10 Cerkez knows what was going on in our command, so, I

    11 mean, I was not a member of this staff, so I think it

    12 is pointless to ask me anything related to their

    13 establishments, and dates when persons were appointed

    14 to posts there.

    15 Q. Yes, they are means, but then you mentioned

    16 that you knew what Cerkez did in Vitez, so perhaps you

    17 also knew what he did there?

    18 A. All of these are just assumptions.

    19 Q. I have a few questions to put to you in

    20 relation to the distinctions in terms of the HVO. You

    21 keep talking about the HVO, but I want to put a

    22 concrete question to you, and please be as brief as

    23 possible. You mentioned explicitly the military police

    24 of the HVO. Do you know anything about who the

    25 commander of this unit was?

  18. 1 A. I know that at the outset, Budimir was the

    2 commander. He transferred from Bila, as far as I know,

    3 and he's also mentioned in the record that was made by

    4 the judge when Trako Samir was murdered. If I'm not

    5 mistaken, Budimir himself introduced himself as the

    6 commander of the military police.

    7 Q. Do you know perhaps what rank this unit of

    8 the military police had? Was it a battalion? Was it a

    9 company? Oh, you don't know? Well, okay, you don't

    10 know?

    11 A. I don't know the words that you're using for

    12 battalion and other things.

    13 Q. All right. But you know that there was a

    14 separate unit of the military police?

    15 A. I know that there was a company, and I know

    16 that there was a brigade, military police, but the word

    17 you mentioned for battalion, I have never heard of

    18 that.

    19 Q. Do you know perhaps during 1992 where the

    20 command of the military police was?

    21 A. I know when we were working on the murder of

    22 those two members in Kruscica that I was taken to the

    23 building across the street from the gasoline station,

    24 across the street from the hotel, so I would establish

    25 contact with Mr. Jukic. I imagine that that is where

  19. 1 their headquarters was. Before that, whether it was at

    2 the hotel or wherever, I really don't know.

    3 Q. You said that you were not very familiar with

    4 their structure, and you keep insisting on that; you've

    5 told us that several times. Now you mentioned brigade

    6 military police. Who's that?

    7 A. That is terminology that the army of

    8 Bosnia-Herzegovina uses, and every unit, every bigger

    9 unit, like a brigade, has its own military police, and

    10 I imagine that that brigade also had its military

    11 police. I don't know. I'm telling you once again,

    12 please, don't take my word for it. I'm not familiar

    13 with the terminology either. I know there was a

    14 military police, but whether it belonged to the

    15 municipal staff or to the brigade or something else, I

    16 really don't know. I also know that there was another

    17 institution of the military police that was headed by

    18 Mr. Pasko Ljubicic.

    19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zlotrg, I'm going to stop

    20 you.

    21 Cross-examination of this witness about the

    22 other side, as it were, I don't think is going to take

    23 us much further, Mr. Kovacic.

    24 MR. KOVACIC: I just got what I wanted.

    25 Thank you.

  20. 1 Q. You mentioned the Vitezovi. You mentioned

    2 the Vitezovi explicitly. You also mentioned that they

    3 came to your house twice before you were finally

    4 arrested a couple of days later. Without any further

    5 comment, do you know who their commander was?

    6 A. I assumed that I know.

    7 Q. Could you please tell us, if you believe that

    8 that's it?

    9 A. Darko Kraljevic.

    10 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that you saw them

    11 from your window at the Cafe Benz, that they met there;

    12 is that correct?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Let us not waste too much time now, but I

    15 would like to remind you that in the statement you made

    16 to the court in Zenica on the 3rd of October, 1994, you

    17 mentioned, as a place where the Vitezovi gathered, a

    18 cafe called "072" in the street of Petar Mecava. Are

    19 we perhaps talking about the same cafe or are these two

    20 different cafes?

    21 A. No. No, 072 is just below Benz. It's a

    22 different cafe.

    23 Q. So if I understood you correctly, these are

    24 places where the Vitezovi would gather?

    25 A. They were in Benz. Slavan Kraljevic

  21. 1 continued after the war to use that shop as his own,

    2 although it's not really his.

    3 Q. Finally, on the 19th of April, 1994, you were

    4 arrested by a member of that unit and taken to the

    5 cinema where you were interned?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. You told us that this was Rados Drazenko?

    8 A. Rados Drazenko, yes.

    9 Q. Did you know then that he belonged to the

    10 Vitezovi or did you find that out later?

    11 A. It said so on his arm band.

    12 Q. So you knew that from the very outset, from

    13 that very event?

    14 A. Until then, he was a member of the civilian

    15 police, as far as I know. He worked with me before we

    16 were driven out. He was a communications officer.

    17 Q. Just one more thing in connection with this.

    18 From the 16th until the 19th of April, 1993, basically,

    19 they came to your house four times, and on the fourth

    20 time, you were interned and taken to the cinema. Out

    21 of those four times, on two occasions, you mentioned

    22 that these were specifically Vitezovi, and as far as

    23 these other two occasions were concerned, you just

    24 mentioned this general term "HVO." Can you identify on

    25 these two other occasions, which unit of the HVO?

  22. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Tell us, who was it?

    3 A. The first time, it was colleagues, policemen

    4 from the Public Security Station, but they all had

    5 insignia of the Croatian Defence Council, that is to

    6 say, that the civilian police also had HVO insignia.

    7 Marko Rajkovic, he led that group, and Bonic, they are

    8 still working there at the police station as traffic

    9 policemen, and then Marko Rajkovic is working together

    10 with me until the present day, and I don't know about

    11 the third one.

    12 Q. So they were from the civilian police but it

    13 was obvious that they belonged to the HVO?

    14 A. Yes. Yes, because they wore those insignia,

    15 that is to say, they were members of the Croatian

    16 Defence Council.

    17 Q. That is exactly what I said. So now we've

    18 resolved the question of three of these occasions.

    19 What about the fourth time? What unit was it then?

    20 A. Again, it was members of the HVO, but I don't

    21 know those men.

    22 Q. So we're talking about this fourth occasion?

    23 A. No. No, we're talking about the third one,

    24 and I would like to thank them, even on this occasion,

    25 for the fairness they exhibited then.

  23. 1 Q. All right. So you cannot identify the

    2 persons who were there on the third occasion, so they

    3 were fair or -- well, not to say "kind," but they were

    4 fair?

    5 A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, I give them all credit.

    6 Q. Thank you. It was a very painful experience,

    7 and I do not want to remind you of that. Please

    8 understand me, I mean, as a Defence counsel, I have to

    9 ask those questions.

    10 A very simple question related to the killing

    11 of your brother and your sister-in-law. Did I

    12 understand you well that you all heard it from the

    13 mother of your brother's wife?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. Right. Another question: They were murdered

    16 by members of the Vitezovi; is that right?

    17 A. Well, a 70-year-old woman would hardly know

    18 who are the Vitezovi and who are the Croatian Defence

    19 Council or whatever.

    20 Q. But did you then learn subsequently which

    21 unit it was?

    22 A. Well, had I learnt something, I suppose I

    23 would have said it in my statement or written it down

    24 in my documents in order to facilitate the task of the

    25 gentlemen of the Tribunal to bring the murderers to

  24. 1 justice.

    2 Q. So you do not know which HVO unit that was?

    3 A. No.

    4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zlotrg, when, at long last,

    5 you were released from the place -- from the cinema,

    6 from where you were interned, you went to Zenica a

    7 little later on. Is it true that in Zenica you then

    8 began to work as a member of the commission for the

    9 exchange and release in the territory of Zenica?

    10 A. No.

    11 Q. You were never a member of the commission for

    12 exchange?

    13 A. In the commission, never.

    14 Q. But did you try in any way whatsoever, try to

    15 help the exchange, because they became quite a frequent

    16 occurrence among the municipalities?

    17 A. On two occasions only.

    18 Q. And on one of those occasions, did you

    19 intercede on behalf of Dr. Mujezinovic?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. Thank you. Witness, we have now mentioned

    22 the place where you were interned, the cinema, or the

    23 Workers' University, as it was called, and you said

    24 that it was on the day when you were brought to the

    25 cinema, which was the 19th of April, 1993, that there

  25. 1 were about 300 or 400 people all together, and that was

    2 as far as you could judge?

    3 Now, if the Court would allow me, before I

    4 tender this document, I should really like to read from

    5 a document. This is part of the supporting material

    6 and is marked with "Annex R," a page number given by

    7 the Registry, 1314, and this is a survey of events.

    8 This annex is a part of the report of a witness we

    9 shall be hearing from in a couple of days' time,

    10 Mr. McLeod. On page 5 of the report, on the 19th of

    11 April, 1993, the site Vitez, he says: "The ECMM

    12 visited the prison or, rather, the place of detention

    13 in Vitez where there were 62 Muslim males," detainees,

    14 that is.

    15 The first question: Is it true that in that

    16 basement, in the cellar of the Workers' University,

    17 only men were kept?

    18 A. When I came, yes. Before that, they also

    19 brought children and women there, and then they

    20 released them.

    21 Q. And then they released them?

    22 A. No, not immediately. They released them

    23 after a day or two.

    24 Q. Right. Let's leave that. But when you

    25 arrived, there were only men there?

  26. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Perhaps we can save a minute or two if --

    3 perhaps we can save a minute if I mention the document

    4 that underlies this report, and then we shall tender

    5 it. This is a statement by Hendrik Morsink, a witness

    6 statement given to the Tribunal investigators between

    7 the 4th to 18th of December, '96. On page 5, he writes

    8 about the same visit to the Workers' University and

    9 says: "We also visited Muslim detainees in the cellar

    10 of the HVO headquarters, and I counted 62 of them

    11 there. It seems that they were treated well. They

    12 could receive visits from their family members."

    13 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Now, I should

    14 like to tender both these documents, of course, only

    15 the first page and the relevant page, because that is

    16 the document that can be found in the supporting

    17 material.

    18 JUDGE MAY: The first statement, which comes

    19 from Mr. McLeod, had better be produced when he gives

    20 evidence. This witness doesn't know anything about

    21 it.

    22 MR. KOVACIC: I entirely agree, Your Honour.

    23 JUDGE MAY: It seems to me that it's the same

    24 with the second statement which you have. I don't

    25 think it's appropriate to produce it through this

  27. 1 witness. He knows nothing about it.

    2 MR. KOVACIC: Of course, I entirely agree

    3 with that. I only wanted for everybody to see what I

    4 was citing from. However, there might be a problem if

    5 they do not appear as witnesses.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Well, we will deal with that when

    7 it happens.

    8 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you.

    9 Q. During the direct examination, you said at

    10 some point that members of the Territorial Defence were

    11 called to report for labour duty. I think it was when

    12 you described 1992. Could you please explain, at least

    13 roughly, what does this labour obligation mean? What

    14 was under the then legislation? What was our duty as

    15 citizens then, just briefly, just in a few words?

    16 A. Well, one does know what labour obligation

    17 is. It means that you have to come to work.

    18 Otherwise, you lose the status of an employee in a

    19 particular organisation.

    20 Q. So the authorities did have some legal

    21 grounds on the basis of which it could call people to

    22 respond to their labour duty?

    23 A. Don't ask me that, ask somebody else. I

    24 don't really know whether there were legal grounds for

    25 that or not. But presumably there were, because they

  28. 1 did call people.

    2 Q. But did you ever get a summons to respond to

    3 a labour obligation?

    4 A. For Christ's sake, I was a member of the

    5 police. Police works always.

    6 Q. What does that mean?

    7 A. Well, we set up a police station, and of

    8 course we were doing our duty, and so my labour

    9 obligation would be with the police.

    10 Q. Yes. But does that mean that the authorities

    11 begin to assign you to different places? Some are

    12 assigned to military duty and some to labour duty; is

    13 that so?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. Thank you. So you were one of those who did

    16 not have any labour duty because you were with the

    17 police, and you would be with the police even in case

    18 of war?

    19 JUDGE MAY: That is what the witness has

    20 said, at least so far as the first part is concerned.

    21 Can we slow down, please?

    22 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    23 Q. Tell us, please, when you told us about when

    24 you were taken under custody, when they came to your

    25 house for the fourth time, and you used the word in

  29. 1 Croatian, or rather in Bosniak or Serbian or Croatian,

    2 whichever language was spoken there, you used the word

    3 "arrested," as a police member, could you tell us,

    4 what does it mean, "arrested", and what is the

    5 difference between that and being taken under custody?

    6 A. Persons who are taken under custody make a

    7 statement and go back home, and persons who are

    8 arrested, they unfortunately remain in detention; that

    9 is, in gaol, so to speak.

    10 Q. Is that the police definition? That is

    11 police terminology?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. And when a person is arrested, mustn't he

    14 give a statement?

    15 A. Under normal circumstances, yes.

    16 Q. Have you ever heard of the word "interned"?

    17 A. During my stay in Vitez, no. I mean within

    18 those military operations.

    19 Q. You heard it used then?

    20 A. No, no, no. I was arrested. They did not

    21 intern me.

    22 Q. Sorry, I did not understand you. Perhaps I

    23 got it wrong. The question was whether you have ever

    24 heard of the term "interned".

    25 A. Yes, but they did not use it when they

  30. 1 arrested us. They did not use that term.

    2 Q. By "they", whom do you mean?

    3 A. Members of the Croatian Defence Council.

    4 Q. But you do know that in the nation -- a

    5 detainee and things, have you perhaps heard it from

    6 foreigners?

    7 A. I don't know. I remember hearing it before,

    8 but during that period of time, I never heard it.

    9 Q. When you were, as you put it, arrested, you

    10 were taken to a camp, you said, and the word used in

    11 English is "camp". Is the place of your internment

    12 which you described -- could you describe it as a camp

    13 or as a place of detention?

    14 JUDGE MAY: Now, which place is that? Is

    15 that earlier on or at Kaonik?

    16 MR. KOVACIC: No, that is as soon as they

    17 came to the cinema building or Radnicki Univerzitet

    18 building, also called.

    19 JUDGE MAY: And you're asking whether that

    20 could be called a camp?

    21 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, because the witness used

    22 that. It was translated correctly. He said "logor" in

    23 our language, which means, in English, "camp", and I

    24 don't think it is appropriate.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Zlotrg, in a few words,

  31. 1 would you describe it as a camp?

    2 A. That is how I perceived it.

    3 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    4 Q. Let me ask you another thing.

    5 In your earlier statements, again the one of

    6 the 3rd of October, '94, to the court in Zenica, you

    7 said then -- you say the place that all

    8 militarily-abled men were taken to, collection centres?

    9 A. Yes, aged between 15 to almost 70 years of

    10 age. There were all men there.

    11 Q. But you used the words "collection centre"

    12 here?

    13 A. That is something that one found written

    14 later, but the place where I was detained, I perceived

    15 it as a camp, and to my mind, that was a camp. We had

    16 no rights there, and members of the Croatian Defence

    17 Council could enter the rooms we were held in at any

    18 moment to tell us how they were killing, slaughtering,

    19 torching balija property and nobody ever tried to stop

    20 them. Had it been a collection or reception centre or

    21 prison, they wouldn't have been able to do that,

    22 because prison guards would have stopped them.

    23 Q. But please, Witness, not in a single

    24 statement that you made nor during your testimony here

    25 did you say that there was any ill treatment in the

  32. 1 cinema, in the workers' building, and now you implied

    2 it, although I'm not quite sure whether you are talking

    3 about the cinema, or Kaonik, or the Bungalow and so on

    4 and so forth. So was there any ill treatment in the

    5 cinema; did you see that?

    6 A. No, not physically, but Croatian

    7 [indiscernible] Centre is day and night.

    8 Q. No. Please tell us, did anybody physically

    9 abuse you when you came to the cinema? Did you see

    10 anything of that kind when you came there?

    11 A. I did not say that that happened there.

    12 Q. When you were taken out to the Bungalow for

    13 the first time, and from there you went to Kaonik, did

    14 the military who took you out have any visible

    15 insignia? Could you tell us who that was?

    16 A. Well, it was the military police who guarded

    17 us, and I guess that it was they who took us away. But

    18 to begin with, it was night-time. Secondly --

    19 Q. But in [indiscernible], you also told us it

    20 was military police there?

    21 A. Yes. That was the command of Mr. Vladimir

    22 Santic.

    23 Q. Do you know who the military police accounted

    24 to?

    25 A. As far as I know, they were accountable -- I

  33. 1 mean that was the regional military police, as we might

    2 call it.

    3 Q. From Kaonik, you also said, or if I

    4 understood you well, that it was the military police

    5 who took you away?

    6 A. I don't think that anybody else could have

    7 done that, because they took us here and there all the

    8 time.

    9 Q. All right. Now, going back to that part when

    10 we talked about the digging of trenches, as an average

    11 citizen with minimum military duty, when does an army

    12 dig trenches, when it attacks or when it defends

    13 itself?

    14 JUDGE MAY: That's not a question for the

    15 witness. It's a question for us or a military expert.

    16 MR. KOVACIC: Could I rephrase?

    17 JUDGE MAY: No. Something else, please.

    18 MR. KOVACIC: Okay. (Interpretation)

    19 Q. You told us, again in relation to those

    20 trenches, that some did not come back from digging

    21 them, that you did not eyewitness the death of anyone.

    22 Is that true?

    23 A. Yes, but we have heard.

    24 Q. So you heard?

    25 A. Yes, naturally. And when I came out, it was

  34. 1 all confirmed, and dead bodies were brought.

    2 Q. Right. Let me ask you something else. You

    3 mentioned Mehmed Sivro, your relative, and you said

    4 that you had also heard that he had not come back from

    5 digging; is that true?

    6 A. Yes, when I was at Kaonik. The first time

    7 that I was at Kaonik is when I heard this.

    8 Q. But later on, you met him alive?

    9 A. Also when we were exchanged. That means

    10 later on.

    11 Q. In other words, what you heard was only

    12 rumour? You did not see, with your own eyes, those

    13 events?

    14 A. Yes, but when I met those relatives -- I also

    15 met parents of those young men who were killed, who

    16 never came back from the digging of trenches, and that

    17 was the confirmation of those rumours, and that is why

    18 I said that in my report. Otherwise, I would have said

    19 that those were rumours.

    20 Q. All right. Let us then go back to your final

    21 internment in the cinema; after Kaonik, when you went

    22 back to the cinema again.

    23 You told the court in Zenica that when you

    24 came out of the cinema at long last, you came out

    25 because Zjelko Sajevic put you in his car and took you

  35. 1 home, to your home?

    2 A. No, it was on the 30th of April, not when I

    3 was brought back from Kaonik.

    4 Q. So it was when you were released once and

    5 then came back?

    6 A. Yes, but on that occasion.

    7 Q. On that occasion, Sajevic took you from the

    8 cinema and gave you a lift home? That is what you said

    9 in the statement?

    10 A. Yes, but before that I had to sign at so and

    11 so that I was leaving free and of my own free will.

    12 Q. So you signed that. He took you home?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. And you said that the door was locked. What

    15 did he do?

    16 A. The gate -- the entrance door was locked, and

    17 he waited until one of the residents came down to

    18 unlock it. And only when I was in safely, he turned

    19 back to his command.

    20 Q. Did he tell you it was for your safety?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Let us go back, then, to those early days

    23 before they took you to the Workers' University, and

    24 then those visits home and so on and so forth. You

    25 said, at some point, that to one of those who came to

  36. 1 see you, you said, "I will be safer if you took me to

    2 the cinema." Is that true?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. Now, from those two things that we just

    5 mentioned, could I draw the conclusion that it was

    6 dangerous for people in the town, especially if they

    7 were Muslims?

    8 A. Yes. In the evening, they come and just take

    9 you away. And if you are locked up, they cannot reach

    10 you, so they cannot harm you, they cannot kill you,

    11 without knowing who that was.

    12 Q. So it was safer in internment than outside?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Thank you. You told us, when you were last

    15 released, that you had that conversation with Cerkez,

    16 and you said how you perceived that conversation. But

    17 does the fact remain that Cerkez used the following

    18 words, that you were not released for the purpose of

    19 your own safety?

    20 A. I cannot quote him, but no, no, that they

    21 were holding us there for our own safety because they

    22 had to show us to this commission of the BH army, and

    23 it's better for us to be safe and sound because they

    24 were responsible for the 30 of us.

    25 Q. Very well. Do you recall that Ivica Santic

  37. 1 was there to talk to the detainees and Skopljak

    2 Marijan?

    3 A. Before Cerkez came, I think that was the day

    4 before Cerkez came, I know that Ivica Santic was there

    5 for sure. And whether Marijan was there or not, that I

    6 don't know, but if he had accompanied him, then he

    7 probably was there.

    8 Q. And what was the purpose of that visit?

    9 JUDGE MAY: Can you allow time for the

    10 translation?

    11 MR. KOVACIC: Sorry.

    12 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's been one or

    13 two occasions when I think there has been a problem

    14 with question and answer. There is one routine, and I

    15 don't know if it's going to help at all with problems

    16 of this type in this Chamber, where if there are two

    17 interpreters in a booth, one can do the question and

    18 one can do the answer, and that helps.

    19 I was looking at a previous passage with a

    20 problem about whether something was a question or an

    21 answer, I think. I didn't want to interrupt, because

    22 if those taking the notes are able to keep up, I didn't

    23 want to interrupt. But there have been one or two

    24 problems, I think, on the transcript this afternoon,

    25 from the speed.

  38. 1 JUDGE MAY: The first thing is to allow

    2 time.

    3 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. Sorry, but sometimes you

    4 just have to go further. (Interpretation)

    5 Q. Let us go back to this. Can you describe

    6 this to us? Was it clear why Mr. Santic came,

    7 regardless of whether Mr. Skopljak was there or not?

    8 A. Well, I can tell you how it was.

    9 Approximately, it was that there was the possibility of

    10 coexistence between the Croats and the Muslims and that

    11 the crimes that were committed were committed by

    12 members of the armed forces and that it is not the

    13 civilian government that had anything to do with it.

    14 That was his interpretation of events. But we did not

    15 agree to that, most of us.

    16 And then Mario Cerkez came the next day to

    17 continue along those lines, and I really cannot

    18 remember whether somebody else came between the two of

    19 them, I really can't remember.

    20 Q. You and I know this, but for the sake of the

    21 Court and the others who are listening, Ivica Santic

    22 was a civilian; right?

    23 A. Yes. If there was a civilian government at

    24 the time, everybody knew where the Croatian Defence

    25 Council was, and that is to say that they were supposed

  39. 1 to have a command function over the army, and we see

    2 here that that did not exist.

    3 Q. That is your opinion, but you do not know

    4 that for a fact, do you?

    5 A. Mr. Santic, himself, said that this was done

    6 by members of the Croatian units, that the civilian

    7 government had nothing to do with it.

    8 Q. So there is a civilian government and there

    9 is a military government; right?

    10 A. That is what he said when he talked to us.

    11 Q. Thank you. And now you said to us that

    12 Cerkez continued the conversation along those lines?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Thank you. I would like to recall Z245.

    15 That is the document that is actually the agreement

    16 signed in Ahmici on the surrender of arms on the 22nd

    17 of October, 1992.

    18 Could you please tell the Court, how did this

    19 agreement come about on the 22nd of October? It was

    20 obviously a consequence of something.

    21 A. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most

    22 probably this was due to the events that took place in

    23 Novi Travnik before that.

    24 Q. This has nothing to do with the events that

    25 occurred when the main road was blocked, the one that

  40. 1 passes by Ahmici, on the 19th of October, 1992?

    2 A. Well, it is related to the events in Travnik,

    3 because the units of the HVO from Kiseljak, Busovaca

    4 and Kresevo went to help the HVO units in Novi Travnik.

    5 Q. Do you know for sure that HVO units wanted to

    6 pass to Novi Travnik?

    7 A. As far as I know, and from the contact I had

    8 with officers of the army, that's the way it was. But

    9 I don't know it for sure. You will have to ask someone

    10 from the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    11 Q. You mentioned the army yourself now, so in

    12 October, there was an army, wasn't there?

    13 A. Please, don't take my word for this

    14 terminology. When I say "army", I'm talking about the

    15 forces that were loyal to the State of

    16 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the president or the presidency

    17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and, rather, the president of the

    18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    19 And may I remind you that in the presidency

    20 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were two

    21 Croats as well, to the best of my knowledge. This is a

    22 long time ago. I don't know, perhaps I'm making a

    23 mistake now.

    24 So whenever I say members of the army, I'm

    25 actually thinking of those units that are loyal to the

  41. 1 State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Whether it was called

    2 the TO then, or the army, or the military, or -- I

    3 don't know. That's not important.

    4 Q. Since you already mentioned this, that is to

    5 say, units that were loyal to the presidency of Bosnia

    6 and Herzegovina, on the basis of the decision of the

    7 presidency as far back as July, the HVO was also a

    8 legal organisation, one of the two components of the

    9 armed forces of the republic?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. And in '93, in April, they were also a legal

    12 component, and on the 15th, they were there to

    13 commemorate the holiday of the army in Stari Vitez in

    14 the headquarters of the Territorial Defence. Even when

    15 they committed a crime, they were a legal component.

    16 And in 1993, in July, they were also a legal component

    17 of the army, and also in Tuzla, in Kakanj, in Zepce?

    18 A. They remained armed because the army had

    19 armed them, so ...

    20 Q. Witness, I asked you this because of another

    21 thing. You said those who were loyal or who were not

    22 loyal. Obviously, that is not a criterion, and you

    23 said yourself there was this so-called Territorial

    24 Defence, and later on there was the army. And you said

    25 one thing, and you said that you didn't know when the

  42. 1 Territorial Defence grew into the army, and we accepted

    2 that. But a few minutes ago, you said those army units

    3 that were loyal and under the command of the

    4 appropriate headquarters or the presidency of

    5 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. So that was the HVO, too?

    8 A. Yes. Also the 16th of April, 1993, when they

    9 committed the crime, they were.

    10 Q. So only on the 16th of April, 1993, there was

    11 this disruption?

    12 A. Only with this part -- I mean where they had

    13 made this entity. But take the HVO of Kiseljak before

    14 they left, take the HVO of Tuzla. Throughout the war,

    15 it was a component of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    16 And members of the Croatian Defence Council throughout

    17 the war came to Zenica with the insignia of the HVO,

    18 and nobody touched them.

    19 Q. Very well. Let us go back to this document.

    20 You said that the road was blocked to HVO

    21 units, and you think that they were going to Novi

    22 Travnik?

    23 A. I think that the road was blocked. I think,

    24 but I wasn't there.

    25 Q. Do you remember at the time there was a lot

  43. 1 of fighting going on around Jajce, where the Muslims

    2 and Croats together were trying to protect Jajce from

    3 the Serbs and the JNA?

    4 A. Yes, but I think that now we are

    5 really encumbering the Trial Chamber with things that

    6 don't really concern me. I'm a member of the police.

    7 I don't know the army very well, but as far as I know,

    8 every unit has to be announced to the units that hold

    9 the territory through which they are supposed to pass.

    10 If they were going to Jajce, then they were supposed to

    11 know that. The TO headquarters were supposed to know

    12 that they were supposed to pass to Jajce. But don't

    13 ask me about these military matters. I'm not an expert

    14 in military affairs, and I'm not here to give answers

    15 in that connection. I'm here to talk about things

    16 related to the police and those dates that I mentioned.

    17 Q. I have to correct you because you're hear to

    18 answer everything that you know about.

    19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I'm going to

    20 interrupt.

    21 Mr. Zlotrg, would you please answer the

    22 questions you're asked, if you can. If we don't think

    23 it's right that you should be asked, we will stop the

    24 witness.

    25 Mr. Kovacic, I wonder if there's much point

  44. 1 asking this witness about this particular document.

    2 There will, I understand, be witnesses from Ahmici who

    3 may be in a better position to deal with it and also

    4 military witnesses who may be able to deal with it

    5 better.

    6 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Certainly,

    7 there will be good witnesses. I just wanted to put

    8 this document into the context of events because it

    9 came here just out of the blue. There was an

    10 agreement, but it was obviously the result of

    11 something. I just wanted to confirm that, and, of

    12 course, we're going to question other witnesses about

    13 this.

    14 Q. Just a small detail, please. When we were

    15 watching that video related to the bomb planted under

    16 the Salkic house, that was Z2559, do you know the

    17 physician who was there? You said this was a

    18 physician. Was this Mr. Gordon Peher?

    19 A. I don't know him.

    20 Q. All right. So you don't know.

    21 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Your Honours,

    22 I can take a break now. You said that you would like

    23 to take a break at a quarter past four. I'll be moving

    24 on to another subject, so if this is a good time for

    25 you.

  45. 1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. How much longer do you

    2 think you might be?

    3 MR. KOVACIC: I'm now quite sure that I will

    4 be finishing with him in 30 minutes to 45 minutes at

    5 most.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Good. Thank you. A quarter of

    7 an hour then.

    8 --- Recess taken at 4.13 p.m.

    9 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.

    10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)

    11 Q. Witness, let us finish the subject of

    12 internment, only a couple of short questions. While

    13 you were detained in the building of the Workers'

    14 University, that is, the cinema, did a physician come

    15 to visit?

    16 A. I don't know. I know that some asked for

    17 examination, but I didn't go to a doctor.

    18 Q. So you did not receive the visit of any

    19 physician?

    20 A. No.

    21 Q. And in the chess club?

    22 A. In the chess club, nobody even knew we

    23 existed there, so they surely did not bring any

    24 physicians there.

    25 Q. But was somebody taken out of the chess club

  46. 1 for medical help?

    2 A. Not as far as I know.

    3 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to another

    4 subject. You said something about the television

    5 station belonging to Pero Gudelj and how the HVO took

    6 that station. Let us try and check some details about

    7 that. Could you, generally speaking, tell me, how were

    8 the citizens of the Vitez municipality informed? What

    9 could you listen to? Did you get the press regularly?

    10 A. The state television, the press arrived. I

    11 don't know whose -- I had no time to buy any newspapers

    12 because I had other duties, and I also watched private

    13 television, Mr. Gudelj's television.

    14 Q. So you had the television programme of TV

    15 Sarajevo. There was the private television belonging

    16 to Pero Gudelj. Was there some other private station?

    17 A. No, not at the beginning. Later on, there

    18 was the television of the war presidency, I don't know

    19 what it was called, out of the town of Vitez, but it

    20 worked for a very short while, and its ratings were

    21 very low.

    22 Q. Do you know what transmitter, what relays

    23 were used to broadcast the programme? The transmitter

    24 for the signal into the Lasva Valley, where was it?

    25 A. As far as I know, it was on Vlasic.

  47. 1 Q. Do you know about the transmitter above Tesic

    2 next to Kruscica?

    3 A. Yes, but that was a small transmitter which

    4 was simply used to amplify the signal.

    5 Q. But in Vitez, could you watch television if

    6 that transmitter was out of work?

    7 A. I could not tell you that. I only know that

    8 throughout the time we had the programme of the

    9 radio/television of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

    10 radio/television of Mr. Gudelj's. At least in the part

    11 of the town where I lived, those were the only two

    12 stations we could watch, the first and second channel

    13 of the television of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    14 Q. And the other one, the private one, when did

    15 it begin to work? Was it the television where Suad

    16 Salkic was the main man? Was that the television that

    17 you had in mind?

    18 A. I don't really know who was the main person

    19 there, because I could not watch it because the signal

    20 did not cover the part of the town where I lived. I

    21 did hear that they were broadcasting some programme.

    22 Q. Thank you. Yesterday or, rather, on

    23 Thursday, the last working day last week, sometime

    24 toward the end of your testimony, you told us about the

    25 event when you met Cerkez in relation to the coffee

  48. 1 shop owned by Dragan Cickovic. Are you sure it

    2 belonged to Dragan?

    3 A. The coffee shop is owned by Dragan's brother,

    4 Gojko, who had gone to Belgrade. Whether for reasons

    5 of health, that is, his wife's, because I know that she

    6 was ill for a long time, or whether he left for

    7 political reasons, I wouldn't know that. But I know

    8 that he left it to his brother Dragan to run it, and

    9 that was that.

    10 Q. So Dragan Cickovic was looking after the

    11 coffee shop of his brother Gojko?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. Have you heard that Dragan joined the

    14 Chetniks and that he called his people from the Chetnik

    15 side?

    16 A. No, I don't know that, but I know that he

    17 moves about in Vitez freely now.

    18 Q. Is he the owner of the coffee shop again?

    19 A. I think that last year it was returned to his

    20 brother. I'm not quite sure.

    21 Q. But on that occasion or subsequently, since

    22 you were in the police, did you hear of any agreement

    23 between the HVO and Dragan about the taking over of

    24 that coffee shop?

    25 A. No. I can read to you what Dragan told me.

  49. 1 Because I could not remember the date when I had this

    2 conversation with Dragan, and then he told me that it

    3 was, I believe, on the 18th of May, and then what I

    4 stated, when Mr. Cerkez told him that the coffee shop

    5 was being mobilised. That is what I knew. Dragan

    6 never told me about any agreement. And even had there

    7 been any agreement, I wouldn't see any reason for 10 or

    8 15 soldiers to go there to take over the coffee shop by

    9 agreement, by mutual consent.

    10 Q. On that occasion, when you came and saw those

    11 HVO soldiers, you approached an HVO policeman, your

    12 former -- could you conclude from anything when you had

    13 arrived at the time that something was happening, that

    14 something was going on, that an event was under way?

    15 A. Yes. Members of the reserve police force

    16 were deployed around the coffee shop, and that was

    17 that. I did not really see members of the HVO. They

    18 must have been inside the coffee shop. I did not see

    19 them.

    20 Q. But as you were there really when the event

    21 was taking place, did you see that any explosive device

    22 had been used or perhaps whether there was a threat

    23 that it would be used?

    24 A. Since at that time we worked together, that

    25 is, we had one integrated police station, the station

  50. 1 received no report of that kind. That is one thing.

    2 Secondly, members of the reserve police force wouldn't

    3 have come out for the investigation. It would have

    4 been the members of the crime investigation department

    5 or the [indiscernible] activity inspector would have

    6 come to remove that explosive device and authorise law

    7 enforcement officers, that is, professional people,

    8 rather than reserve police and Croatian Defence

    9 Council. Because, I'm telling you, the police at that

    10 time worked together.

    11 Q. So you are assuming that had there been a

    12 threat or an explosive device, that it would have been

    13 done by the proper police?

    14 A. Well, because it was a civilian outlet, the

    15 civilian police, so the report was made to the civilian

    16 police, and we would have known it, but there was

    17 nothing. There was no application, no report to the

    18 Public Security Station about that.

    19 Q. Thank you. Only one question more, Witness,

    20 and that will be it or, rather, I have several

    21 questions in relation to a subject.

    22 Is it true that during 1992, shifts went from

    23 Vitez to Vlasic to fight against the Serbs?

    24 A. Yes, not Vlasic alone, to Visoko. Members

    25 went to Visoko, to Bijelo Buce, to Vlasic too.

  51. 1 Q. HVO units went to Vlasic?

    2 A. Who went where, I don't know.

    3 Q. Let me rephrase it. So the units of the

    4 Territorial Defence and the units of the HVO went to

    5 some points of defence contracting Serbs?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. So that is correct. In view of this chaos in

    8 the town and the various incidents that you told us

    9 about, and we talked about the distribution of

    10 competencies or, rather, division of competencies

    11 between the civilian and military police, as a

    12 policeman, how did you treat an event in which an HVO

    13 soldier returning from his shift to his village, the

    14 town of Vitez, what was he if he committed a crime?

    15 Was he a civilian or was he a soldier?

    16 A. A soldier.

    17 Q. So the moment he arrived in his village from

    18 his shift, he was a civilian?

    19 A. Well, if he was mobilised, then it would be

    20 natural for him to be a soldier.

    21 Q. No. But when you had TO shifts or HVO, it

    22 doesn't really matter because they belong to the same

    23 force, and when those units went to those places on the

    24 front against the Serbs, those soldiers were mobilised

    25 for a particular shift, I don't know, seven days, ten

  52. 1 days, fourteen days; is that correct?

    2 A. You will have to ask that of one of the

    3 commanders or somebody in the secretariat for national

    4 defence. I don't know that.

    5 Q. Then didn't you face a problem to distinguish

    6 between civilians and military? If you didn't know

    7 that, how could you then differentiate between the

    8 competencies when conducting an investigation?

    9 A. Well, we maintained permanent contact with

    10 the army, and if it wasn't under their jurisdiction,

    11 then we worked.

    12 Q. I'm referring to '92.

    13 A. In '92, we also helped. In 1992, both

    14 components had their military police.

    15 Q. So, you would ask them, "Is this man a

    16 soldier or a civilian"; is that so?

    17 A. I think I already answered, that I wasn't

    18 assigning any investigation team. There was the law

    19 enforcement officer on duty there. So after a civilian

    20 report, he would have to send a police patrol to the

    21 scene of the crime to see what it was all about, and

    22 then when coming back with the report, then the law

    23 enforcement officer on duty would assign a team.

    24 If I was assigned to that particular team,

    25 then it meant that that particular incident came under

  53. 1 my jurisdiction. And if I would be called by somebody

    2 from the military police, then it meant that it was

    3 under their jurisdiction, but since they lacked

    4 technicians, I would be simply doing a service to

    5 them. But it wasn't up to me to determine to define

    6 the event. There was the law enforcement officer on

    7 duty who decided that.

    8 Q. Tell us, is a uniform an element whereby you

    9 can distinguish between a soldier and a civilian, say

    10 as of mid-1992, or not?

    11 A. No, anybody could wear a camouflage uniform.

    12 Whoever could afford it could buy it and therefore wear

    13 it.

    14 Q. But could we say that people wore uniforms as

    15 a rule?

    16 A. That is how it should be.

    17 Q. So regardless of whether they did belong to

    18 an army or not?

    19 A. No. I think we're talking at

    20 cross-purposes. I thought you were talking about

    21 members of the military, if they wore uniforms.

    22 Q. No, I mean all.

    23 A. There were also members of the army who were

    24 in civilians, because the army did not have enough

    25 uniforms. So it was not a rule, really, it was his

  54. 1 military card, whether to see a document which showed

    2 whether somebody was a member of a unit or not. The

    3 uniform was worn by those who had them. I think that

    4 is how it is today. I mean you have your identity card

    5 or your military card to show whether you were a member

    6 belonging to a unit or whether you were a civilian.

    7 Q. So you're saying that a military person can

    8 also wear civilian clothes?

    9 A. Yes.

    10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Mr. Zlotrg,

    11 thank you very much for the answers.

    12 Mr. President, I have no further questions.

    13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Stein, yes.

    14 Cross-examined by Mr. Stein:

    15 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, my name is Bob Stein. I live in

    16 New Hampshire in the United States. It's my pleasure

    17 and privilege to represent Dario Kordic.

    18 If there's any question that I ask you that

    19 you don't understand, will you let me know? And you

    20 have to say "Yes" or "No" for the record. All right?

    21 A. (No audible response)

    22 Q. You have to say it.

    23 A. Yes, yes.

    24 Q. All right. Sir, in addition to your

    25 appearance in October of 1994 in the court in Zenica,

  55. 1 you also gave a series of other interviews with the

    2 Prosecution; correct?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. And indeed before you gave those interviews,

    5 you had prepared some notes, which we have, that you

    6 prepared on June 5, 1996. Do you recall that?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. Actually, I think the transcriptist made a

    9 mistake when she transcribed those or translated those

    10 notes. Those notes were actually made or compiled by

    11 you on September 5, 1996. Does that sound right?

    12 A. Yes, it's the 5th of September, 1996.

    13 Q. All right. And then, as I understand it, you

    14 submitted to an interview on June 10, 1997, by some

    15 people from the Office of the Prosecution. Do you

    16 recall that?

    17 A. Not by the date, but I talked to the

    18 Prosecutors on several occasions.

    19 Q. It could have been the summer of 1997?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. And then again in the fall of 1998, on

    22 September 27 and 28, again you had a discussion with

    23 the Prosecution?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. And then you testified in the Kupreskic case

  56. 1 in October of 1998. Do you recall coming here and

    2 testifying?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. And before that testimony, you spoke again

    5 with members of the Prosecution; correct?

    6 A. Most probably, yes.

    7 Q. Certainly, you didn't just come in to The

    8 Hague and take the witness stand. You spoke with

    9 members of the Prosecution team; correct?

    10 A. Yes. I do not recall the date, though.

    11 Q. All right. The record shows that the

    12 testimony was on October 14 and October 15, 1998. So

    13 the fall of 1998, you met with members of the Kupreskic

    14 prosecution team; is that correct?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. For several days?

    17 A. Until we finished.

    18 Q. How many days was that, sir?

    19 A. I can't remember.

    20 Q. More than one?

    21 A. I had so many different conversations with

    22 them that I really cannot remember how many days I

    23 actually spent there.

    24 Q. Fair enough. And then again on March 4,

    25 1998, you testified in the Aleksovski case?

  57. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. And again you spent some time with the

    3 Prosecutors then; correct?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. And then last, or next to last, I guess, you

    6 were interviewed again in November of 1998, after your

    7 testimony in Aleksovski?

    8 A. I already said it, I talked to them on

    9 several occasions, but I don't know the dates. I don't

    10 know. If that's what it says over there, then that's

    11 probably what it was.

    12 Q. Fair enough. And again in February of 1999,

    13 February 4?

    14 A. Yes, yes, if that's what it says there.

    15 Q. And on all those occasions, you told the

    16 truth?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. And on all those occasions, you answered any

    19 of the questions the Prosecutors put to you relative to

    20 the events that you knew of; correct?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. They asked you questions about all of the

    23 defendants, including my client, Mr. Kordic; isn't that

    24 correct?

    25 A. Yes. I don't have much to say about Kordic,

  58. 1 though.

    2 Q. But you told them everything you did have to

    3 say about Mr. Kordic, didn't you?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Now, do I also understand that there came a

    6 period in time where you interviewed detainees at the

    7 detention centre in Zenica?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And that was in connection with your police

    10 report, your police work?

    11 A. No.

    12 Q. Detainees were Croats, weren't they?

    13 A. Yes, but at that time I was not a member of

    14 the Ministry of the Interior. I was mobilised. I was

    15 a member of the army.

    16 Q. Fair enough. So as a member of the army, you

    17 interviewed Croats at the detention centre in Zenica;

    18 correct?

    19 A. Yes.

    20 Q. And that was in 1993?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Do I also understand that you participated in

    23 helping various individuals from your community who

    24 were to testify here in The Hague?

    25 A. No.

  59. 1 Q. Now, let me ask you, please, sir, to take a

    2 look at Exhibit number 332,1. I would like you to have

    3 the Croatian version.

    4 The notes before you at Exhibit Z332,1 are

    5 not writings that you, yourself, made; isn't that

    6 correct?

    7 A. No, I didn't write any of this.

    8 Q. They were all written by someone else?

    9 A. This was taken out of the complaints book of

    10 the police station at Stari Vitez, and I have the

    11 original, if necessary. I have the original here with

    12 me.

    13 Q. They were not taken out by you, were they,

    14 sir?

    15 A. I don't understand your question.

    16 Q. The person who took these notes from the

    17 police book was not you?

    18 A. Yes, I gave this to the Office of the

    19 Prosecutor to copy.

    20 Q. And you got this from someone else?

    21 A. Took it from the station, from the archives.

    22 Q. But you didn't bring the entire book with

    23 you, did you?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. This is all there is in the book, these

  60. 1 pages?

    2 A. Yes, yes, from the 23rd of December until the

    3 14th of April, 1993, but only what the criminal police

    4 recorded, not everything that was recorded by the

    5 Public Security Station.

    6 Q. So there's another set of notes recorded by

    7 the Public Security Station; is that right?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. You are telling us that 332,1, these

    10 documents, is a complete record of the police activity;

    11 is that right? Is that what you're saying?

    12 A. This document records the time and location

    13 of events that took place and the person who reported

    14 on this, and it should also reflect who received this

    15 report. And I noticed in the first two, there was no

    16 signature of who had received this, and then you have

    17 "Alihodza Sejo", "Alihodza Sejo" afterwards. He was

    18 acting chief of the crime police in Stari Vitez. You

    19 have his name here, Alihodza Sejo, Alihodza Sejo, on

    20 the 23rd, for example, of December, 1992, at the

    21 premises of the Public Security Station in Stari Vitez,

    22 Handija Handzic [indiscernible]. That is to say, he

    23 had all the particulars of the person who was reporting

    24 the event; that is to say, what was done, what the

    25 damages incurred were, et cetera. Then on that basis,

  61. 1 we were supposed to carry out an on-site

    2 investigation. If possible, that is.

    3 Q. I understand, sir, but that's not my

    4 question. Are these notes all there is in that police

    5 record?

    6 A. It's not a record, it is a book. It's a book

    7 of complaints of citizens in respect of things that

    8 were done to them. So it is just that they lodge a

    9 complaint, and then it is up to us to see whether we

    10 were in charge or not, and then that would be within

    11 the domain of the crime police.

    12 Q. A simple question. Is everything that's in

    13 the book here today or not?

    14 A. Yes, I think so. No, no. That which is not

    15 of interest to this court -- sorry, sorry. The entire

    16 book was photocopied. It's different in my statement,

    17 though. So everything that is in the original is here,

    18 photocopied.

    19 Q. That is my question.

    20 A. That's it. This is the original version, and

    21 everything that is there has been photocopied.

    22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Mr. Stein, I

    23 believe that if you want to have a clear discussion, we

    24 have to clarify certain things, because the further it

    25 goes, the messier it becomes.

  62. 1 I believe the witness is telling us that all

    2 the police records, the daily reports made by

    3 individuals, are put in a document which is an

    4 ordinary, usual document in which everything that

    5 happens in a police station is recorded. Could you ask

    6 the witness whether the document that we have in front

    7 of us is a comprehensive document for a given period of

    8 time, whether it covers everything that happened during

    9 that specific period? Obviously enough, there is other

    10 information, but that's what we need to clarify.

    11 There may be other information for other

    12 periods of time, but as far as this period is

    13 concerned, do we have the entire document, because we

    14 fail to understand so far. Thank you.

    15 MR. STEIN:

    16 Q. Sir, did you hear the Judge's question? For

    17 the period of time between December 23, 1992, and

    18 February -- well, actually, it would be April, 1993,

    19 would you explain first how your police department

    20 keeps records of citizens' complaints, and then,

    21 second, is this the complete record? I believe that's

    22 the Judge's question.

    23 A. Since we had just established the police

    24 station, that is to say that we did not have all the

    25 original forms then, we simply established this

  63. 1 notebook which had a stamp on it, and all the citizens'

    2 complaints are in there. However, when someone starts

    3 working on a case on the basis of a citizen's

    4 complaint, then a file is opened, then a record is

    5 made, then this is typed out, and that is what is in

    6 the file.

    7 So this is only what the citizens reported to

    8 us, in terms of what happened, and everything else that

    9 was done in this connection is in the file that is for

    10 each and every particular case.

    11 Q. So the citizen would come in and make a

    12 report, correct, and that would be put in your book?

    13 A. No. They dictated orally to the person who

    14 was actually writing this down.

    15 Q. Yes. If that complaint was later

    16 investigated by your department, those were in

    17 different documents; correct?

    18 A. Yes, then the file is opened.

    19 Q. But these complaints during the period of

    20 time I mentioned, December through April, are all the

    21 complaints that exist; is that what you're telling us?

    22 A. There were other reports that were filed in

    23 the book that was kept by the policeman on duty,

    24 because there was a policeman that was on duty around

    25 the clock and we were there only for eight hours.

  64. 1 Q. Is this the book that was kept round the

    2 clock?

    3 A. No, no, this is the book that was kept by the

    4 crime police, only that department within the police

    5 station. That is to say when we were at work, then we

    6 would receive the report directly.

    7 MR. STEIN: I'm sorry, Judge Bennouna, I'm

    8 afraid I haven't clarified it.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Stein, I think we've

    10 got it as clear as we're going to get it, if you would

    11 like to move on.

    12 MR. STEIN:

    13 Q. What I would like to do, then, is turn your

    14 attention, please, to the notes, which I would like to

    15 have admitted at this point in time. And those would

    16 be the notes provided by the Prosecutor from 5 June,

    17 '96, about events in Vitez from 1991 until 16 May,

    18 '93.

    19 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked

    20 D15/1.

    21 MR. STEIN:

    22 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, I would like to turn your

    23 attention to the English version at page 17, and the

    24 Croatian version would begin on page 3. These are

    25 notes prepared by you about events in Vitez from 1991

  65. 1 until 16 May, 1993, are they not?

    2 A. Yes.

    3 JUDGE MAY: At which page, Mr. Stein? We've

    4 got no pagination, apart from a general pagination at

    5 the top.

    6 MR. STEIN: Very good, Sir. It's probably

    7 cut off. The page I'm referring to would be base

    8 number 607788.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we've got that.

    10 MR. STEIN:

    11 Q. Now, in this document you set out complaints

    12 by citizens to your police department; correct?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. The same kind of complaints we just talked

    15 about?

    16 A. Yes, but it need not be recorded in this

    17 photocopy.

    18 Q. These dates of the complaints, starting at

    19 your version, page 3, and the English version at page

    20 17, or base number 607788, are different complaints,

    21 are they not?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. And you also have a personal journal, do you

    24 not?

    25 A. No.

  66. 1 Q. Well, I took your answer, and I went back

    2 over the record. You testified earlier, "Secondly, as

    3 I have said, I had my journal, and I noted down all

    4 those events, and also in the archives of the police

    5 department, you can find these events recorded." Is

    6 there a separate journal from those which are in the

    7 archives of the police department which you have in

    8 your possession?

    9 A. No. I had a logbook where I simply put in

    10 every time I went out to the scene of the reported

    11 crime. However, during military operations in Stari

    12 Vitez, that logbook was destroyed, and I never laid my

    13 hands again on it, because if it were still in

    14 existence, there would be much more about it here, more

    15 individual incidents and, of course, greater detail.

    16 Q. The notes that you wrote on June 5 or

    17 September 5, 1996, now Exhibit D15/1, where did those

    18 notes come from?

    19 A. My memory, citizens' reports, complaints,

    20 military police notes, which worked in the same

    21 building as the civilian police, and some other

    22 documents. I cannot recall them. I do have here a

    23 couple of statements. Perhaps if one of them is of

    24 particular interest to you, I can show it to you.

    25 Q. And you have those notes with you in The

  67. 1 Hague now?

    2 A. I have -- no, the original, the one that you

    3 gave me, that is not a statement which I gave to the

    4 Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal. This was my official

    5 memo of what happened, and it was at my insistence,

    6 when the gentlemen came to me to take the statement for

    7 Mr. Aleksovski, I then offered him this -- well, this

    8 kind of a memo, these kinds of things that I was noting

    9 from '91 to the 16th of May, '94. The gentleman who

    10 came on that occasion on behalf of the Prosecution took

    11 that document from me, and I signed it. So I was the

    12 one who offered this document, and I made no statement

    13 in this regard.

    14 Q. So my question is, to be quite clear about

    15 this, the notes that you had during that interview and

    16 which you used during that interview, which are set out

    17 at D15/1, you turned over to the Prosecutor; correct?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. And those are different notes from the

    20 official police record which you had before you as

    21 332,2; is that correct?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. All right.

    24 A. This is my version.

    25 Q. Which you kept for your purposes?

  68. 1 A. No, I did not keep it. I took it later on

    2 from the archives of the police station, everything I

    3 thought that could be of interest and related to the

    4 events that took place during that period of time. It

    5 is all clear, I mean, dates and sites, and all that you

    6 have in the police station in Vitez must be the

    7 original document that is kept in the archives of the

    8 police. I do have something here, but that is not all.

    9 Q. All right. So you selectively picked certain

    10 parts from the archives of the police; is that right?

    11 A. Yes, because I was an active participant of

    12 these events.

    13 Q. And you chose what you'd give to the

    14 representative from the Prosecutor's office; correct?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. Therefore --

    17 A. All that I knew about that period of time,

    18 and I believe you will agree with me that nobody can

    19 remember all those dates. So that is why I noted it

    20 down, and to write down the dates, I had to go into the

    21 archives to take them out. All the events, I don't

    22 have to read anything about them because I attended

    23 practically all the on-site investigations, and

    24 whenever citizens came with their complaints, I was

    25 usually there.

  69. 1 Q. I want to ask you about your memory right

    2 now. You testified earlier that you had an experience

    3 with a man named Cicko, not a very pleasant one, in

    4 which he was bragging. Do you recall that part of your

    5 testimony?

    6 A. Yes, Miroslav Bralo, Cicko.

    7 Q. You said in your testimony the other day, if

    8 I'm quoting it properly and I believe I am, that there

    9 was another person that was mentioned during that

    10 conversation named Svabo. Do you remember Svabo, the

    11 name "Svabo"?

    12 A. That person was not there. Cicko told us

    13 that he was vying with him who would kill more

    14 balijas. That is a derogatory name for Muslims. If

    15 I'm correct, Cicko mentioned 80 but perhaps less. At

    16 that time, it wasn't really particularly pleasant to

    17 stand before such a fiend, because he told us how he

    18 had crucified a man like Jesus Christ on a door, and

    19 any member of that group who dug trenches with me up

    20 there could confirm that.

    21 Q. Sir, you specifically said that "His name is

    22 Svabo, and he is a member of the Croatian Defence

    23 Council from Busovaca. I did know his name but now I

    24 really can't remember it." That's what you told us

    25 last week. That's a direct quote from your testimony.

  70. 1 Now, let me ask you this --

    2 A. Yes. Yes.

    3 Q. All right. I would like you to take a look

    4 at D15/1, which is in front of you, I believe, your

    5 notes. Do you have those in front of you?

    6 A. Yes, but just help me what it is all about.

    7 Q. Sure. Take a look at the Croatian version,

    8 and it appears to be at the top of page 9, number

    9 005-09-017, and the English version would be page 15.

    10 MR. STEIN: If Your Honours don't have a full

    11 copy, that would be 006-07-786. I'm referring in the

    12 English to the second full paragraph and in the

    13 Croatian to the very sentence on the top of the page.

    14 Q. Do you see the sentence? The English version

    15 reads as follows: "He bragged to us that he and

    16 another man from Busovaca were competing in who would

    17 kill the most Muslims. He said he was currently in the

    18 lead and that he had killed about 80 men and women and

    19 children."

    20 Have I read that correctly, sir?

    21 A. [No interpretation]

    22 Q. That statement was given again in your

    23 notes. That appears in your notes, your own

    24 handwritten version.

    25 Now, I'd like you to take a look at Exhibit

  71. 1 332,2. The English version of what I'm referring to is

    2 at page 12 and the Croatian is also at page 12. That's

    3 page 12, about three-quarters of the way down the

    4 Croatian version, and the English version, about

    5 halfway down.

    6 According to the English version, you said to

    7 the judge in Zenica: "After the introduction, Cicko

    8 began to brag that he and another soldier from

    9 Busovaca, whose name he mentioned but I cannot recall

    10 at the moment, were competing over who could kill, that

    11 is, slit the throats of more balijas."

    12 That's what it says there, doesn't it, sir?

    13 A. Well, I cannot really quote him, what he said

    14 exactly, but that is roughly what he said.

    15 Q. The specific name "Svabo" does not appear in

    16 either one of your statements; correct, sir?

    17 A. No, not in this version. He probably didn't

    18 ask me -- the judge did not ask me, because I think we

    19 worked for two days so that -- but the fact is that he

    20 said his name, surname, the nickname "Svabo," and

    21 that's all. There were about 10 or 15 of us there who

    22 were there when he taught us how to make the sign the

    23 of cross, and that we were no longer Muslims but

    24 Catholics. One doesn't forget that.

    25 Q. Of course not. One doesn't forget that, you

  72. 1 didn't forget it, but you didn't mention his name on

    2 either of the prior occasions before you came into

    3 court today; correct, sir?

    4 A. Well, it must be that nobody ever asked me or

    5 perhaps I could not remember his nickname at the time,

    6 but it says everywhere that he was competing with a

    7 Croat from Busovaca.

    8 Q. Now, sir, let me ask you this: You talked,

    9 in your direct examination, about some fuses and Pero

    10 Skopljak -- I'm not doing well on the name, I know --

    11 and about a convoy. Do you remember that testimony a

    12 few days ago? None of that information you saw

    13 yourself; none of those events you saw with your own

    14 eyes; correct?

    15 A. No.

    16 Q. All of those events were told to you by

    17 another person; isn't that correct?

    18 A. I saw drivers at the Public Security Station

    19 when they came to report an armed robbery, because that

    20 is nothing else but a case of armed robbery. They

    21 seized two trucks by resorting to weapons. At that

    22 time, I did not know Mr. Skopljak. I learnt about him

    23 later from my colleague, who was with another fellow

    24 policeman, and he admitted as much. You can also ask

    25 Mr. Mirsad Tatarevic, because he told me in a

  73. 1 conversation that there was no need for him to come to

    2 testify; otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned his name.

    3 Q. Let's be clear. Your information about who

    4 was the mastermind of that plot came from Mirsad

    5 Tatarevic, and he got it from another person named

    6 Ramljak; isn't that correct, sir?

    7 A. Yes, Vlado Ramljak, a policeman who was

    8 ordered to do that by Pero Skopljak. That was how I

    9 always presented it. I never stated it any other way.

    10 Q. And Vlado Ramljak was drinking with Mirsad

    11 Tatarevic when this whole conversation happened; isn't

    12 that right?

    13 A. That is information that I have. I don't

    14 know. I wasn't with them. That is what Mr. Tatarevic

    15 told me, and that is what I'm now transmitting to you.

    16 Q. We have an expression in the States called

    17 "whiskey talk," so I'll make this simple. Did you

    18 have any similar conversation with --

    19 JUDGE MAY: The witness has given his

    20 evidence about the way he received the information. It

    21 will be for us to evaluate it.

    22 MR. STEIN: Believe it or not, I was trying

    23 to shorten the examination. I don't think it was going

    24 to be successful anyhow. Judge, I have maybe 20 more

    25 minutes.

  74. 1 JUDGE MAY: Is that a convenient time?

    2 MR. STEIN: Yes, it is.

    3 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn.

    4 Mr. Zlotrg, we're adjourning now. Could you

    5 be back, please, tomorrow afternoon at half past two,

    6 when your evidence will, in fact, be completed?

    7 If you would like to go now.

    8 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, are there some matters

    10 you want to raise with regard to housekeeping and

    11 procedures?

    12 MR. NICE: Maybe one or two matters we can

    13 mention very briefly when the witness is gone, nothing

    14 to do with the witness's evidence.

    15 (The witness withdrew)

    16 MR. NICE: I think the immediately pressing

    17 or potentially pressing administrative matter to deal

    18 with is the timing of the search warrant argument, it

    19 having been suggested through the usual channels that

    20 the end of next week might be a possibility. The

    21 problem there is, of course, the problem both of

    22 readiness of both parties, and I understand informally

    23 that the Defence, who intend to call a couple of

    24 witnesses, would be ready then. I haven't finally

    25 confirmed with those on our side, but I'm pretty sure

  75. 1 we will be ready to go ahead by then. But the

    2 competing interest is the interest of witnesses.

    3 Following this witness, there's a witness

    4 whose timetable is very tight, and we very much hope to

    5 start him tomorrow in order to complete him well before

    6 the end of the week. The next witness is a man called

    7 (redacted), who I was hoping to fit in at the end of this

    8 week, beginning of next, and then to have Mujezinovic,

    9 who was brought here and had to be sent back last week

    10 on a pretty certain starting time, maybe Tuesday or

    11 Wednesday of next week in order that he could be

    12 completed within the week. That was my plan. I know

    13 that these plans have to change from time to time.

    14 Indeed, they have to change pretty well daily as the

    15 timetable unfolds.

    16 If we put the interest of getting those

    17 witnesses through, then there might well not be enough

    18 time for the search warrant issue to be argued at the

    19 end of next week.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Let me add this: We shall not be

    21 sitting Friday afternoon, as usual.

    22 MR. NICE: Right.

    23 JUDGE MAY: If Friday the 14th is not a

    24 convenient date, and I should say we are in the

    25 parties' hands as far as this is concerned, another

  76. 1 possible date is Monday the 31st of May when we come

    2 back to start another session.

    3 MR. NICE: Yes. Two points arising from

    4 that. First, when you say we shan't not be sitting on

    5 Friday afternoon, is that this week as well as next

    6 week?

    7 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

    8 MR. NICE: So that this week, we have four

    9 afternoons, and then next week, we have four and a half

    10 days. I think it's pretty unlikely that we will get

    11 through the witnesses I have lined up and have any time

    12 for the argument. I have some considerable concerns

    13 about whether we will get through Mujezinovic in the

    14 present order of things, and I may have to consider

    15 reversing him and (redacted) if his interests rank over

    16 (redacted) his personal interests.

    17 I would have thought, frankly, that the 31st

    18 of May is a better option because it brings with it

    19 certainty, and we can probably line up the first

    20 witness thereafter for the day after the 1st of June

    21 with all sorts of flexibilities available, probably to

    22 bring him forward, if the argument only takes half a

    23 day.

    24 JUDGE MAY: That sounds like a sensible

    25 solution. If the Defence want to raise any matters

  77. 1 about that, of course, they can. I understand that

    2 evidence will be called in the course of this argument.

    3 MR. NICE: Yes. I was going to ask the Court

    4 what directions it's going to give about the exchange

    5 of summaries of any evidence to be called on behalf of

    6 the Defence. This is an interlocutory matter. I'm not

    7 sure if it's strictly governed by the terms of the

    8 order that you have made or intend to make in respect

    9 of Defence evidence, but I would see no reason why the

    10 same principle shouldn't apply for interlocutory

    11 matters, and, indeed, it's likely to help the

    12 satisfactory outcome of these applications if it's

    13 pretty well carved up.

    14 JUDGE MAY: It's certainly within the spirit

    15 of the practice here. It would assist, would it not,

    16 in clarifying the issues, any issues of fact which have

    17 to be decided between the parties.

    18 MR. NICE: I think at the moment it's a

    19 two-week order. As you will appreciate, from the

    20 Prosecution's point of view, we've well exceeded two

    21 weeks. We're serving witness statements and

    22 notifications now months in advance, but that's not

    23 necessarily going to have the same effect on the

    24 Defence. But I think a reasonable time limit would be

    25 very helpful and enable clarification of the issues

  78. 1 which are otherwise probably reasonably fully argued

    2 or, as the phrase has it, briefed at the moment.

    3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, because they were the

    4 subject of an extensive filing, as I remember, probably

    5 on both sides.

    6 MR. NICE: Yes.

    7 JUDGE MAY: So they are already in written

    8 form. There is no need for any orders in relation to

    9 that.

    10 MR. NICE: There was a third filing by the

    11 Defence which I characterised as being effectively a

    12 reply, because it was brought in under another topic

    13 which didn't need an argument at all, so that it's very

    14 fully argued.

    15 JUDGE MAY: So if we ordered that the hearing

    16 of the issue should take place on the 31st of May, you

    17 have disclosed your evidence on the topic.

    18 MR. NICE: No, I don't think we've

    19 necessarily finally concluded that we are going to call

    20 evidence, but certainly if we're going to, we will

    21 disclose it as soon as we can. I'll go and discuss

    22 that with others more intimately concerned with this

    23 aspect.

    24 JUDGE MAY: But you would be prepared to

    25 disclose any evidence two weeks beforehand, the 17th of

  79. 1 May?

    2 MR. NICE: Certainly.

    3 JUDGE MAY: And you would like us to make a

    4 similar order in relation to the Defence?

    5 MR. NICE: Yes.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Stein, do you object to

    7 that?

    8 MR. STEIN: Everything seems perfectly

    9 reasonable. The 31st is a grand idea. At this present

    10 time, we are not sure whether we will be calling two,

    11 one, or no witnesses, and we can comply with the orders

    12 just contemplated easily.

    13 JUDGE MAY: The order will be that both sides

    14 disclose summaries of any evidence they are going to

    15 call on the issue by the 17th of May or on the 17th of

    16 May. For the sake of clarity, the issue is evidence

    17 arising from -- the admissibility of evidence arising

    18 out of the execution of a search warrant in, was it,

    19 September of last year?

    20 MR. NICE: Yes, that's right.

    21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That can no doubt be noted

    22 for the purposes of drawing up an order, although I

    23 doubt we need one. It's quite clear what it is.

    24 Perhaps if someone would take it off the transcript,

    25 that would be sufficient. We will consider whether we

  80. 1 need a scheduling order. It may be neater to have

    2 one.

    3 MR. NICE: Yes.

    4 MR. STEIN: I believe the matter is fully

    5 briefed, argued. You have all the papers.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. So effectively it may not

    7 take -- provided the issues are fairly narrow, the

    8 issues of fact, despite calling evidence, it may not

    9 take very long.

    10 MR. NICE: No. That's why if we have the

    11 witness normally lined up for the Tuesday but in The

    12 Hague on the Sunday or even the previous Friday, then

    13 we can be ready to fill a gap if a gap appears.

    14 JUDGE MAY: Let us say, optimistically, a

    15 time estimate of no more than half a day.

    16 MR. STEIN: I think that's fair.

    17 MR. NICE: Shall I just deal with one or two

    18 other matters at the moment?

    19 I gather that the days of the 20th and the

    20 21st are likely to be occupied by matters that won't

    21 involve witnesses and won't involve the Defence, and I

    22 only mention this because it's been in my mind, I've

    23 mentioned it to Mr. Stein and I think it's probably in

    24 the Tribunal's mind, ex parte matters have somewhat

    25 grown, I think, in the Tribunal over recent months and

  81. 1 years, and there are those who think that it's not a

    2 bad idea if one can have the maximum possible

    3 disclosure of what's going on by one party to the

    4 other, even when ex parte hearings are being held. I

    5 think it's probably something that the Registry is

    6 thinking about itself.

    7 It had occurred to me that it might be

    8 sensible in this trial, which is obviously going to

    9 last some time, to see if we can devise a regime of

    10 being as full, in the provision of details on the other

    11 side, as can be. I mention that Mr. Stein might, for

    12 example, say, "Well, we're having an ex parte hearing

    13 about," and then you can at least sometimes, if the

    14 Chamber approves, you can at least identify the topic.

    15 That makes the record that much more complete, and it

    16 avoids any slipshod ex parte practices from developing

    17 which one knows from other jurisdictions have sometimes

    18 occurred. I only mention that now. If we can think of

    19 a way of dealing with it, so much the better.

    20 Having said that, in relation to those two

    21 days, there may be something that we want to mention

    22 simply by way of timetabling. In line with the spirit

    23 of not having written motions for everything, if

    24 tomorrow I'd like to raise that ex parte at the end of

    25 the day, perhaps I'll be able to do it then. It will

  82. 1 only be, I think, for timetabling or for what motions

    2 have to be served, but I don't want to do it now

    3 because I haven't clarified the thing with

    4 Ms. Featherstone and others.

    5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It should be made plain

    6 that our proceedings are inter parte. That means that

    7 they take place in the presence of all and not one

    8 party and that ex parte proceedings, even if permitted,

    9 are to be kept to an absolute minimum. There are

    10 issues in this case which have to be dealt with ex

    11 parte. If at least the subject matter can be

    12 identified to the other side, and this will apply to both

    13 sides, so much the better because, in that way, it

    14 avoids any suspicion as to what might be going on in

    15 the absence of both parties.

    16 Mr. Nice, I would encourage the development,

    17 if possible, of a procedure which allows for as much

    18 disclosure as is possible.

    19 MR. NICE: Very well. Then tomorrow I may

    20 find myself asking for five minutes to deal with a

    21 timetabling matter on an ex parte motion, the general

    22 nature of which I may be able to divulge.

    23 The next thing is, again in the spirit of

    24 there being no written motions or as few written

    25 motions as possible, at some stage, I want to apply to

  83. 1 add to the witness list three names. They have

    2 already, in fact, been included in the latest document

    3 you've got in summary form. Can I take it that that's

    4 something that should be done in court or would you

    5 prefer that that matter be dealt with by written

    6 motion?

    7 JUDGE MAY: We will have to deal with it, but

    8 you refer to it in your latest document?

    9 MR. NICE: It's there, yes. It's under

    10 Zepce, I think. I'm afraid I don't have the page

    11 numbers at hand. I don't refer to the application. I

    12 refer to the content of the witness statements. It's

    13 on page 80 of the witness's -- I beg your pardon, page

    14 81.

    15 JUDGE MAY: Why don't you make this the

    16 application? What are their names or are you not in a

    17 position to do so?

    18 MR. NICE: Yes. I haven't prepared it as

    19 fully as I would have done, which is why I'm reluctant

    20 to make it right away. Page 81, and they are all

    21 marked. Perhaps if you would be good enough to

    22 consider the summaries overnight, then I can just deal

    23 with that more fully tomorrow morning. They are the

    24 three witnesses listed on page 81 and marked as

    25 "Additional Subject to Application." There's one

  84. 1 other as well. It's better that I deal with it

    2 tomorrow. In any event, it's better that I deal with

    3 it when the Chamber has had an opportunity to consider

    4 the document that I served, as I promised I would serve

    5 today, or filed, as I promised I would file today,

    6 because it may be that even tomorrow -- being anxious

    7 not to cut into witness time, even tomorrow, the Court

    8 might want me to take it through the document if it is

    9 not self-explanatory, as I would hope it is.

    10 JUDGE MAY: We are anxious to deal with this

    11 matter and get to grips with the number of witnesses

    12 and the extent of the evidence. That application should

    13 perhaps better be postponed until we are going to deal

    14 with that.

    15 MR. NICE: Right.

    16 JUDGE MAY: I can tell you that we are

    17 meeting on Wednesday after the hearing to begin our

    18 work upon this topic. We would wish, as soon as

    19 possible thereafter, to go through the witnesses to get

    20 some sort of order into the matter, from our point of

    21 view.

    22 MR. NICE: I hope you'll find this document

    23 helpful. I know you can't have any opportunity to look

    24 at it.

    25 JUDGE MAY: It was handed to us as we came

  85. 1 in.

    2 MR. NICE: Yes, I thought it probably was.

    3 It's passages of text with the existing revised witness

    4 summaries fitted in and characterised or categorised in

    5 two ways. The document is self-explanatory, and

    6 there's a discussion passage in the last three or four

    7 pages of the document, which I hope you'll find all

    8 provides a helpful starting point for the exercises

    9 that we all have to go through. The document may

    10 itself have to be subject to some revision, as is made

    11 clear in the opening passage, because the mission or,

    12 indeed, missions that have been underway and which I

    13 told you of, aimed at discovering in more detail

    14 witness availability and attitude, have only just

    15 returned. So only part of their feedback, if that's

    16 the right word, is included. They need to be fully

    17 debriefed by me later in the week, and, indeed, those

    18 taking part are entitled to contribute to the way that

    19 I have, in their absence to some degree, categorised

    20 the witnesses. So there may be some need for revision,

    21 but I think that basically this is a document that will

    22 set sails for the future.

    23 I trust that the Court has also had and its

    24 staff has been able to use the additional missing pages

    25 from the core bundle of documents. They were provided

  86. 1 in a format that should have enabled your staff to fit

    2 them in to exactly the right place in the core

    3 documents, so that the core documents become if not

    4 absolutely complete, document by document, very nearly

    5 so.

    6 I think that's all the housekeeping I have.

    7 JUDGE MAY: At the beginning of next week,

    8 you should be in the position to be up to date,

    9 presumably, having talked to the people who've come

    10 back with witness availability to tell us if there's

    11 any revision which can be made.

    12 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly by the beginning of

    13 next week. I can even give you some further

    14 provisional views before Wednesday, if that would help

    15 in the meeting that you're having then.

    16 JUDGE MAY: If you have any further

    17 information, let us know tomorrow or perhaps on

    18 Wednesday.

    19 MR. NICE: Obviously, the whole topic has to

    20 be discussed and, no doubt, argued about before any

    21 decisions are made and matters of principle to arise,

    22 but I have set them out in the discussion document at

    23 the end.

    24 Judge Bennouna, I don't know if it's in

    25 French yet. I suspect not, and I'm very sorry, but it

  87. 1 was only in final form, I think, yesterday afternoon or

    2 this morning.

    3 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Thank you.

    4 No, I didn't want to speak about the language, as

    5 such. I'm now slowly learning to accept the hard

    6 realities of this Tribunal being what it is, and I'm

    7 learning to accept, among others, this privilege which

    8 is given to one language rather than to another. We're

    9 learning to live with it and possibly learning to

    10 improve on our understanding of either language. This

    11 is not so bad after all maybe.

    12 Thank you, Mr. Kovacic, for thinking of me

    13 all the time. I'm very thankful to you for that. But

    14 don't worry, I'm able to follow what's happening in

    15 detail, in spite of it all.

    16 There was only one thing. I believe that

    17 it is the contents of this document which is

    18 interesting. It is good work that you've done there.

    19 We're going to be able to use this document. If I

    20 understand it well, you have ordered the witnesses, for

    21 which we now have their summaries, you've classed them

    22 or ordered them by locality and also by count in the

    23 indictment. In front of each witness, we have the

    24 locality, as well as the counts of the indictment; is

    25 that so?

  88. 1 MR. NICE: Partly so. The categorisation is

    2 slightly more detailed than that. We've listed first

    3 those witnesses who can speak directly about the

    4 defendants or either of them, and we then divided that

    5 category of witnesses up into those who we categorise

    6 as essential, and we qualify that term, but essential

    7 and those who are less essential.

    8 If you look at page 4 of the bundle you have,

    9 you'll see the witness, numbered 2 elsewhere, named; you

    10 will see a bold line to the left of the page which

    11 signifies he's an essential witness, and you will see

    12 his evidence is, as in the revised summary, set out,

    13 although highlighted for your assistance with that

    14 which is plainly critical. Then you go over the page

    15 through page 5 and so on with the rest of this series

    16 of witnesses who can give direct evidence about the

    17 defendants.

    18 It happens that those witnesses cover a large

    19 number of counts as well, and therefore it was thought

    20 appropriate to mark and helpful to mark which counts

    21 they cover. So if we stay on page 5, as an example,

    22 and you look at the top witness, since I don't know

    23 what, if any, protection may be sought, I shan't give

    24 the name, but you can see the counts that are

    25 identified.

  89. 1 If you look at the next witness, number 15,

    2 you'll see again the counts that are capable of being

    3 dealt with, but you'll see the word "unwilling" marked

    4 there, reflecting some of the information coming to us

    5 from the most recent exercises.

    6 So that throughout the first section, then

    7 you can go on to -- just to explain the format of the

    8 document, this is the largest section -- you go on

    9 until you get to page 24, and then between 23 and 24,

    10 it happens to fall on the top of the page, there's a

    11 thick horizontal line, and so you're now coming

    12 literally to the witnesses who are below the line who

    13 we categorise as less essential. They still are

    14 witnesses who are capable of covering, in specific

    15 terms, either Kordic or Cerkez, but they are, in our

    16 judgement, less essential.

    17 Now, that's the first category of witnesses,

    18 and it's the biggest.

    19 If you go to page 34, you find the beginning

    20 of the second category of witnesses, the international

    21 military personnel and monitors who had direct contact

    22 with Kordic and Cerkez, a very important set of

    23 witnesses. And we've pursued the same course there,

    24 starting with Witness 18. The strong line on the

    25 left-hand side enables you to know, even if you dip

  90. 1 into the pages and don't know which section you're in,

    2 how the witness is categorised. It sets out again the

    3 counts that he can cover, and it sets out, in the

    4 summary of his evidence, by highlighting, what's the

    5 particularly critical features.

    6 The next section of witnesses begins -- and

    7 so again in this section you go on from those who are

    8 sidelined as important to those who are less.

    9 Then you come to page 47, which is experts

    10 and quasi-experts, similarly dealt with in terms of

    11 whether essential or not.

    12 At page 50, you come to those witnesses who

    13 deal with attacks on villages, and it's broken down

    14 then by localities, not by villages but by localities.

    15 And you can see the localities. And again the strength

    16 of the witnesses or their essential nature is

    17 distinguished by whether they have a bold line beside

    18 their name or not.

    19 That takes us to the end of the document, all

    20 but for the discussion that the Court specifically

    21 referred to when inviting us to provide this document,

    22 which starts at page 85 and is just really three or so

    23 sides of important points to be considered.

    24 I hope you'll find this a document that will

    25 both set out our thinking and our approach to the

  91. 1 witnesses, and in the discussion document, identifies

    2 some of the thorny issues that we've simply got to

    3 grapple with.

    4 JUDGE MAY: And how many essential witnesses

    5 have you identified?

    6 MR. NICE: It's been renumbered in my absence

    7 over the weekend, and I think it comes between 100 and

    8 150. Before you look at the questions of unwilling,

    9 it's about 150, page 3. But as you'll see from the

    10 discussion paper at the end, we're going to invite the

    11 Chamber to say that there is the real need in the

    12 Chamber, and the real potential in the Chamber, for

    13 introducing means by which more evidence can be

    14 properly received in a given time, and that that is the

    15 most important next step for this Chamber to take.

    16 May I simply say to Judge Bennouna, and I

    17 hope I'll be forgiven this late in the afternoon, I

    18 sympathise with him, and it's a matter of great regret,

    19 I think for many of us here in the institution, that in

    20 a bilingual institution, there aren't the facilities

    21 for those who would like to either improve or even

    22 those starting from scratch to become adept in both

    23 languages. Having made that point, it may even sound

    24 like a complaint, I say no more.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, as to that, you must

  92. 1 make your own arrangements.

    2 MR. NICE: Yes. Maybe I have.

    3 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn. Half past 2.00

    4 tomorrow.

    5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

    6 5.51 p.m., to be reconvened on

    7 Tuesday, the 4th day of May, 1999,

    8 at 2.30 p.m.