1 Wednesday, 11 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus

7 Momcilo Krajisnik.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Hannis. I see that you're not

9 alone this morning.

10 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning. We have a new face

11 on our side this morning. To my right is Mr. Fergal Gaynor. Mr. Gaynor

12 appears this morning because he wrote the Prosecution's response to the

13 Defence motion, and in anticipation of dealing with that matter first,

14 I've asked him to join me.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we should start with dealing with that.

16 I'm on page 5. I've not finished reading. I suggest ...

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to the parties that we'll hear oral

19 argument after we have heard the testimony of the 92 bis witnesses.

20 Perhaps we should have informed you in advance in order to avoid that

21 Mr. Gaynor shows up with high expectations.

22 MR. HANNIS: I'm sure they will be met later on, Your Honour. And

23 Ms. Karagiannakis is going to be calling the first witness, and she is in

24 the booth. She'll be right in.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. HANNIS: And we'll be ready for Mr. Dzafic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But there is one other issue we still have to

3 deal with, and that is the exhibits that have been tendered through

4 Witness 018.

5 Madam Registrar, could you guide us.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P30, under seal, the pseudonym

7 sheet; and Exhibit P31, the decision on release from the Batkovic

8 collection centre, dated 21 September 1992; and P31.1, the English

9 translation.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Since I did not hear any objections when they were

11 presented to the witness, and since I do not see any objection or hear any

12 objections at this moment, they are admitted into evidence.

13 We then could give the opportunity to the Prosecution to call its

14 next witness, which would be Mr. Dzafic, if I understood well.

15 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Mr. Dzafic is a 92 bis witness from the

16 Bratunac municipality. He was admitted, subject to cross-examination, by

17 Your Honours' decision of 27th of January 2004, paragraph 8. There are

18 three matters in relation to this witness, Your Honour, that we'd like to

19 address. First, I'd like to read to Your Honours a summary of his

20 evidence.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Second, I'd like to confirm with the witness

23 two clarifications that he has made to his 92 bis statement dated the 20th

24 of June, 2000, after he arrived in The Hague. And finally, Your Honours,

25 I'd like to tender one exhibit that was parted of the witness's 92 bis

1 testimony in Milosevic and ask him a couple of brief questions about that

2 one exhibit.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we are not only dealing with the 92 bis

4 statements but also with the transcript of his testimony given in the

5 Milosevic case.

6 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps for your information in general, if a

8 request is made to receive in evidence a transcript of the testimony of a

9 witness does not automatically include all the exhibits that were referred

10 to during the testimony. So they have to be tendered additionally.

11 They're usually also not attached to the transcript. And the Chamber

12 would like to ask the parties to tender those exhibits that are of great

13 relevance. Sometimes even if a witness is testifying and if exhibits are

14 tendered, it's not always necessary to understand their testimony without,

15 if not all, then some of these exhibits. On the other hand, there may

16 well be exhibits that are of great importance to the testimony and it goes

17 without saying that the Chamber under these circumstances would very much

18 like to have these exhibits tendered into evidence as well. But that's

19 approximately what the Chamber would like to receive.

20 These were the -- you told us about the summary, about additional

21 questions, and about the exhibits. Yes. That's it.

22 Then, Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Dzafic into the

23 courtroom.

24 [The witness entered court]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Dzafic, I think you are. Before

1 giving evidence in this Court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require

2 you to make a solemn declaration. The text of that solemn declaration

3 will be handed out to you by the usher. May I invite you to make that

4 solemn declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 WITNESS: SUAD DZAFIC

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.

10 It appears to me that the witness could hear me in a language he

11 understands.

12 Mr. Krajisnik, I take it, since I didn't hear from you, that the

13 same is true from you. Yes. I see that you are confirming this by

14 nodding.

15 Mr. Dzafic, you'll first be examined by the Prosecution, but since

16 you've given already a statement, and since the Chamber and the parties

17 have read that statement, there will be a short summary of your statement,

18 then some additional questions, perhaps also in respect of the testimony

19 you've given earlier in this Court will be put to you, but most of the

20 questions then will be put to you by Defence counsel.

21 Ms. Karagiannakis, please proceed.

22 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honours. The following is a summary

23 of the witness's evidence.

24 Suad Dzafic is from near Vitkovici, Bratunac municipality. He

25 explains that when he returned from Serbia to his home village -- he

1 explains that he returned from Serbia to his home village in Bratunac

2 municipality in March 1992. He describes firsthand knowledge of the fate

3 of both himself and his fellow villagers. His statement also covers his

4 hearsay knowledge of the takeover of Bratunac town and other Muslim

5 villages in the Bratunac municipality in April and May of 1992. The

6 witness attests that Krasan Polje, a neighbouring village, was attacked on

7 the 10th of May, 1992. The same day, Serb neighbours came and told the

8 witness and his fellow villagers that they would be safer if they fled

9 into the woods. They did flee to the forest but returned the same night.

10 From the 10th to the 18th of May, 1992, Serb police patrolled the

11 village. On the 17th of May, 1992, the chief of police came and asked

12 them to hand in any weapons they owned.

13 On the morning of 18 May 1992, their Serb neighbours who were

14 armed and in camouflage uniforms surrounded the village. Suad Dzafic,

15 along with his fellow villagers, were then put onto buses and transferred

16 to Bratunac.

17 Around 3.00 p.m., the buses left Bratunac and travelled on to

18 Vlasenica. Each bus had an armed guard on board. When they arrived in

19 Vlasenica, they parked near the bus station. The buses were surrounded by

20 a mixed group of soldiers. Suad Dzafic identified some of these guards as

21 being Arkan's Tigers and others as Beli Orlovi. 34 military age men and

22 also five minors were taken to the Vlasenica MUP or SUP prison by

23 soldiers. Two men were taken out of the group. 32 military-aged men and

24 minors were detained there until the 21st of May, 1992. During this time,

25 they were beaten and maltreated by Serb soldiers.

1 On 21st May 1992, the military-aged men were ordered out of the

2 Vlasenica by two policemen and put on a bus. Soldiers then asked the

3 detainees to hand over personal belongings, including money and documents.

4 An armoured vehicle was parked near the bus and four cars also joined the

5 bus. One of these cars had a skull on its doors. Together the vehicles

6 formed a convoy which left Vlasenica in the direction of Bratunac. The

7 convoy stopped in a cafe for about 30 minutes. It continued on in the

8 direction of Bratunac.

9 The convoy then stopped at the entrance of the village of

10 Nova Kasaba and the men were ordered off the bus in groups of about five.

11 As they left the bus they were shot by soldiers using automatic rifles and

12 the machine-gun mounted on the armoured vehicle. Suad Dzafic was in the

13 last group to get off the bus with his brother, two cousins and another

14 male relative. As they stepped out they were hit by gunfire. The witness

15 was hit from both automatic rifles and heavy machine gunfire. He fell to

16 the ground but survived.

17 The witness identified two soldiers who participated in this mass

18 execution, an individual called Makedonac and Pero Mitrovic who had been a

19 neighbour of his in Vitkovici. Immediately after the execution these two

20 individuals looked for and shot the survivors. Suad Dzafic ultimately

21 managed to flee the execution site and reached Muslim-held territory.

22 Your Honours, that concludes the summary. I now have a couple of

23 additional questions. If the witness could be shown his 92 bis

24 declaration in B/C/S and the parties could refer to the English

25 translation of the statement which is attached and dated 20 June 2000.

1 And for ease of reference, I've numbered the paragraphs on the English

2 version.

3 Examined by Ms. Karagiannakis:

4 Q. Mr. Dzafic, can you hear me?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you please confirm that when you came to The Hague, you had an

7 opportunity to review the statement in front of you now.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Could you please refer to paragraph 30 of that statement. Have a

10 look at paragraph 30. It's the third paragraph on page 5 of the English

11 version. Mr. Dzafic, can you please confirm that in relation to paragraph

12 30, the sentence beginning "at some point," that that sentence and the

13 following sentences in that paragraph should be deleted and replaced with

14 the phrase "at some point, soldiers requested us to hand over all our

15 personal belongings, including money and documents. We did so." Can you

16 confirm that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Secondly, can I ask you to look at paragraph 43 of your statement.

19 Can you -- in relation to paragraph 43, can you please confirm that this

20 sentence should be replaced by the sentence: "I was in the last group

21 along with my brother, two cousins, and another male relative. My father

22 had been taken out in a group before me. As we stepped out, we were hit

23 by gunfire."

24 Can you confirm this?

25 A. Yes.

1 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Now, can the witness please be shown the

2 following exhibit, which is a list. Your Honours, I should explain what

3 this exhibit is. As you know, the witness testified in the Milosevic

4 trial, and the relevant parts of the transcript of his testimony was

5 included in the 92 bis package. Milosevic Exhibit 473, titled "List of

6 those killed on 21 May 1992 near Nova Kasaba, Vlasenica municipality,

7 drawn up by Suad Dzafic" was tendered through this witness in his

8 testimony at transcript page number 23212.

9 Your Honours, we seek to have this exhibit given an exhibit number

10 in this case and admitted into evidence, and then I'd like to ask

11 the -- I'd like to ask the witness a couple of questions in relation to

12 the list.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

14 THE REGISTRAR: This list will be Prosecution Exhibit number P32.

15 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:

16 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, does this list in front of you represent the

17 names of people that were related to you or that you knew by name who were

18 shot on the 21st of May, 1992?

19 A. Yes, that is the list. That is the list, but it's not the final

20 list. There were other people there. I drew up this list and included

21 the cousins and the relatives and my neighbours whom I recalled at the

22 time.

23 Q. What is the ethnicity of the people on that list?

24 A. Muslims.

25 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you, Your Honour. That concludes my

1 questions.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Karagiannakis.

3 Is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness?

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

6 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:

7 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic -- Mr. Dzafic, it would help if you looked at me.

8 I'm over here. Now, Mr. Dzafic, if I say something you don't understand

9 or you need time to compose yourself, just let me know. Do you understand

10 that?

11 A. All right.

12 Q. Now, just in relation to your statement, Mr. Dzafic, I think you

13 gave a statement on 20th of June, 2000. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I propose to show the witness the

16 statement and refer to various paragraphs. So I'm just -- there's a copy

17 of the English statement and a copy of the B/C/S statement. I can

18 indicate that the paragraphs are numbered. I would also indicate to

19 Your Honour: Unfortunately, I don't have any further copies this morning

20 for the interpreters and the rest of the Court, because, despite equality

21 of arms, the photocopier in the Defence room wasn't working last night or

22 this morning. But nevertheless, I forwarded this to the witness.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever then comes to reading, would you please do

24 it slowly so that the interpreters --

25 MS. LOUKAS: I will do it very slowly, yes.

1 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, if I may. Sorry. I understand

2 that this is exactly what I've previously tendered to Your Honours, the

3 statement numbered English version, so perhaps for ease of reference, I

4 think it's already been distributed to --

5 JUDGE ORIE: If the interpreters -- it's the 20th of June

6 statement.

7 MS. LOUKAS: It's the 20th of June statement, Your Honour. So if

8 that's already been distributed by the Prosecution, that's more than

9 adequate. But I can -- but does he have a numbered B/C/S version?

10 They're both numbered?

11 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Perhaps we -- I can confirm that I think the

12 numbered paragraphs conclude with the number 60 on the statement

13 dated -- number 60, dated the 20th of June. So if your statement

14 concludes number 60 as well then --

15 MS. LOUKAS: I think the registry is just checking that.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From what I see, we have numbered version of

17 both the English and the B/C/S.

18 MS. LOUKAS: It's just to ensure that they're numbered in exactly

19 the same way. But I think the registry now confirms that. I see some

20 nodding. Thank you.

21 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, you have the statements before you in both

22 English and B/C/S; that's correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, as I mentioned previously, you gave a statement on the 20th

25 of June of the year 2000; correct?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And I think you subsequently gave a further corrections statement.

3 Now, that statement appears to be undated. Do you remember when you gave

4 that corrections statement?

5 A. I don't.

6 Q. And then you gave a further corrections statement on the 10th of

7 February, is that correct, of this year?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And of course you've previously given evidence at this Tribunal on

10 the 26th and the 27th of June, 2003, last year?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, going to your statement, at paragraph 4 -- have you got

13 paragraph 4 in front of you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, you indicate there in paragraph 4 that you'd heard that some

16 Muslim people had been killed by the Bosnian Serb. Do you see that in

17 your statement?

18 A. Yes, I can see that here. But that's where I made the correction.

19 Q. Yes, I understand that you made that second, subsequent correction

20 in relation to that. Yes.

21 Now, but what I want to confirm there in relation to paragraph 4

22 is that this was just information that you'd heard. It obviously wasn't

23 firsthand information. That's correct, is it not?

24 A. No, that's something I heard. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. Now, when we come to paragraph 5, and I think you'd also

1 made a correction in that paragraph as well. Just confirm that. In any

2 event, in relation to paragraph 5, again you say you indicate that

3 you'd -- at the very beginning of April "I heard ..." And then you go on

4 to recite information there. Again, paragraph 5 is information that you'd

5 heard about; it's not firsthand information. That's correct, is it not?

6 A. Yes. That's what I heard.

7 Q. And that's the same for paragraph 6?

8 A. Ask me a question.

9 Q. Yes. That is the same in relation to paragraph 6, that is, that

10 this is information you'd heard about, not information that you'd

11 personally observed, Mr. Dzafic?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The same in relation to paragraph 7, again, that is information

14 that you heard, not information from firsthand knowledge?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And again in relation to paragraph 8, that is information you'd

17 heard from others, not information that you'd acquired personally; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes. That's what I heard. I didn't see it.

20 Q. And also paragraph 9 and 10, the same situation, information that

21 you heard rather than information that you in any way personally

22 witnessed. That's correct, is it not?

23 A. Paragraph 9.

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Paragraph 9, I saw that in my village, because the local Serbs

1 joined the paramilitary units and they established this Serb army.

2 Q. Okay. So paragraph 9, you say there's some personal knowledge

3 there; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, personal knowledge. It's something that I saw and heard.

5 Q. So it's a combination of seeing that and hearing about it as well;

6 is that correct?

7 A. Yes. Yes. It's a combination, because the people, my Serb

8 neighbours, they're also from the municipality of Bratunac.

9 Q. Now, paragraph 10, that's information that is -- you've heard from

10 other people; that's not information that you have personal knowledge

11 about?

12 A. I have to read paragraph 10, because I don't know this off by

13 heart. I have to see what it's about, and then I can say whether it's

14 something I had seen or just heard of.

15 Q. Well, I invite you, Mr. Dzafic, to read paragraph 10.

16 A. Thank you. Yes. I've read it. This is something that I heard

17 about and it's also something that I saw. Everything that it says in this

18 paragraph.

19 Q. So which bits did you see?

20 A. I saw them attacking the village next to mine.

21 Q. That village, are you referring to Krasan Polje?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But that village is two kilometres away from your village; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. So you'd agree you weren't exactly seeing it up close?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Right. In fact, what I think -- I think you indicated in your

4 statement you can see from two kilometres away, you could see houses

5 burning; is that correct? And hear shootings; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. So you saw from two kilometres away houses burning and

8 heard some shootings; right? So that's --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- the extent of what you can rely on your personal knowledge for

11 in paragraph 10; is that correct?

12 A. That's what I saw. I saw that with my own eyes. I saw the houses

13 burning and I heard shooting. I heard about the rest of the villages

14 around Bratunac. But this village, Krasan Polje, I saw that personally

15 with my own eyes as the houses were burning, and I saw the shooting. In

16 my house in the evening, Golub Djurkovic came. He was wearing a uniform.

17 He was wearing the uniform of a Serb police officer. It was a

18 multicoloured uniform. And he told us that he took part in the attack on

19 Krasan Polje that day, and he also named the people who were killed. That

20 is not in the statement, but that's how it was.

21 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, just getting back to my question, and it would

22 really help if you answered my questions, as opposed to going off into

23 other areas. Because if there's anything that needs to be cleared up, the

24 Prosecutor will do that in re-examination. Do you understand that?

25 A. Yes. Yes, I understand that. Please ask me a question and I will

1 reply.

2 Q. Mr. Dzafic, getting back to paragraph 10, so the extent of your

3 personal knowledge in relation to paragraph 10 is that you saw from two

4 kilometres away houses burning and heard shootings; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And obviously, you'd agree with me you couldn't see a lot more

7 than that from two kilometres away.

8 A. Well, I couldn't tell the people apart, but I could see a lot of

9 what was going on there, and I did see what was going on.

10 Q. But as you've indicated, obviously you couldn't tell the people

11 apart; agreed?

12 A. Yes. But with the confirmation of this man who took part in this

13 himself, I found out who else took part in this.

14 Q. I understand that. But again, Mr. Dzafic, we have to be able to

15 determine what is your own personal knowledge and what is information

16 you've just heard from other people. Do you understand that?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if the witness explains and if you make a

19 clear distinction between firsthand knowledge and what is hearsay, if the

20 witness would like to explain his position, he should be entitled to do

21 so. Please proceed.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, paragraph 11, that's also information you've just

24 heard about and not information that you personally witnessed; is that

25 correct?

1 A. Yes. This is the village of Glogova. This is something that I

2 heard.

3 Q. And in relation to these various aspects that you cover in

4 paragraphs 4 to 11 of your statement, the things you heard from other

5 people, do you remember who these people were?

6 A. That I heard that from. I don't remember. I mentioned a little

7 bit earlier one person whom I heard some things from. Then I also heard

8 from my father about one man from Bratunac who was killed. His name was

9 Sulco.

10 Q. Right. So you've nominated earlier in your evidence a person that

11 you heard something from in relation to these paragraphs 4 to 11, and

12 you've also nominated something that your father said to you.

13 A. Yes. My father told me that this Sulco was killed.

14 Q. Right. But you don't remember the other people who they were that

15 you heard things from, other than these two people you've nominated: Your

16 father and this other man. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes. I don't remember the people who told me about these things

18 that we have covered so far.

19 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, if I could just take you to paragraph 28 of your

20 statement. Have you got that in front of you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Mr. Dzafic, I'm going to ask you some questions about paragraph

23 28, so if you'd like to take some minutes to read it prior to my asking

24 you the questions. Okay?

25 A. I've read it.

1 Q. You've read that now, Mr. Dzafic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, you've indicated there in that particular paragraph that:

4 "On the morning of the 21st, a Serb in camouflage uniform came to the

5 cell and told us that we would have survived for one more day, we would

6 have been safe."

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Now, what was the purpose of that particular man's visit to the

9 cell?

10 A. I can explain to you now what his intention was. He came in

11 uniform. He didn't have a weapon on him. He opened the door to our cell

12 and he stood inside the door, and he was talking to us. And he said: "If

13 you survive one more day, you will most probably be safe. Because those

14 people who are supposed to do all the killings, they are paid up to the

15 31st of May, or up to June, and they will be withdrawing from the field."

16 Q. Yes. You've indicated that in your statement, and you've

17 indicated there that this particular soldier gave you that information.

18 Now, so basically your evidence there is that a man you didn't know -- is

19 that correct? You'd never met him before, this man?

20 A. No. No.

21 Q. So this man, a man you've never met before, a Serb in camouflage

22 uniform, comes up and gives you that information; is that correct? That's

23 your evidence?

24 A. Yes. Yes.

25 Q. So he basically turns up out of nowhere to announce this important

1 information to you; is that correct?

2 A. I don't know where he came from. He just came to this door, and

3 he was standing inside the open door and he was talking to us, but I don't

4 know where he had come from.

5 Q. You had never seen him before and he gave you this information; is

6 that correct?

7 A. No, I had never seen him before.

8 Q. And then in that same paragraph, Mr. Dzafic, you indicate that:

9 "I already knew, as I was told by some other Serb soldiers, that those

10 paramilitary units had been hired by SDS leadership members of Bratunac,

11 with the precise duty to kill as many Muslims as they can."

12 Do you see that sentence in your paragraph 28?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Now, who were these other Serb soldiers?

15 A. I didn't know them.

16 Q. So you didn't know them either; is that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And these other Serb soldiers that you've referred to there, when

19 did they convey that information to you?

20 A. I cannot remember, but they told us that day. This was 12 or 13

21 years ago, so I cannot really remember such things.

22 Q. So you cannot remember when in relation to the events that

23 information was given to you; is that correct?

24 A. Well, I remember that day, the 21st of May, that same day.

25 Q. And is it possible for you to recollect now whether it was a

1 matter of hours or a matter of days when these other Serb soldiers who you

2 don't know gave you that information?

3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Objection, Your Honour. The witness has

4 already said on two occasions that he was given that information on that

5 same day, and the question was: Was it a matter of hours or days from

6 when he was first provided with the information.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to that, he hasn't

8 indicated that. If one checks the transcript. He said he didn't remember

9 when that information had been received, as I read the transcript.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Line 19 reads: "Well, I remember that day, the 21st

11 of May, that same day."

12 MS. LOUKAS: No, he says he remembers that day, but I don't think

13 his answer implied that that was the day he received that second lot of

14 information from unknown soldiers.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That same day you understand it that way. You could

16 understand it in two different ways. Just to better understand your

17 testimony at this moment, the information you got from the other soldiers,

18 did you -- was your testimony that you received that on that same day or

19 could it have been the day before or two days before?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All on the same day. I received the

21 information on the 21st of May, the same day that soldier told us if we

22 survived one more day, we will be saved, we will survive. I received that

23 other information on the same day.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. So on this day, the 21st of May, a Serb in camouflage uniform

2 comes to the cell and provides that information about you'll survive for

3 one -- if you survive for one more day, you'll be all right. I'm

4 paraphrasing here. Because the people responsible for the killings in

5 Bratunac are about to leave and they've only been paid until the end of

6 May. Right? So that's the first bit of information you get from an

7 unknown Serb, is that correct, on the 21st of May?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then you say that you were told on the same day, by some other

10 unknown Serbs, that those paramilitary units had been hired by SDS

11 leadership members of Bratunac, with the precise duty to kill as many

12 Muslims as they can. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. So on the 21st of May, you receive this information and

15 both from people you don't know -- I think that basically summarises the

16 position. Is that correct?

17 A. I got the information from people that I don't know. I don't know

18 them by name. These were people in uniforms. The uniform was the uniform

19 of the Serb police and military. There were all kinds of uniforms there.

20 These were not people in civilian clothing who came.

21 Q. Okay. Now, these people who you say gave you the information

22 about the duty to kill as many Muslims as they can, what were they

23 wearing?

24 A. Multicoloured uniforms.

25 Q. What sort of colours?

1 A. Green and ... Camouflage uniforms. They were multicoloured. They

2 had green on it and ...

3 Q. So these people that told you these things were men in camouflage

4 uniforms; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So all the people that told you the things that you've got in your

7 paragraph 28 were all unknown Serbs in camouflage uniform; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, just in relation to your statement that you gave

11 on the 20th of June, and of course it is the situation that you've given

12 two subsequent correction statements as well, but I just want to take you

13 specifically now to your statement of 20th of June. Do you understand

14 that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, when your statement was taken, Mr. Dzafic, there was, of

17 course, somebody there taking notes?

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer of the

19 witness.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Dzafic, you might have to move closer to the

21 microphone, because when you say "da," and you're a little further from

22 the microphone, the interpreter can't hear it and it doesn't come back

23 through the transcript.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, you could perhaps adjust the direction

25 of the microphones a bit.

1 Please proceed.

2 MS. LOUKAS:

3 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, when that statement was taken, of course you

4 appreciated that the Prosecution needed your testimony to investigate the

5 things that had happened to you; that's correct, is it not?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And of course to find the people responsible; that's correct, is

8 it not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And of course that they needed your signature on that statement to

11 prosecute the people who had done these terrible things to you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And of course, after what had happened to you, you knew how

14 important it was to tell the truth; that's correct, is it not?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And that now was the time to tell the truth; that's correct, is it

17 not?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in fact, the truth would have been burning inside you; that's

20 correct, is it not, Mr. Dzafic?

21 A. Could you please explain what you mean when you say "burning

22 inside me"?

23 Q. Well, you lost some very important people in your life, did you

24 not, Mr. Dzafic?

25 A. Yes. I lost two brothers, my father, and other relatives.

1 Q. So what I'm putting to you is that, in view of all that had

2 happened, that the truth would have been burning inside you and you would

3 want to tell the Prosecution the truth about everything that happened.

4 Would you agree with that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So you wanted to tell them the truth about everything you knew?

7 A. Yes. What I saw and what I went through also.

8 Q. And of course, you gave a very detailed statement. You gave a

9 very detailed statement, Mr. Dzafic; that's correct, is it not?

10 A. Do you mean did I say everything that I wanted to say? Is that

11 what you mean?

12 Q. No. I'm asking you if you consider your statement to be detailed.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And how many hours did it take to conduct the interview?

15 A. I don't remember.

16 Q. Do you remember if it took a whole day or half a day?

17 A. Well, it was finished, more or less, in one day.

18 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, the interviewers, of course, were very careful

19 with you in writing down what you had to say; is that correct?

20 A. Probably.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, what about coming to your point. Please

22 proceed.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. In any event, Mr. Dzafic, you had a chance to read the entire

25 statement before you signed it; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And when you signed that statement, you were asked whether

3 everything was true?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you were asked whether there was anything you could add; is

6 that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, going to paragraph 4 in your statement. Now,

9 Mr. Dzafic, I realise that you've subsequently corrected this in another

10 statement, but what's stated there, is it not, is that: "In March 1992, I

11 heard that some Muslim people had been killed by the Bosnian Serb in

12 Bascarsija, Sarajevo." Do you see that there?

13 A. I can see that. But that's where I made a correction. A killing

14 happened, but who killed who, I don't know.

15 Q. Yes. And I think you actually gave evidence of that in the trial

16 against Mr. Milosevic. That's correct, is it not?

17 A. It is.

18 Q. You said: "Well, I don't know who killed who. I just heard that a

19 killing had taken place." You'd agree with that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So even though you didn't know who killed who, you put in your

22 statement that you'd heard some Muslim people had been killed by Bosnian

23 Serb. That's the situation, is it not, Mr. Dzafic?

24 A. Yes, that's what it says in this statement.

25 Q. And that's in fact wrong, Mr. Dzafic, isn't it?

1 A. Yes. This is not correct. It's inaccurate, and I made a

2 correction. I was not sure at first. I knew that the killing happened,

3 but who killed who, I don't know.

4 Q. But even though you didn't know who killed who, what you put in

5 your statement was that it was Muslim people that had been killed by

6 Bosnian Serbs; correct?

7 A. Yes. That's what I said, but then I corrected it.

8 Q. I understand that. But all I'm saying is what appears in your

9 statement is what appears in your statement, Mr. Dzafic. You'd agree with

10 that; yes?

11 A. Yes. But even if you take a statement ten times, ten times you

12 will not be able to take the same statement. It's not a song that you

13 learn by heart and then recite it. It's not a poem. It's an experience

14 that you cannot describe every time the same way.

15 Q. So when you don't know something, Mr. Dzafic, you just assume that

16 it's Muslim people being killed by Bosnian Serbs, do you?

17 A. Yes. That's what it says in the statement.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, it took you quite some time to come to

19 your point, and now your problem is to get away from your point again.

20 You made your point.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I wasn't going to go any

22 further on that particular point.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But perhaps next time halfway would be

24 sufficient for a non-lay Bench.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I understand that

1 Your Honour would prefer me to do it faster and not in the jury manner.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was perfectly clear, I would say, after one

3 or two questions, it was already clear from what we read in the Milosevic

4 testimony, that the statement of the witness in this respect was

5 incorrect, and what -- I think the point you'd like to make is that if

6 someone hears about an event, he interprets that event according to what

7 he expects, perhaps, it has been, and that was clear already after the

8 first one or two questions.

9 Please proceed.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Now, taking you now to paragraph 25 and 26, Mr. Dzafic. Do you

12 have those paragraphs before you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, there you indicate -- would you like an opportunity to

15 quickly read those paragraphs?

16 A. Yes, I will.

17 I've read it.

18 Q. Now, just to confirm what you're saying there, you're saying that

19 there were 32 of you locked in a cell of 3 by 5 metres; is that correct?

20 A. Yes. 32 plus five minors. That's a total of 37.

21 Q. So -- and you've indicated there that in this room of 32 plus five

22 minors, you were beaten by five Serb soldiers; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, that's an exaggeration, is it not?

25 A. What's an exaggeration?

1 Q. That in a room of 3 metres by 5 metres, 32 men plus 5 minors were

2 beaten by 5 Serbs.

3 A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, that's possible. Everything's possible.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Dzafic, of course everything's possible, but this

5 Tribunal is trying to find the truth.

6 Now, Mr. Dzafic --

7 A. That is the truth. What I said is the truth. The room was

8 approximately 3 by 5 metres. We were 37. Five soldiers came to beat us.

9 Half of the room was empty when they came to beat us. That means that 37

10 of us fit into only half the room.

11 Q. And just in relation to your paragraph 28, if you would just have

12 a look at that, paragraph 28 of your statement.

13 A. Yes. We've been through this.

14 Q. I know.

15 A. And we described it the way it was. Do you want me to repeat it?

16 Q. No, I don't. You'd better wait for the question.

17 Mr. Dzafic, paragraph 28 is also an exaggeration, is it not?

18 A. No. No, certainly not. That's something I lived through and

19 survived.

20 MS. LOUKAS: No further questions, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.

22 Is there any need to re-examine the witness?

23 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Just a few brief questions, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

25 Re-examined by Ms. Karagiannakis:

1 Q. Witness, could you please look at paragraph 5 of your statement.

2 From what source did you hear of -- hear about the takeover of Zvornik?

3 A. I heard reports on television, and the only television we could

4 receive in my village was TV Belgrade. So I heard from the media.

5 Q. All right. In relation to paragraphs 6 and 7, I think you

6 mentioned in relation to those that your father told you about the murder

7 of one Sulco. Can you tell us what your father -- where your father was

8 working -- can you tell us where your father was working in April and May

9 of 1992?

10 A. He wasn't working at all in May. In the beginning of April, he

11 did work, in the factory called 9th October, in Bratunac municipality.

12 Q. In which town was that factory?

13 A. Bratunac municipality.

14 Q. But was it Bratunac town in Bratunac municipality or was it some

15 other town?

16 A. Well, it's far from --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

18 A. It's two kilometres away from the centre of town.

19 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:

20 Q. All right. And what did he tell you about the death of Sulco?

21 A. He didn't see this killing. He heard from others that Sulco was

22 taken away and detained, arrested, and taken to the Drina River and

23 killed. So he passed on to me the information that he had from others.

24 Q. All right. Now, if you look at paragraph 8, what's the source of

25 your information for people being detained at the Vuk Karadzic Primary

1 School?

2 A. You mean from whom I heard this?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. From people. I heard people saying that some people from villages

5 were taken to the football field. A part of them were taken to the

6 Vuk Karadzic School. And I heard this from people who survived the

7 detention in the Vuk Karadzic School.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to paragraph 10, if you have a look

9 at paragraph 10.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What sort of view did you have from your village to the village of

12 Krasan Polje?

13 A. I had a good view. It was about two kilometres away. My village

14 was slightly higher, and this lay in a clearing, no obstacles, and you

15 could see everything. You could see people walking. That's the kind of

16 view I had. It was a good vantage point.

17 Q. And in relation to your evidence regarding paragraph 10, you said

18 you couldn't tell the people apart. Now, -- and you just said you were

19 able to see people. Were you able to see what people were wearing?

20 A. No. That I could not see. I was able to see people, but I could

21 not distinguish who they were. I could not tell who they were, nor could

22 I tell how they were dressed.

23 Q. You also mentioned being told about takeovers from

24 Golub Djurkovic. Could you tell us who he is?

25 A. What do you mean?

1 Q. Well, did you know him before the war?

2 A. Yes. He was a neighbour of mine.

3 Q. And what was his ethnicity?

4 A. Serb.

5 Q. And what did he tell you?

6 A. On that day, the 10th of May, in the evening, he came to see us,

7 along with a couple of other neighbours. We were sitting and talking over

8 drinks. He told us what was going on in Krasan Polje and he started

9 saying that in Krasan Polje, people were expelled, some of them were

10 killed. We asked why, and he replied: "They were nationalists, they had

11 weapons in their possession."

12 Q. Did you know what the -- did you know or did he tell you what the

13 ethnicity of the people that were killed and expelled were?

14 A. They were of Muslim ethnicity.

15 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Karagiannakis.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I've got one question for you.

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE ORIE: You've told us that you got information from others

21 about the people who were supposed to kill as much as they could and that

22 you received that information on that same day. Were you told this when

23 you were in this cell together with others, or was it outside the cell?

24 What were the circumstances under which you received that information?

25 A. We were inside the cell. People would open the door of the cell

1 and stand in the doorway, between the cell, that is, and the hallway. And

2 standing in the doorway, they would start a conversation. And on one

3 occasion, they told us that those were the orders. Because this was

4 happening in the neighbouring municipality, Vlasenica, and those people

5 were probably from Vlasenica. And they told us: Your people from

6 Bratunac municipality ordered that as many Muslims as possible should be

7 killed and that should be done by the group who was in charge of this and

8 paid to do this. And this should be done by the beginning of June, and

9 then they would withdraw. And they were probably talking about

10 paramilitary units. Because at my own execution, what I saw at my own

11 execution --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please continue.

13 A. What I saw at my own execution were those soldiers who wore the

14 insignia of White Eagles. I also noticed markings on a vehicle, skulls

15 and the writing "White Eagles," as well "Arkan's men," and there are also

16 Tigers. I saw such insignia on one sabotage platoon. A man I knew was

17 also a member of the police in Belgrade. And when we saw him, we were

18 happy. We thought we would be exchanged or released. Because he had

19 spent so many vacations together with us in our village, which was his

20 home village. He was born there, and he moved as a young man to Sabac, in

21 Serbia. That's where he probably finished school and worked in Belgrade

22 as a policeman. His name was Pero Mitrovic.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me stop you here, not because it might not

24 be interesting to hear, but I think you could go on telling us about what

25 happened for many hours. I was mainly interested to hear about under what

1 circumstances you got the information from the other people.

2 Did there ever come to your cell anyone who you did not regard as

3 someone who was in charge of keeping you in detention, outsiders?

4 A. I don't quite understand your question. You mean did somebody

5 come from outside who would not do a thing like that, who would not keep

6 us in prison?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Who was not involved in keeping you in prison.

8 A. I didn't know those people, and I did not see them at the

9 execution. Those people who came were not carrying weapons, and there

10 were other people who were beating us. I cannot know who the people were

11 who were not ... I cannot know their intentions.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're not quite sure about the specific

13 position and function of those people who came to your cell.

14 A. The people who told us this ... People would come in. One set of

15 people would come in to beat us. There were two men whom I didn't know

16 but whom I remembered, and I later knew -- found out their names. The

17 other people would just stand in the doorway and, through a conversation,

18 they related to us this piece of information. If you mean some people who

19 held positions in the municipality, I don't know whether those people held

20 positions in the municipality or not.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I've not been clear enough. Did you consider

22 those people who came to you and had these conversations with you all to

23 belong to the group, unit, whatever you call it, that was in charge of

24 keeping you in detention?

25 A. I don't know to which units they belonged, but they were wearing

1 uniforms. I can't see what's going on in their minds. I don't know

2 whether they were in charge of keeping us detained. I couldn't read their

3 minds.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your answers. Mr. Dzafic, unless

5 the -- one of the parties would have any question in relation to questions

6 by the Bench --

7 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, I don't have any questions.

8 JUDGE ORIE: This concludes your testimony in this Court. I'd

9 like to thank you very much for coming and giving answers to questions of

10 both parties and of the Bench, and I hope that you have a safe trip home

11 again.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please escort the witness out of the

14 courtroom.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we are at five minutes -- 25 minutes past 10.00.

17 I'd first like to deal with the exhibits shown to this witness. I do

18 understand on your list there are also some non-exhibits, which is ... So

19 I will disregard them. On the other hand, there might be some problem if

20 these statements are not exhibits. If it would ever come to a hearing in

21 the Appeals Chamber, then of course all the reference to paragraphs is not

22 the most easy one. We will consider how to find a solution for that.

23 Perhaps if the parties would agree that 92 bis statements could be

24 provided with paragraph numbering, which really facilitates the

25 examination of the witnesses, then we should find a way of introducing

1 these paragraph numbers. But how technically to do it, because they have

2 been tendered already -- they have been submitted already. Decisions are

3 taken already in respect of their admission. On the other hand, I do not

4 know whether --

5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in this instance, I think the

6 best approach would be for the exhibits to be tendered by the Defence,

7 with the numbered paragraphs, in light of the cross-examination.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would be a solution. But it doubles,

9 approximately, the amount of paper, and as one of my former colleagues

10 always said, it saves half a forest if you stop copying halfway. We'll

11 consider how to do it.

12 MS. LOUKAS: In terms of future arrangements for 92 bis witnesses,

13 Your Honour, I think it would be very useful to have the numbered

14 paragraphs from here on in.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As long as it is clear what has been added in a

16 later stage, and what was original in the 92 bis statement, and if the

17 parties would agree on that, it would certainly help.

18 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that the Rule

19 92 bis actually requires that in the B/C/S version is numbered, so the

20 issue then becomes the numbering, the appropriate numbering of the English

21 translation, but as Your Honour said --

22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll find a solution for that.

23 But at this moment, Madam Registrar, could you guide us through

24 the, not the non-exhibits, but the exhibits.

25 THE REGISTRAR: There is one exhibit, Exhibit P32 is the list of

1 witnesses -- sorry, the list of persons killed on 21 May 1992, compiled by

2 the witness.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I've heard no

4 objections. Therefore, P32 is admitted into evidence. It's of no use to

5 call the next witness. We'll adjourn until 10 minutes --

6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I make a couple of comments before

7 we do. One, Your Honour, I must say, although it's water under the

8 bridge, I'm coming fairly new to this Tribunal, it's with absolute

9 amazement that we realise all the years this Tribunal has been in

10 operation it never seems to have occurred to anybody that it might be

11 helpful actually to have the 92 bis statements or the potential 92 bis

12 statements prepared with paragraph numbering in the first place. But

13 given that apparently over many, many years hasn't occurred to anybody, we

14 wonder whether it is possible simply to have some of them -- to have the

15 numbering done on a word processor rather than everybody have to keep

16 adding numbering. Apparently, according to my learned friend in the B/C/S

17 version it's done, so there's hardly an issue about the numbering because

18 it's going to match the B/C/S versions. But it's a technical matter, but

19 certainly we entirely endorse Your Honour's comments that anything that

20 prevents the need for even more extensive photocopying would be extremely

21 welcome.

22 My second comment is only this, intended to be helpful to the

23 Tribunal, as indeed was that one, which is that in case Your Honours are

24 spending time on the motion, I have made clear to the Prosecution this

25 morning that we are - in the light of the response, we've considered the

1 matter carefully overnight - we are no longer going to press for the

2 evidence of Mr. Deronjic to be completely excluded. Our submissions on

3 this matter are going to be in relation to the timing of his evidence in

4 relation to his imminent sentencing, and I've made that clear to

5 Mr. Hannis before the Tribunal sat this morning. So I didn't want

6 Your Honour and Your Honour's colleagues to spend any time on an

7 unnecessary issue.

8 The third point is this, Your Honour: That there is in relation to

9 the next witness, Mr. Dubicic, there is some further ground which is

10 proposed by the Prosecution to be covered, since he has arrived in

11 The Hague to give evidence, the Prosecution have obtained some further

12 information from him which has been given to us in the form of an

13 addendum. I'm not quite sure what's being handed up at the moment to the

14 Tribunal.

15 JUDGE ORIE: What is handed up is -- at least it appears on the

16 list as being two non-exhibits, and it might relate to what you're

17 addressing at this moment.

18 MR. STEWART: Well, I think not, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Supplementary information sheet dated the 10th of

20 February 2004.

21 MR. STEWART: Oh, I see. Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And the other one is the summary.

23 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour it would be more appropriate if

24 that information were not handed to the Tribunal.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I only have looked at the front page.

1 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ... That's why I

2 asked the question.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. STEWART: Because the very next page, the next two pages are

5 precisely that information and it would, although Your Honours are not a

6 jury and of course have that worldwide judicial ability to exclude from

7 your minds material which has been received into your mind, it's still

8 better for Your Honours not to receive the information in the first place

9 if that can be managed. The -- but the practical point is this,

10 Your Honour: That without going into it at all, it does require me to

11 have an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Krajisnik this matter. Therefore,

12 I'm --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Usually an arrangement can be made during the breaks

14 to meet with Mr. Krajisnik. So if that would enable you to at least to

15 clarify your own position. I do understand that if new issues are

16 suggested on such short notice, that the Defence should have time to

17 prepare for it. Since I do not know what it is about, apart from that

18 it's supplemental information, I haven't looked any further, I invite you

19 to see whether and to seek the assistance to meet with Mr. Krajisnik

20 during the break, and then see how we proceed after the break.

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, simply going to ask if we could at this

22 stage, could we possibly have an additional ten minutes and that would

23 enable me as a preliminary matter just to see what's needed because it may

24 or may not take a long time.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then adjourn until 11.00.

1 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

3 --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for being back later than

5 announced.

6 In respect of the next witness, I still haven't opened it,

7 Mr. Stewart. Perhaps we should first hear from the Prosecution what makes

8 it so urgent to add anything to the subject matter of the testimony. But

9 before inviting you to do so, is my recollection correct that the

10 Prosecution opposed against calling this witness for cross-examination?

11 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Then please explain to us, also perhaps in view of

13 your answer to the last question, what makes it so important to add to the

14 subject matter.

15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. When this

16 witness arrived earlier in the week, in sitting with him to proof him for

17 his testimony before you, he indicated that he had some information,

18 particularly regarding this accused, that he had had some personal

19 dealings with him, a couple of phone conversations and a meeting. None of

20 that was in his prior statement, that was something that we were unaware

21 of. That seemed to be information that was particularly pertinent to this

22 case. After finishing talking with him, we typed that up in the statement

23 that you haven't looked at yet but that we sent to Defence counsel last

24 night.

25 It seems to be something that is in the nature of the way we have

1 investigated and prosecuted case here. A statement sometimes was taken, I

2 think in this case, it was 1999, but we have statements from some

3 witnesses that were taken in 1995 and 1996, when the focus of the

4 investigation was just trying to get a rough idea of what had happened, as

5 opposed to focussing on a particular individual accused.

6 In this case, we proposed this witness's statement as a 92 bis

7 statement because he had general information about the municipality of

8 Bratunac and certain events that had occurred there, but there was nothing

9 in his statement about his knowledge of or his dealings with this

10 particular accused. When he was here, it just seemed like something that

11 I would be -- or any representative from my office would be derelict in

12 our duty if we didn't at least inquire whether or not he had any personal

13 knowledge about this accused or any dealings with him. And in the course

14 of doing that, that's when we learned this information. We feel it's

15 pertinent and we propose it. If the Defence needs more time in light of

16 the late revelation of this, we certainly can't disagree with that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what is the position of the Defence?

18 MR. STEWART: It's this, Your Honour: We say that this addition

19 should not be allowed to the evidence. We can understand completely the

20 practical reasons why initially when the statement was taken it did not

21 focus specifically on Mr. Krajisnik. We understand that. This one was

22 1999, but of course that was the year before Mr. Krajisnik was arrested,

23 whatever the position might have been thought to be as far as

24 Mr. Krajisnik's future was concerned. But the -- but it's not as if the

25 arrival of the witness in The Hague is the only opportunity to raise what,

1 in the light of Mr. Krajisnik's indictment nearly four years ago now, is a

2 very obvious question to raise: Has there been any contact or

3 communication between you, Witness, and Mr. Krajisnik? After all, there

4 is contact with the witness. Otherwise it would be impossible to actually

5 get him here to The Hague. And it's a very simple inquiry to make in

6 writing. In the first place, the inquiry can simply be: Has there any

7 been contact or was they any contact or communication between you and

8 Mr. Krajisnik? If the answer is no, then it's the end of the question.

9 If the answer is yes, and it's important, then it can be followed up in

10 good time.

11 So while clearly the aim of this Tribunal is not to unnecessarily

12 punish or penalise parties for any oversights in the preparation of a

13 case, there are limits, and it is really entirely different aspect of

14 evidence to bring in direct contact with the accused. Now, I'm not saying

15 it's in principle unmanageable, because of course it isn't, Your Honour.

16 We could, given time, handle the matter. We would need time to do that.

17 I do make that clear and the Prosecution acknowledge it. But we do say,

18 and of course Your Honour's question is pertinent as well. After all, in

19 a sense, it's only accidental, as far as the Prosecution is concerned,

20 that this opportunity to ask this question of this particular witness has

21 arisen at all. They didn't want him to come to The Hague at all. It's

22 only because we wished to cross-examine him that he's got here.

23 I don't criticise him for asking the question at this stage given

24 that they haven't asked it before. That's not the point. Of course, as

25 Mr. Hannis correctly says, better late than never, as I paraphrase what

1 he's saying. Dereliction of duty if they didn't ask it at this very late

2 stage. But it is, we say, too late, and it is inappropriate in this

3 particular case that this significant addition. By way of contact with

4 Mr. Krajisnik, not alluded to in the previous statements at all should be

5 allowed.

6 Your Honour, the point is a short one. There's really no more to

7 say than that, except that yes, if we were to have to deal with this, then

8 we would need more time.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And just to be very practical and not preluding

10 on any decisions as the Chamber has not discussed the matter at this

11 moment, how much additional time would that be?

12 MR. STEWART: It's -- what I did, of course, as Your Honour

13 appreciates, I had a quick run-through of the points with Mr. Krajisnik

14 just to get an indication. There are one or two areas we would need to

15 explore in more detail. It may be that we could cover the ground

16 satisfactorily in about an hour. I say that with some reservation,

17 Your Honour, because after all when it's a question of somebody saying

18 that they spoke to Mr. Krajisnik on a particular occasion - I'm not being

19 so secretive about the content of this, it makes sense to give some broad

20 indication - they spoke to Mr. Krajisnik on a particular occasion, or they

21 met Mr. Krajisnik on a particular occasion, of course that does raise the

22 possibility that in order to be satisfied, because with due respect to

23 Mr. Dubicic, it wouldn't follow necessarily that Mr. Krajisnik might

24 remember everybody that he had met. With no disrespect to Mr. Dubicic, we

25 accept this element of the case that Mr. Krajisnik was a rather more

1 significant figure in Bosnia than Mr. Dubicic. Personal lives.

2 So Mr. Krajisnik may not remember and that may require us to check

3 so that -- so I don't know that that's not an additional difficulty for

4 us. But I would at least hope that we would be able to deal with all or

5 most of the matters and with a bit of luck sufficiently in about one hour.

6 That's best estimate at the moment, Your Honour. That's all I can really

7 say.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One of the hesitations, of course, this Chamber

9 might have is that to properly assess the importance of this addition

10 would depend on the information the witness could provide, and since the

11 Defence invited us not to look at it, so we only know that there has been

12 a contact, it could have been a birthday party, it could have been that

13 you meet someone in a shop, shopping at the same time. It could be

14 anything. So therefore, I'm not -- I fully understand the position of the

15 Defence. I don't look into the information. But I think the Defence also

16 should be aware of the handicaps this could cause the Chamber to deal

17 with.

18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, perhaps I might say straight away - if

19 I may interrupt Your Honour, only to help the Tribunal - is to say that

20 our initial reaction, of course, before we spoke to Mr. Krajisnik at all

21 was to ask the Tribunal not to look at it simply out of a matter of

22 precaution. In fact, I don't take that position now in the light of

23 Your Honour's observation. We would be content for the Tribunal briefly

24 to look at this outline in order to get the feel of it. Because it's more

25 a question really of what lies beyond it that is perhaps the issue.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a matter, I think, the Chamber should

2 consider, not just by bending to the left and bending to the right. We'll

3 adjourn for, I would say, anything between five and ten minutes.

4 --- Break taken at 11.19 a.m.

5 --- Upon commencing at 11.41 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the clock, you could say that the Chamber

7 took twice the time it indicated. You also could say that it took only

8 ten minutes more.

9 We have considered the matter. We have looked into the additional

10 information we could expect from this witness if examined on what appears

11 in the supplemental information sheet. The Chamber is not of the opinion

12 that it is irrelevant. Neither is the Chamber of the opinion that it

13 would have no probative value. But for introducing new elements at such a

14 late stage, the threshold should be far higher. Information should be of

15 such a relevance that it would justify this new course to take.

16 Having looked at the information, it would mainly confirm, if that

17 would be the testimony of the witness, that Mr. Krajisnik was aware of

18 what happened in Kravica, which might not be a great surprise, given the

19 attention perhaps these events might have got at that time. But apart

20 from that, it doesn't say much more than that. One even could wonder

21 whether there are not elements in the statement that could be also in

22 favour of the Defence. Therefore, the Chamber has concluded that there's

23 no need and it will not allow the Prosecution to ask additional questions

24 on the issue. If, however, the Defence would like to cross-examine the

25 witness on any of the information contained in this supplemental

1 information sheet, the Defence should indicate so, and under those

2 circumstances, of course, the Prosecution should be allowed to put

3 additional questions on that as well.

4 So it's put in the hands of the Defence whether the information is

5 of such relevance that it would like to elicit more information from the

6 witness on the issue, thus opening the door for the Prosecution to put

7 questions in this respect as well.

8 That's our ruling.

9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Then we're ready to call,

10 then, our next witness, Mr. Dubicic.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules of

16 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that

17 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And

18 the text of this declaration is now handed out to you by the usher. May I

19 invite you to make that solemn declaration.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

21 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nothing but the

22 truth.

23 WITNESS: NIJAZ DUBICIC

24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much. Please be seated.

1 Mr. Dubicic, since you have already been interviewed before by

2 investigators of the Prosecution, and since the Chamber has read your

3 statement, your statement will just be summarised so that it's known to

4 the public as well what your statement was about. You'll then not be

5 examined any further by the Prosecution, but you'll be cross-examined by

6 Defence counsel.

7 Mr. Hannis, please proceed.

8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. And if I may make a request,

9 I intended to read out that summary that the Court has. There were four

10 questions I wanted to ask him concerning his statement.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Some brief questions. If it's not entering new

12 grounds and if it's just small clarifications, you're allowed to do so.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 With regard to this witness, the summary is as follows: The

15 witness was born in Bratunac municipality and lived there until he left

16 with the start of the war in April 1992. The population of Bratunac was

17 33.750, of which about 63 per cent were Bosniaks and 33 per cent were

18 Serbs.

19 In the 1990 elections, the SDA party won 51 per cent of the vote

20 and the SDS got 31 per cent. The executive positions in the municipality

21 were divided evenly, three and three. The witness was chosen president of

22 Bratunac municipality. The local SDS president was Miroslav Deronjic.

23 This witness describes two separate incidents in August 1991 in

24 which he successfully resisted efforts of the army and local Serbs to

25 seize mobilisation records from the municipality and his discussion with

1 Miroslav Deronjic about that.

2 On 3 September 1991, two Bosniaks were killed in the village of

3 Kravica. On 4 September, Radovan Karadzic was on television, saying that

4 no municipal or republican officials were permitted to approach Kravica.

5 Miroslav Deronjic also stated that it was impossible for republic-level

6 inspectors to go to Kravica to investigate.

7 On 5 September 1991, a republic-level delegation, including

8 Nikola Koljevic, came to Bratunac. Only Koljevic was invited to speak to

9 the Serb people in Kravica. Around this time, the witness had information

10 that weapons were being distributed to Serb houses during the night. By

11 April 1992, Miroslav Deronjic had formed a Bratunac SDS Crisis Staff but

12 had relocated it to nearby Ljubovija in Serbia.

13 Some 4.000 to 5.000 soldiers were stationed there. Heavy

14 artillery pointed towards Bratunac, was positioned in the hills above

15 Ljubovija.

16 On 4 April 1992, the Bratunac assembly passed a decision allowing

17 Serbs to create their own police force. Local Serbs began setting up

18 barricades and checkpoints with armed guards in villages such as Kravica

19 and Polom.

20 On 17 April 1992, the witness was advised by the head of the

21 police that there was "some sort of army" inside Bratunac town.

22 Miroslav Deronjic eventually came and told this witness that he,

23 Mr. Dubicic, was to go to the Hotel Fontana for a meeting. The witness,

24 accompanied by local SDA president Dzevad Gusic and two other Muslims went

25 to the hotel. There they saw armed men, paramilitaries from Arkan's and

1 Seselj's units.

2 Miroslav Deronjic pointed out the commander of these troops. This

3 man had a white eagle insignia and the words "Serbian army" on his

4 uniform. The witness later learned that this unit had the name

5 "Slaughterers of Vukovar Battlefield." This commander told the witness

6 that it was his, the commander's, duty to take over the town, because it

7 had been planned that Bratunac would become part of Republika Srpska. The

8 commander told the Muslim delegation that if they didn't want to surrender

9 weapons and legal authorities in peace, then he could enter the town with

10 4.000 soldiers who were waiting in nearby Ljubovija.

11 The witness was asked to call upon the Bosniaks to surrender, and

12 he was to return to the police station at 6.00 p.m. The Serb forces,

13 including about 70 Arkan's and Seselj's men, took over the police station

14 and took control of the town. The witness fled that same day to Kladanj.

15 In the following days, Bratunac was occupied by units from both

16 the Novi Sad and Valjevo Corps. Other Serbs besides Deronjic, who helped

17 the takeover of Bratunac included Dusko Glisic, Rodoljub Djukanovic,

18 Sreten Radic, and Zivko Radic. These latter two men provided money to

19 Arkan's and Seselj's units in Bratunac. Zivko Radic, a car mechanic

20 before the war, was appointed chief of police immediately after the

21 takeover. This witness also heard hearsay reports about the destruction of

22 mosques in the municipality.

23 That concludes my reading of the summary, Your Honours, and the

24 four questions I want to ask him are as follows.

25 Examined by Mr. Hannis:

1 Q. Mr. Dubicic, were you a member of a political party, and if so,

2 which one?

3 A. I was a member of the Democratic Action Party.

4 Q. And with regard to the village of Kravica, what was the ethnicity

5 of that village?

6 A. They were 100 per cent Bosnians of the Orthodox faith.

7 Q. And would that be Muslim, Croat, or Serb?

8 A. Serb.

9 Q. And in your statement, in discussing the events in Kravica, you

10 talk about a meeting after which the Crisis Staff of Kravica was -- the

11 English word is "dismissed." My question to you, sir, upon reading that,

12 do you mean they simply left after that meeting or were they somehow fired

13 and removed from their positions?

14 A. Disbanded, dismissed. They disbanded the meeting and then never

15 met officially again to decide on anything, with the exception of April

16 1st, 1992.

17 Q. And -- thank you. And could we hand the witness a copy of his

18 statement in B/C/S. We have one here.

19 And my last question, Mr. Dubicic, relates to paragraph 24 of your

20 statement, which actually, in the English version, Your Honour, begins at

21 the bottom of a page but then carries over to the next page.

22 Do you find that, Mr. Dubicic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You talk about 4th of April, 1992 assembly meeting at which the

25 SDS requested that a decision be passed for the Serbs to create their own

1 police force. And as I understand it, the SDA had a majority in the

2 municipality and could have prevented such a motion, but you agreed to it.

3 Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you tell the Judges, please, why you agreed to the Serbs'

6 request to have a separate police force.

7 A. I agreed so that they would be satisfied, so that they don't think

8 that anybody was denying anything to anyone. We behaved in a very

9 democratic way, because they were under the conception that they were

10 being discriminated against and they wanted to form their own police, so

11 we said: "Okay. Form your own police." We wanted to fulfil the requests

12 or the desires of the representatives of the Serbian people.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. HANNIS: I have no other questions of this witness at this

15 time.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

17 Is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness? Then please

18 proceed, Mr. Stewart.

19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:

21 Q. Could you look, please, at paragraph 3 of your statement.

22 A. I've looked at paragraph 3.

23 Q. You say there are no JNA barracks in Bratunac municipality, the

24 closest is Mali Zvornik in Serbia. That's about -- correct me if I've got

25 this wrong, but is that about 70 kilometres from Bratunac?

1 A. It is exactly 42 kilometres from Bratunac.

2 Q. Thank you. The -- going on to the next paragraph, you say, in the

3 second sentence -- do you see that, paragraph 4, it says: "A year before

4 the multi-party system, we could already feel some political movements in

5 Bratunac, even from TV and radio reports." Do you see that sentence?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. When you say "some political movements," what sort of movements

8 are you talking about there?

9 A. I'm saying that because in that period, in 1990, the Serb

10 population began to move out of Bratunac. Some said that they were

11 allegedly being threatened. So when the whole situation became clear, it

12 was said that the individuals were moving away due to economic reasons.

13 Q. And to date this, you're talking, are you, there, when you say a

14 year before the multi-party system, you're talking are you about a year

15 before the elections of November 1990? Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. But you say -- the English is you say that you could feel those

18 political movements even from television and radio reports. You wouldn't

19 have needed television and radio reports to feel those political

20 movements, as you've described them, would you?

21 A. That information on television was broadcast by Serbian or

22 Belgrade television.

23 Q. Yes. Okay. I'll rephrase this, or put the question slightly

24 differently. Are you saying that it was only from television and radio

25 reports that you obtained this information about the movement out of

1 Serbs?

2 A. Since I lived in that region, I also noticed it myself.

3 Q. Yes. I'm wondering why you bothered to refer to television and

4 radio reports at all. You don't need those, from what you said, as a

5 source of information. Is that right?

6 A. When I provided this statement, this is what I was asked, so I

7 gave my answers to the questions that were put to me.

8 Q. Well, what were you asked that led to the reference to television

9 and radio reports?

10 A. This was just a confirmation of what was going on, as I stated it,

11 what was going on in the area of the Bratunac municipality.

12 Q. Let's move on to the last couple of sentences in the same

13 paragraph. You were working in Serbia at the time?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Presumably, from your next comment, you had been working in Serbia

16 since at least the mid-1980s; is that correct? When did you first start

17 working in Serbia?

18 A. On the 22nd of October, 1972.

19 Q. And you refer to the memorandum as you describe it, the memorandum

20 of Greater Serbia, in 1986. So you're going back -- straight away you're

21 going back several years from the first part of paragraph 4 of your

22 statement. That's clear, isn't it? Well, you're talking about 1989 in

23 the first half of that paragraph, and then you go back to 1986.

24 A. I replied to the questions the investigators put to me.

25 Q. And your last sentence says: "That was the beginning." You refer

1 to the memorandum of Greater Serbia. That was a memorandum produced by a

2 group including some well-known academics, wasn't it?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. And you say that was the beginning of the preparations for the

5 events that followed in the years to come. Do you mean by that that, in

6 your view, it was the beginning of a chain of events rather than some

7 conscious preparation for what happened then in subsequent years?

8 A. If I were to tell you now what the memorandum said, then it is

9 certainly the beginning of something that would ensue in the coming

10 period. We weren't even thinking about the possibility that something

11 like that would happen to us in the beginning of 1992. For us, this was

12 an indication that that association was preparing what would happen to us

13 in 1991 and the period after that.

14 Q. Well, you may be relieved to know that I'm not going to ask you to

15 tell the Tribunal about the contents of that memorandum or to explore that

16 particular bit of the history with you.

17 We can move on to paragraph 5 of your statement. You say:

18 "Leading up to the 1990 elections." We're talking about the November

19 1990 elections, aren't we?

20 A. September. In September.

21 Q. You say: "The various parties were established in September 1990.

22 The elections were in November." That's right, isn't it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And just to confirm with you: The two people that you refer to in

25 the middle of that paragraph, Mr. Velibor Ostojic and Mr. Rajko Dukic,

1 Mr. Ostojic became a minister in the power-sharing arrangements between

2 the three nationalities - Croats, Serbs, and Muslims - after the 1990

3 elections, didn't he?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And Mr. Rajko Dukic was the chair of the -- or became the chair of

6 the Executive Board of the SDS?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Then going on to paragraph 6 of your statement, towards the end,

9 it's the last few lines, there's a sentence that begins: "The weapons and

10 equipment for Territorial Defence had already been taken away in May 1990

11 to the Tuzla Corps." Do you see that sentence?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. Now I'm going to again risk a distance, but correct it as you

14 think fit. Tuzla -- well, how far is Tuzla from Bratunac?

15 A. About 100 kilometres.

16 Q. And Tuzla, of course, is a -- that's a pretty large town, isn't

17 it?

18 A. It has a population of 60.000, the town of Tuzla.

19 Q. And then you go on, the last sentence you say: "There was another

20 police commander elected first." Well, you refer to commander named

21 Milosevic. That's a different Milosevic from the well-known person who is

22 here in The Hague. You say: "There was another Serb police commander

23 elected first. He was from Serbia. His name was Momcilo Mandic."

24 A. Yes, yes. Please read it. That's it. Yes. There was a typing

25 mistake. It is Momcilo Milosevic. If you read it to the end, then you

1 will see what the true version is.

2 Q. You're saying that in the last line of that paragraph,

3 Momcilo Mandic should read Momcilo Milosevic, are you?

4 A. It says Momcilo Mandic. There is no Milosevic. That was a typing

5 mistake.

6 Q. The previous sentence -- let's get this clear. The previous

7 sentence, you say: "Chief of police was Nezir Muratovic, and commander of

8 police was named Milosevic. There was another Serb police commander

9 elected first. He was from Serbia. His name was Momcilo Mandic. He was

10 replaced in a later development." Now, the way it reads -- just bear with

11 me for a moment. The way it reads is that first of all, Momcilo Mandic

12 was the police commander; later, it was Mr. Milosevic who was the police

13 commander. Are you saying that that's wrong?

14 A. The police commander at the time was Momcilo Mandic. Milosevic

15 came later, after Mr. Mandic submitted his resignation.

16 Q. That is in fact exactly what -- apart from the additional

17 reference, resignation, that's exactly what your statement is saying. Just

18 take a -- I don't want to rush you on this. Just take a moment to read

19 those two sentences carefully, because I suggest that what your statement

20 is saying is exactly what you've just said.

21 A. The chief of police was Nezir Muratovic, and the police commander

22 was Mandic. So there was just a typing mistake. Instead of Mandic, it

23 was written Milosevic. And then in the next sentence, this typing mistake

24 is corrected.

25 Q. Well, I'm sorry. That is not the way it reads. I'm going to have

1 to just try and clear this up with you.

2 Forget about the chief of police. That's a different position

3 from commander of police, isn't it? Are we agreed on that?

4 A. Could you please repeat that?

5 Q. There are two different positions: Chief of police and commander

6 of police. Do we agree about that?

7 A. The chief of police is the chief of police, and the commander, I

8 agree, the head of the police is the chief of the police. That is the

9 chief. And the commander is, yes, yes, I agree with you.

10 Q. Thank you. So we can -- for immediate purposes, forget about

11 Mr. Muratovic. We've got two people you mention: Mr. Milosevic and

12 Mr. Mandic. Is it correct that each of those was at some point commander

13 of the police?

14 A. It is correct. Where it says here "Milosevic," actually, Mandic

15 is supposed to be there. When Mandic submitted his resignation, we

16 appointed Milosevic for the -- as police commander.

17 Q. Well, Witness, I'm not going to debate with you what your

18 statement means. It's clear what you're saying now.

19 Mandic was first the commander of the police, and then Milosevic;

20 correct?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And you say that Mandic was replaced in a later development. What

23 was that development, as you describe it?

24 A. Mr. Mandic was replaced in September, in early September. I think

25 this was on 5th of September when he was replaced. The events in question

1 are actually the killing of those two Bosniaks in the village of Kravica.

2 Q. Okay. Now, you -- in the next sentence -- paragraph, paragraph 7,

3 you refer to the requirement for a majority of votes in the Bratunac

4 municipality. That's the Municipal Assembly you're talking about there,

5 aren't you?

6 A. Could you please ask your question again.

7 Q. Well, in the -- next paragraph 7, the one at the foot of the page

8 you say: "The statute of our municipality had been changed just before

9 the elections. It had been required that only a majority of votes was

10 required to pass decisions, but the Communist Party had changed the

11 requirement to two-thirds of the votes." That relates to the Municipal

12 Assembly, doesn't it?

13 A. Yes. Yes. That was the statute of the Municipal Assembly.

14 Q. So then going on -- it's over the page in the English version, but

15 going on a couple of sentences, do you see a sentence beginning: "Even

16 though we had the majority and could have changed the statute again." Do

17 you see that sentence?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. Now, "we" means the Muslim community; is that right?

20 A. The organs of authority of the municipality, as well as the Party

21 of Democratic Action.

22 Q. You're agreeing with what I've just put to you, are you, that "we"

23 means the Muslim community? Is that right?

24 A. Well, let's say it's that way.

25 Q. Well, let's not say it unless it's true. You're giving evidence.

1 Is that correct?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. Thank you. And when you say "we had the majority," it looks as if

4 you mean the two-thirds majority. Is that correct?

5 A. No, we did not have the two-thirds majority. We had more than a

6 half, and that was true until 1990, when the status of the municipality

7 changed.

8 Q. Well, please explain then, how you could have changed the statute

9 again if a two-thirds majority was required and you didn't have a

10 two-thirds majority.

11 A. We accepted this statute from 1990, and we didn't change it. But

12 according to the rules, we were able to change it because the statute that

13 was valid until 1990, only a simple majority was required. We did not

14 need a two-thirds majority. In principle, we wanted to take decisions in

15 the municipality, or in the Municipal Assembly, by general agreement. We

16 didn't want the citizenship to be divided along ethnic or other lines.

17 Q. Yes. You make that point. But let me be more specific. When did

18 the Communist Party change the requirement to two-thirds of the votes?

19 A. It changed the requirement in 1990.

20 Q. What month? Do you remember?

21 A. I really couldn't say which month.

22 Q. Well, all right. Was it the first half of 1990 or the second half

23 of 1990?

24 A. I think it was in the first half.

25 Q. So the position was that a two-thirds majority was required under

1 that statute, but you, the Muslim community, didn't have a two-thirds

2 majority; is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Let's move on to paragraph 8 of your statement, where you refer to

5 a big incident that took place. Your words: Big incident that took place

6 in the middle of August 1991, when the army units arrived. And then you

7 say -- well, they came on two occasions in Tuzla to take away the

8 mobilisation records: "We didn't give the records to them and they had to

9 leave without them."

10 The "we" in that sentence means who?

11 A. The organs of the Bratunac municipality, the authorities, that is,

12 and the Bosniaks who lived in that area.

13 Q. And were you involved in that decision or result that they had to

14 leave without those records, you personally?

15 A. I was involved, because I was between the army and the Bosniaks.

16 Q. In what sense were you between them?

17 A. When they came, they got off the lorries and they started toward

18 the municipal building, and there were Bosniaks outside the municipal

19 building. And they started firing immediately. Volleys of gunfire

20 started. They probably had orders to that effect. I was in the centre of

21 these events.

22 Q. We may be talking about two different dates. You start off

23 talking about the army units coming on two occasions in the second half of

24 August and going away without the records, but that's before the incident

25 and event of the 31st of August, isn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So what you were going on to describe was that incident, wasn't

3 it, the 31st of August?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So the two earlier occasions, they had -- the army units had

6 arrived from Tuzla and they had come and gone peacefully, hadn't they?

7 A. That's correct. They came and they were very civil when they

8 talked to me. I showed them the order that I had from the presidency of

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which said that I should not give up the military

10 documentation.

11 Q. What's the -- what at that time was the population of Bratunac?

12 A. How do you mean?

13 Q. How many people lived in Bratunac at that time?

14 A. At that time, the population of Bratunac was 32.750.

15 Q. That's nicely precise. Thank you.

16 And at that time - we're talking about August 1991 - had there

17 already been a significant departure of Serbs?

18 A. From time to time, Serbs would leave, probably because they were

19 talked into it, and they left for the neighbouring municipality,

20 Ljubovija, but they didn't move far away from us.

21 Q. And you said that the SDS had organised their members in front of

22 the municipal building. What do you -- can you say what level of

23 membership you remember the SDS having at that time in Bratunac?

24 A. I don't know the number of the membership, but I know how many

25 citizens we had of Christian Orthodox faith.

1 Q. And how many was it?

2 A. 11.200.

3 Q. So it's a bit more than the -- not a lot, but a bit more than the

4 33 per cent which you give in your statement as the Serb element of the

5 municipality.

6 A. What I just said is true. When the elections were completed and

7 when the election results were published, those are the results we got.

8 Q. And you say --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, may I just ask you: I don't know

10 whether it's so important to know whether it's 33 or 34 per cent, but if

11 you refer to his statement, you certainly have noticed where he gave the

12 number in his testimony today, it was a thousand lower than he gave in his

13 statement. In the statement it's 33.750, and that makes 11.200 a little

14 bit under one-third. Perhaps I should have refrained from this

15 observation, but perhaps, as long as the difference is not more than two,

16 three, or five per cent, and if it's not really of great relevance, we

17 could go over the matter perhaps a bit more quickly. Please proceed.

18 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, that cleared up a point I was just

19 about to clear up, because it's plain that it's very near to the 33 per

20 cent anyway. Thank you.

21 Q. But turning to something else, you say: "I think there were

22 several thousand of those Serbs in front of the municipal building. They

23 blocked the building." Is it -- a large gathering is a large gathering,

24 but are you able to be a little bit more specific about "several

25 thousand"?

1 A. I could say there were four or five thousand citizens of Christian

2 Orthodox faith.

3 Q. That must have been, given the -- well, given that a lot of the

4 population are going to be children, so on that figure that's getting on

5 for something quite close to the entire male adult population, isn't it,

6 of Serbs in Bratunac?

7 A. Not only the male population. There were ladies there as well.

8 Q. And you say in that paragraph, towards the end, you say you knew

9 that the SDS leaders were aware that the army was coming, "When I had

10 driven over the river I saw some of the SDS leaders talking to the army

11 officers." Well, it follows, of course you and your colleagues knew the

12 army was coming as well, didn't you?

13 A. I wasn't aware of it. It was Friday, the 31st of August, 1991.

14 However, people had gathered, and I told the SDS president after that

15 meeting that it was them who organised it. I asked him: "Who told these

16 people to assemble?" And he said: "I don't know. They did so

17 spontaneously." And I told him that the police had arrived and they were

18 about to cross the bridge into Bosnia, and I had seen SDS representatives

19 with them.

20 Q. Moving on to the next paragraph, paragraph 9. You say the

21 situation was now very dangerous. There was also a large crowd of

22 Bosniaks gathered in the square. So how many Bosniaks were there?

23 A. Well, there must have been three to four thousand, not less,

24 because Friday is the day when Muslims go to the mosque. That day they

25 didn't go to the mosque. Instead they all assembled there, and word must

1 have spread, and even great numbers came. Two crowds gathered,

2 Muslims -- Bosniaks of Muslim faith and Muslim -- and Bosniaks of Orthodox

3 faith, and between these two large crowds, there was I.

4 Q. And the army commander who you refer to in that paragraph, a

5 captain who approached and told you that you would be responsible for all

6 tragic events which would happen from then on, what was his name?

7 A. That captain didn't tell me his name. I just told him that it was

8 not polite to come that way. He should have announced his visit and come

9 to my office. I didn't like the way he was talking to me, and I had the

10 impression that he was threatening me.

11 Q. Do I get this clear, then: There was this major event in Bratunac

12 involving thousands of Bosniaks who were Muslims, thousands of Serbs, the

13 military presence, you have an hour and a half discussion with this army

14 commander, the captain, and you didn't know then, and you still don't know

15 now, his name? Is that your evidence?

16 A. Yes, that is my evidence.

17 Q. You weren't sufficiently curious even to ask somebody else who he

18 was if you didn't know?

19 A. Those who knew certainly wouldn't have told me, and I couldn't ask

20 him, nor could I approach those soldiers, because they were not regular

21 troops. They were older soldiers, donning beards and they must have been

22 from the Territorial Defence or some paramilitary unit had arrived from

23 outside.

24 Q. I suggest to you that's a bit unreal. The idea that you couldn't

25 simply ask the commander that was talking to you for an hour and a half

1 what his name was. He wouldn't have refused to tell you who he was, would

2 he?

3 A. All this took place in the street, outside the town hall, outside

4 the municipal building. So it was not a normal conversation. We were

5 trying to outtalk each other. We were arguing.

6 Q. Can you give us any clue to his identity, since you don't

7 apparently know his name?

8 A. Well, I can't tell you anything about his identity, because, truth

9 to tell, I know nothing about him. I didn't make inquiries later either.

10 I tried to inquire about him in the corps in Tuzla, but they couldn't tell

11 me anything about the incident involving the arrival of those troops.

12 Q. So you tried to inquire about him subsequently, did you?

13 A. Yes, later, when I went to visit the corps for some other reason,

14 because I had some troops in one of the local communes and I asked them on

15 that occasion who those soldiers could have been, and they didn't tell me

16 anything. They couldn't.

17 Q. But can we summarise what happened accurately this way. Confirm

18 if this is right. There was a dangerous situation with two very large

19 crowds of Muslims and Serbs, both present; that nobody was injured on that

20 occasion; and that after a lengthy discussion between you and the

21 commander, they did leave with part of the -- well, no. They left without

22 what they came for. That's correct, is it?

23 A. Yes. Dusk came. They picked up and left without the

24 documentation, after the argument we had. They wanted to collect the

25 documents at least for the Serb conscripts, but I refused to give them

1 that too, because I was president of the entire municipality, including

2 all the citizens, and I was required to respect the decision of the

3 presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which said that I should not give up

4 the military documentation to the army.

5 Q. So the army -- they didn't achieve what they came for in terms of

6 getting the records, but they did achieve one perfectly normal and

7 acceptable aim for an army, but nobody was hurt in the whole day? That's

8 right, isn't it?

9 A. Nobody.

10 Q. Let's move on to paragraph 12. And you refer here to the

11 commander of police forces, Momcilo Mandic. You say: "He wasn't

12 available in town," by which you mean obviously in Bratunac. You say he

13 was supposed to be in the MUP building. When you say supposed to be in

14 the MUP building, do we take it you don't actually mean any more than that

15 that was his normal headquarters and that was his base where he worked?

16 A. I ordered the MUP that in that period the commander of the police

17 and the head of the MUP should take turns and be on duty every night at

18 the police station. That night, when I said he wasn't there, he was

19 supposed to be at the police station, according to the roster. This

20 schedule was in force only during that period when these problems were a

21 regular occurrence.

22 Q. Wasn't he in fact supposed to be where, in his judgement, he was

23 most required to be in the exercise of his duties?

24 A. Yes. He was supposed to be at the police station, because that's

25 his first and foremost responsibility.

1 Q. Let's move on to the next paragraph. The next day, 4th of

2 September, you say: "Avdo Hebib arrived in Bratunac with Vitomir Zepinic,

3 along with some inspectors, Enver Halvadzija ..." Which of those

4 gentlemen mentioned there, Avdo Hebib, Vitomir Zepinic and

5 Enver Halvadzija, which of those are Muslims?

6 A. Avdo Hebib is a Muslim, whereas Mr. Zepinic is of Christian

7 Orthodox faith.

8 Q. And Enver, he was a Muslim as well; is that correct?

9 A. Yes. Enver Halvadzija is also a Muslim. And there were also two

10 other investigators. Enver Dupovac and Mr. Skondric, the first being a

11 Muslim and the latter a Serb, a leader of the investigation team from

12 Sarajevo.

13 Q. And similarly, if we go on to paragraph 16, where you say we

14 appointed an inspector from Tuzla MUP Emin Kaknjasevic. Was he a Muslim?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then the next paragraph, 17, you say: "The delegation from

17 Sarajevo returned there and the situation was still very tense. Bosniaks

18 were frightened and the Serbs were still gone. During the night we

19 received information that some Chetnik units were approaching.

20 Fortunately it wasn't true." But where did that information come from?

21 A. Since I spent all my time at the MUP during that period, from the

22 3rd onwards, I can say that we received that information over the

23 telephone.

24 Q. From -- that's how. From whom?

25 A. The caller who gave us this warning did not identify himself. He

1 just said what he had to say and hung up.

2 Q. But as you say it was wrong anyway, the information.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, it's 20 minutes to 1.00. We have to

4 have another break. Could you give us an indication on how much time

5 you'd still need for your cross-examination? Because we also have to

6 reserve time for short oral argument on the issue we dealt with yesterday.

7 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed. I would think I would probably

8 complete my cross-examination, apart from unexpected turns in the

9 evidence, within half an hour, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's then have a break for 15 minutes, that

11 is, until 5 minutes to 1.00. If you could then finish in half an hour and

12 avoid whatever is unexpected.

13 MR. STEWART: Well, that's not entirely in my hands, Your Honour,

14 but I will do my best on that, of course.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You understand that this is my sense of humour.

16 MR. STEWART: It was appreciated, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And then we have 20 minutes left for argument, oral

18 argument on the issues still outstanding.

19 We adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

23 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. There's a couple of points that arise out of what you were saying

25 before the break. Is this correct, that at that time, strictly speaking,

1 as a legal and organisational matter, such matters as military

2 documentation of the type that was being sought from you on those visits,

3 the mobilisation records, was under the competence of the republic

4 Territorial Defence staff and not strictly the Bosnia and Herzegovina

5 presidency?

6 A. I received an order from the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 I didn't receive any kind of written notification from the military

8 structures of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

9 Q. Is the answer that you don't know the answer to my question?

10 A. I know the answer to your question in one -- in a republic, the

11 civilian top organ is the one that is responsible.

12 Q. Let me put it another way, then. Was the normal position that

13 such matters as military -- control of military documentation and

14 provision of mobilisation records were normally at that time under the

15 competence and authority of the republic Territorial Defence staff?

16 A. In a given situation, when they asked for some exercises to be

17 organised, and there were such exercises, on a couple of occasions, upon

18 orders of the military structures, we carried out the mobilisation of

19 people, and that was under their jurisdiction. But I repeat again: Here,

20 in this case, during the first and the second visit, they were probably

21 informed. They didn't receive any documentation. They didn't call us.

22 They didn't contact us in any way to order us to do it and in any

23 different way than we did.

24 Q. Did you contact them?

25 A. I did not get in contact with the military structures in reference

1 to providing this documentation.

2 Q. Let me ask you about something else, then. Do you agree it's

3 correct that you, as the president of the Municipal Assembly, strictly

4 speaking, didn't have the legal authority over the MUP?

5 A. The MUP was directly subordinated to the republican Ministry for

6 Internal Affairs, but naturally, we consulted each other. We proposed new

7 leaders and also if any new -- any police posts needed to be filled after

8 somebody retired or in accordance with the population structure, there was

9 a certain number of police officers that was required for a certain

10 percentage of the population. But there were some other things also that

11 were agreed upon with the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

12 Q. Go back to your statement, please, to paragraph 19 -- I'm sorry,

13 paragraph 17. This relates to the delegation that arrived in a

14 helicopter. You recall that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you say: "While we talked --" you spoke to them. You asked

17 what you were supposed to do, and then: "While we talked," you say, "a

18 person entered the office and told Mr. Koljevic that the Serb people

19 expected him to come to Kravica." Can you say who that person was?

20 A. I cannot tell you the name. I don't know the name. But I know

21 the person is from Kravica, because I used to go there for meetings, often

22 for various reasons, and Mr. Koljevic stood up right away and I said that

23 he could not go by himself because I was the president of the municipality

24 and the president of all the citizens in the municipality of Bratunac.

25 And then he decisively told me that: "You should not go. You cannot go

1 with me. The things that I have to say to them, I cannot say in front of

2 you."

3 Q. Going on a couple of paragraphs, paragraph 19, the next day Hebib

4 returned to Bratunac with Mr. Ostojic and other politicians, and then you

5 refer to Mr. Karadzic. And you say: "When the latest delegation arrived

6 I contacted the Kravica Serb Crisis Staff by telephone." Is this correct

7 that at that time, and we're talking about September 1991, the idea of

8 crisis staffs was part of the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

9 A. They were not part of the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10 Q. I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. My mistake. Part of the

11 constitution of Yugoslavia.

12 A. They were not a part of the Yugoslav constitution.

13 Q. Was it -- at that time was it perfectly normal to have -- well,

14 normal at that time, in that situation, that you would find in some places

15 a Serb crisis staff, in some places you would find a Muslim crisis staff,

16 and in some places you would find both?

17 A. In the region of Bratunac municipality, our municipality

18 occasionally there would be both crisis staff, and I'm speaking

19 responsibly. I'm telling the truth. And that is that the Muslim crisis

20 staffs or Bosniak crisis staffs were much, much rarer.

21 Q. The -- you say in paragraph 21 -- I beg your pardon, let's take

22 paragraph 20 first. The investigation team, you refer to the disbanding

23 of the Kravica Crisis Staff, as you put it in your evidence earlier today.

24 Then you go on: "The investigation team did find out who were the

25 murderers. One was from Kravica. The other was from Ljubovija." Do you

1 know their names?

2 A. I knew their names, but I've forgotten them. This is before, when

3 I was providing a statement in 1999. So this was ten years ago. The

4 truth is that one of them was from the municipality of Ljubovija, and the

5 other one was an inhabitant from Kravica.

6 Q. Are you saying you had already forgotten their names by the time

7 you gave the statement in 1999?

8 A. Nobody asked me for their names in 1999.

9 Q. If you can't remember their names, which you say, can you remember

10 anything about them?

11 A. This citizen from Kravica was a driver by profession. They were

12 between 30 and 40 years old, the two of them. This person from the

13 Ljubovija region, he had some kind of shop in one of the local communes of

14 the municipality of Ljubovija.

15 Q. How was the murder done, as far as you knew?

16 A. There was an ambush set up, and those two citizens who were killed

17 were not supposed to be killed. They just happened to be in the car.

18 This person who was actually driving the vehicle, he had some kind of

19 disagreement with the citizens of Kravica, so they probably intended to

20 kill him. They fired from firearms from the ambush, and these two just

21 happened to be killed.

22 Q. So they were the wrong people altogether? I'm not saying there

23 are right people to kill, but these were the wrong people, as far as the

24 murderers were concerned? They got the wrong people; is that right?

25 A. They got the wrong people.

1 Q. Then paragraph 21, you say: "We had information that weapons were

2 being distributed. We heard that Serb houses during the night were to

3 leave the lights completely off," and so on. "We" again is the Muslim

4 leadership in Bratunac at the time; is that what you're talking about?

5 A. I am talking on behalf the political workers of the municipality

6 of Bratunac. That's what I was informed.

7 Q. And where did your information come from?

8 A. The information came from a couple of citizens who received such

9 weapons during the night.

10 Q. They were Serbs, were they?

11 A. Yes. But they were honest people who reported back to me. All of

12 them talked to me. They were probably bothered by the fact that they were

13 given this. They said nothing we said is made up. There was a mistake.

14 One of the weapons was left at a house of one of the Bosniaks by mistake

15 that night also.

16 Q. Who was the source of the information, then? The Bosniak whose

17 doorstep the weapon was left on, or a Serb?

18 A. The initial information came from Serb citizens of the Christian

19 Orthodox faith.

20 Q. Can we move on to paragraph 30. You refer to the commander. If

21 you need to read just the end of the previous paragraph to refresh your

22 mind about that sentence, please do.

23 A. You can continue.

24 Q. Thank you. Who was the commander?

25 A. The commander was -- he had the insignia on the left hand, the

1 insignia of the Serb army. He had a beard. It was a gentleman in his

2 40s. I could not ask for their ID. They did not introduce themselves to

3 me. They did not say who they were. And when there was a meeting and

4 when the question was put - "Who is this army?" - there was no answer.

5 They said they didn't know. I responded only to questions that were asked

6 of me. How could I have asked who he was when there was a person holding

7 a gun to my forehead as they were talking?

8 Q. Who was holding a gun to your forehead?

9 A. One of the persons who was escorting him.

10 Q. So you didn't say anything when you gave this statement about

11 somebody holding a gun to your head because nobody asked you whether

12 somebody was holding a gun to your head; is that your position?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. This is getting a little unreal, isn't it? How far would you have

15 carried your non-response to anything except a question? If people have

16 been slaughtered in front of your eyes would you not have mentioned it

17 because you hadn't been asked?

18 A. Perhaps I would have mentioned it. Perhaps I would have mentioned

19 something like that, had something like that happened. Thank God, they

20 didn't fire at my forehead, but the truth is that they did hold a gun to

21 my head. This is something that happened to me.

22 Q. Well, I suggest to you that that's simply an embellishment and

23 that it's just ludicrous to suppose that in describing this incident to

24 the investigators you wouldn't have made it clear to them what the tone of

25 that meeting was by somebody having held a gun to your head.

1 A. Nothing here is embellished. I repeat, I repeat: When I was

2 providing the statement, I tried to tell only the truth. When I was

3 providing the statements, I was keeping the truth in mind and then I

4 talked. As far as what I didn't say regarding this gun, nothing happened

5 to me and I didn't mention it. It's true that nobody asked me and I

6 didn't -- it didn't occur to me at the time.

7 Q. Well, the funny thing is that you say in your statement that you

8 told him: "We could not negotiate under threat, that the Serb population

9 was not in danger, we didn't have weapons, there's no need for Serbs to be

10 frightened." So you apparently had the guts with a gun being pointed at

11 your head to tell him you couldn't negotiate under threat but couldn't

12 bring yourself to be brave enough to ask his name. Is that an accurate

13 summary of the position?

14 A. Yes. I decided to tell them what you just said, that the Serb

15 people were not under threat, and I even addressed the president of the

16 SDS municipal board to tell him that, but he didn't say a word. I had to

17 say that, even if the price for saying that would have been my life.

18 Q. You say: "I knew that Bosniaks had no weapons." How sweeping do

19 you mean that? Do you mean that as far as you were concerned, no Bosniaks

20 had any weapons?

21 A. Yes. No Bosniak had weapons. Yes. Except for hunting rifles.

22 But this is a sports weapon, and those who had such weapons also had a

23 licence for them. But if we're talking about Kalashnikovs or other kinds

24 of rifles, none of them had anything like that for sure.

25 Q. Your statement said, "I knew that Bosniaks had no weapons," not

1 "no Kalashnikovs," doesn't it? Agreed?

2 A. Yes. Not just Kalashnikovs. They did not have weapons to wage

3 war with. That's the weapon that I meant.

4 Q. The next paragraph, 31, you refer to your getting out to Kladanj.

5 How did you get out, get to Kladanj?

6 A. I went to Konjevic Polje. I fled through the woods and then from

7 Konjevic Polje, I was taken to Kladanj with a vehicle, some person, a man

8 took me to Kladanj.

9 Q. Who helped you?

10 A. Nobody helped me. I decided to do that myself. I felt that my

11 presence there was pointless. There was nobody to talk with about

12 anything. During this meeting when we were talking, I was ordered to be

13 at the police station at 6.00. This was on the 17th of April, 1992.

14 Q. So the vehicle that you referred to, did you arrange that

15 yourself?

16 A. I didn't arrange it. Just a vehicle drove up and I stopped it,

17 got in, and I left.

18 Q. Oh, I see. So when you say you fled through the woods and then

19 you were taken to Kladanj with a vehicle, it was -- you just waved down or

20 stopped a vehicle in the road, did you?

21 A. That's correct. When I came to the crossroads at Konjevic Polje,

22 on the road that leads to Konjevic Polje, I stopped there and I was trying

23 to stop two or three vehicles. One of them stopped. I got into the

24 vehicle and went to Kladanj in it.

25 Q. So let's be clear. So there was no organised help at all. You

1 simply went entirely on your own. You stopped this vehicle that you

2 didn't know before and you were taken to where you wanted to go. Is that

3 right?

4 A. That's right. That's right.

5 Q. The next paragraph, 32, you talk about two rich Serbs,

6 Mr. Radic -- well, Mr. Radic and Mr. Radic, two different Mr. Radics,

7 provided money to bring Arkan's and Seselj's units to Bratunac. Do you

8 have any firsthand knowledge of that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What is that?

11 A. When I called Bratunac from Tuzla, I called some citizens of Serb

12 ethnicity, since they were the only ones there, and that's when I got this

13 information. I was told that - I think this was in May 1992 - that they

14 came and asked for money, that they even organised some kind of protest in

15 front of the municipal building in Bratunac, and that's true.

16 Q. I'm sorry. Who organised some sort of protest?

17 A. Arkan's and Seselj's men, the people who came to Bratunac in order

18 to create unrest, so that the army could come in.

19 Q. The way you describe it, you say: "I learned there was a meeting

20 in the square and these units asked for the two rich Serbs by name, asking

21 for their money." Is what you're saying that there was some sort of

22 shouting out of their name by a group or a crowd?

23 A. I wasn't told that, but I did ask who was it who was supposed to

24 give money, and that's the answer I got, and their names were mentioned.

25 Q. I'm just asking you -- you say: "These units asked for the two

1 rich Serbs by name." I'm just asking you to clarify. If you don't know,

2 you don't know, but to clarify who did they ask, and how?

3 A. Well, they asked for the money that had been promised, and they

4 know who had promised them the money if they come. I didn't mention it

5 because I know. But out of the crowd, they called out those two people

6 that I named, and that's the information I got. I got those two names.

7 MR. STEWART: No further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

9 Mr. Hannis.

10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just two short items.

11 Re-examined by Mr. Hannis:

12 Q. Mr. Dubicic, you mentioned a Momcilo Mandic who was commander of

13 the police in your municipality. Do you know another Momcilo Mandic who

14 later became the minister of justice in Republika Srpska?

15 A. I know. I know. He worked in the Ministry of the Interior of

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is the Momcilo Mandic I mean.

17 Q. And is the police commander that you've been talking about in

18 Bratunac a different person than the one who was later minister of justice

19 in Republika Srpska?

20 A. Yes, that's a different person. He used to be a teacher.

21 Q. The only other item, Your Honour, refers to -- I think it's at

22 line 11, page 61 in the transcript. When you were talking about -- it's

23 not in your written statement, sir. But when we were talking about the

24 incident when the army came to try and seize the mobilisation records, you

25 talked about the crowd consisting of Bosniaks of Muslim faith, and then

1 you also mentioned Bosniaks of Orthodox faith. And I don't know if you're

2 using the term "Bosniak" generally or if you meant to say Serbs of

3 Orthodox faith. Can you clear that up for me, please.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere at this moment? Before we get

5 an explanation, I'd first like to ask the witness whether there's not a

6 misunderstanding.

7 Did you mean to say Bosnians of the one religion and Bosnians of

8 the other religion? Is that what you meant to say?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. Bosnians. Generally

10 speaking, I'm trying to avoid calling people Muslims or Serbs. I'm trying

11 to stick to the term "Bosnians," of either Muslim, Orthodox or Catholic

12 faith.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I interrupted you because that's a mistake in the

14 transcript. Bosnians has been by mistake written down as Bosniaks.

15 I noticed already that the witness very much insisted on using

16 Bosnian and then mentioned the faith to which these Bosnians belonged.

17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. That's all I had, Your Honour.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you'd allow me, just a word.

20 Bosnia would be a happy state if it had more Bosnians who didn't insist on

21 any faith, who would be happy to call themselves simply Bosnians.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That's how I felt you wanted to express yourself.

23 Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions for you.

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 Questioned by the Court:

1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like a

2 clarification of one point. In your statement, you said, and I'm quoting

3 in English, it is referring to the day after your departure. [In English]

4 "The following days, Bratunac was occupied by units from Novi Sad Corps

5 and Valjevo Corps. They then started with tortures."

6 [Interpretation] I understand that when you say "they," you mean

7 the Novi Sad Corps and the Valjevo Corps. In the following paragraph, you

8 said, and I quote again: [In English] "On 19 May 1992, Arkan's and

9 Seselj's troops returned and asked for their promised money."

10 [Interpretation] So my question is: What you heard, because at

11 the moment when all this was happening, that was all after your departure,

12 was it the Novi Sad Corps and the Valjevo Corps -- my first question is,

13 actually: To what army to these corps belong? And my second question

14 is: You attribute the events that followed, that is, the murders and the

15 expulsions, to those troops. Do you attribute those events to them, to

16 the Novi Sad and Valjevo Corps, or you attribute them to Arkan and other

17 paramilitary units? Would you like to answer this?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a technical problem? It seems that

19 Mr. Dubicic doesn't hear anything. That's the unexpected. Is it a matter

20 of choosing the channel or ...

21 Mr. Dubicic, can you now hear me?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Judge El Mahdi, you have to repeat

24 the question.

25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Witness, I would

1 like to ask you the following question: When you say that the following

2 day after your departure, the troops that you call Novi Sad and

3 Valjevo Corps, to what army do these troops belong? Can you hear me now?

4 A. Yes, I can hear you. Yes. Those troops, the Novi Sad Corps and

5 the Valjevo Corps, were probably regular troops, but there must have been

6 among them people who were mobilised, conscripts who had been doing their

7 regular military service before.

8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you said in your

9 statement, and I'm quoting: [In English], "Then started with tortures,

10 murders, and expulsions."

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] In the following paragraph,

13 though, you say that a certain Arkan and another unit had their troops,

14 which returned to Bratunac to get the money that had been promised them.

15 Is it they that you accuse of those murders, tortures, expulsions, or is

16 it the troops of the Novi Sad and Valjevo Corps?

17 A. Arkan's men and Seselj's men, while they were in Bratunac, carried

18 out this genocide, but they had come, in my opinion, with the objective to

19 justify the entry of the regular army from Ljubovija. The army troops

20 that had been stationed in Ljubovija seven or eight days prior to the

21 invasion, and they had their guns pointed at Bratunac. They had their

22 artillery trained at Bratunac.

23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any issue raised by the Bench which would

25 cause additional questions?

1 MR. HANNIS: None from the Prosecution.

2 MR. STEWART: Nor from the Defence, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dubicic, that means that this concludes your

4 testimony in this Court. You've answered the questions of all the parties

5 and questions put to you by the Bench. It's important for this Court to

6 hear the testimony of witnesses that have been present at the time when

7 the events happened. I'd like to thank you very much for having come to

8 The Hague, and I wish you a safe trip home again.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, you may escort the witness out of the

11 courtroom.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 JUDGE ORIE: We have ten minutes left. We have received the

14 written submissions of the parties in respect of how appropriate it is to

15 hear a witness who is still awaiting to be sentenced under a plea

16 agreement. Before I give a short opportunity to the parties to briefly

17 add what they have to add, I'd like to ask two questions to start with.

18 First of all, in view of the relevant case-law, transparency is

19 one of the first things that would be required at all if deciding whether

20 you could hear a witness, yes or no. Would the Prosecution be ready to

21 provide the Chamber with a copy of the plea agreement, which I take it has

22 been made public under Rule -- well, I've forgotten the Rule, but

23 normally --

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we have no problem in providing that to

25 the Chamber.

1 JUDGE ORIE: That's my first question.

2 The second question to the Prosecution is the following: From the

3 summary of the witness statement attached to your response, it does not

4 appear that the Prosecution intends to examine the witness on any direct

5 contacts with Mr. Krajisnik. Is that an impression which is correct?

6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, frankly, I'm not 100 per cent certain,

7 but it's my belief that he had no direct contact with Mr. Krajisnik;

8 contacts with Mr. Karadzic, but not Mr. Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least I do not see his name appear. So I

10 take it, then, that we do not get supplementary information sheets which

11 would go in that direction. This is just for the Chamber's information.

12 Then, since the Prosecution has -- the Defence has submitted the

13 motion, is there anything you'd like to add at this moment, Mr. Stewart?

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, yes. Very briefly. First of all, by

15 way of explanation, but I won't take but a moment on this. It's

16 suggested - I don't think it was an especially tendentious comment in the

17 Prosecution's response - that we had cited incompletely from a judgement

18 and from a textbook. In fact what we had done, as I think Your Honours

19 will be able to see, we had taken out paragraphs which appeared to us to

20 have no direct bearing at all on this particular issue and as far as the

21 passage on evidence was concerned from Judge May's textbook, where he

22 cites a case, we had simply taken the passage which was highlighted in the

23 textbook. So certainly there wasn't -- our attempt was to hone it down to

24 strict relevance rather than to be selective in any way which could

25 confuse.

1 The point that we wish to stress is this: That when, for example,

2 in the case of an accomplice, in a number of jurisdictions, this would

3 include the United Kingdom, the tendency now from the point of view of

4 sentencing, and sentencing policy, is to wait until the end of the case so

5 that the person who remains on trial is sentenced at the same time as an

6 accomplice who, for example, has already pleaded guilty. And that's

7 because it appears, and Your Honours can see, I think, from the material

8 before the Court, there's been a change of approach, and that aspect of

9 sentencing policy is regarded as sufficiently important to, if you like,

10 in many cases, though it's a matter of discretion, to override what might

11 be the conflicting principle, that so far as possible when somebody gives

12 evidence they should have any incentive or inducement to tailor their

13 evidence by reference to any future sentencing removed.

14 But that's where you have a conflict, and the conflict is coming

15 down in the modern jurisprudence in the United Kingdom, for example, in

16 favour of deferral so the Court can look in the round at everybody's

17 participation in the relevant events and achieve the right sentence. We

18 don't have that conflict in this case. Mr. Deronjic, after all, is not

19 indicted in this particular case. What we have in the present instance is

20 we have a witness who is a very important witness, and without going into

21 any of it, that's the Prosecution's position, that he is a very important

22 witness, because he's not just Bratunac; he's brought in under the heading

23 of Bratunac, but he's general and Bratunac and he's general in very

24 significant ways.

25 What we have in the present case is the clear danger of an

1 inducement and an influence on Mr. Deronjic's evidence from the fact that

2 he is not to be sentenced for, I think it's not a fixed time, but I think

3 it's contemplated as being something like a couple of months. But there's

4 no, if you like, there's no countervailing problem about sentencing policy

5 in relation to this case, because it's not this particular Chamber which

6 is sentencing him.

7 So that our position is, quite simply, that since it is possible

8 for that inducement and incentive for Mr. Deronjic to approach his

9 evidence favourably to the Prosecution, a danger which, after all, as a

10 matter of common sense the courts do recognise. Because it is obvious

11 common sense and that's recognised throughout all jurisdictions for

12 practical purposes. It is possible to remove that incentive in the present

13 case simply by his giving evidence at a later date after he's been

14 sentenced.

15 That should be done, because there is, apart from, we'd say,

16 relatively minor matters in the scale of things, matters of practical

17 convenience, there is every reason why that should happen. And whether a

18 reference is in the authorities before the Tribunal, and we cite some

19 passages from some observations of Judge Hunt, to -- concern for the

20 Prosecution's position that they shouldn't expose their witness

21 unnecessarily to criticism or attack on the basis that there is an

22 incentive.

23 It's inherent in that that there is in fact a danger overall and

24 there is a danger for the Defence in having a witness, despite the fact we

25 may comment on that, the much more satisfactory result is not the Tribunal

1 is left having to resolve, and the parties are left having to make their

2 submissions on how far that might or might not have influenced the

3 evidence. The much more satisfactory outcome in those circumstances is to

4 take away the incentive, and that is done very simply in the present case

5 by Mr. Deronjic's evidence here being deferred until after he has been

6 finally sentenced.

7 And that in effect, of course it takes him out of the run of

8 Bratunac witnesses, but if you like that's not his primary place anyway in

9 this case. The real importance of his evidence, because we've got other

10 witnesses in relation to specific Bratunac events, the real thrust of

11 Mr. Deronjic's evidence in this case, and his importance, is the fact that

12 he has evidence, if you like, at a higher level than Bratunac in relation

13 to other events. So that's the simple proposition, Your Honours, that the

14 difficulty and the danger is simply easily solved by ensuring that

15 Mr. Deronjic has been finally sentenced before he gives evidence in this

16 case.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hannis, or Mr. Gaynor. Is there any

18 additional point?

19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 We understand the Defence concern. However, we think it's not a

21 matter that this Trial Chamber cannot deal with. The incentive that

22 Mr. Deronjic may have with regard to his pending sentencing is something

23 that this Court can take into account. Defence counsel will certainly

24 cross-examine him about that, as well as Your Honours, if you feel more

25 questions are necessary. We think that he -- that is just one of the

1 factors that you will need to take into account in deciding what weight to

2 give his evidence and how much credibility to give to him in his

3 testimony.

4 And you really won't be able to make the final decision about that

5 until the end of this case, when you've heard all the other evidence in

6 this case, from all the witnesses and all the documents and everything

7 else, because there will be, I believe, other evidence that will

8 substantiate or corroborate much of what he says. It's a matter of

9 timing, Your Honour, but we think that the danger is not that great that

10 professional judges can't factor that in appropriately and deal with the

11 danger that the Defence is concerned about.

12 I did have one other matter I wanted to mention, Your Honour. I

13 have some additional authority that we wanted to provide to the Court, and

14 it deals with mainly the practice in England and Wales, the jurisdictions

15 cited most by the Defence. The first is an excerpt from Judge May's on

16 evidence. The 4th edition from 1999, in particular --

17 JUDGE ORIE: This Chamber, of course, if you refer to that and say

18 what pages these are, then --

19 MR. HANNIS: I will.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying it's under my cushion in my bed, but

21 it's --

22 MR. HANNIS: It's at page 444, Your Honour, the last paragraph on

23 that page. I'm not going to read it all out now, in the interests of

24 time. The second item is a decision from the Court of Appeal in the -- in

25 England and Wales, in a case called Harry Palmer, and we would refer you

1 to page 85 of that handout. The next to the last paragraph, which

2 comments on the cases of Pipe and Payne, which are referred to in the

3 defendant's motion at page 5, and at footnote 14 on page 7. Further on

4 page 86, the second paragraph of that case, we would ask you to take a

5 look at.

6 And finally, the third item is a case from -- a case called Chan,

7 C-H-A-N, from the Privy Council, and we would refer you to page 6 of that

8 decision, the second full paragraph that discusses how these two lines of

9 authority on dealing with cooperating witnesses or accomplices' testimony

10 should be handled.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that that's the same decision as the

12 decision referred to in the -- what's the other one? You did not provide

13 us with a copy, but -- the Regina v. Reed. That's references made

14 to -- not only to European Court of Human Rights law but also to domestic

15 law.

16 MR. HANNIS: I believe that's a different decision, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I'm asking whether that's the same decision

18 as referred to in Regina v. Reed.

19 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I believe it is, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then would there be -- is there any

21 further matter to be raised at this moment? Yes.

22 MR. STEWART: Do we have the opportunity, Your Honour, of

23 commenting briefly on the submission made in relation to this authority,

24 which wouldn't take more than about a minute or two?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A minute or two. And you're talking about the

1 last authority?

2 MR. STEWART: I was actually going to do it by reference to the

3 Privy Council authority at page 6.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. STEWART: It's at the very end of the large paragraph in the

6 middle, the paragraph being the one in the middle, how should those two

7 lines of authority be drawn together. Just the last four or five lines

8 where it says: "Once the courts have taken the large step, as they

9 undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the

10 calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence."

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down because you're

12 reading.

13 MR. STEWART: I'm asked to slow down. I'll perhaps read it again

14 more slowly; it's a short passage. "Once the courts have taken the large

15 step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may

16 justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false

17 evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present

18 case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial."

19 This is a recognition and we stress this, that it is in fact a

20 large step. Then, because it is a large step in every case as a matter of

21 discretion, one has to look at what the reason is against avoiding that

22 large step. And in the present case, as we've indicated to Your Honours,

23 notwithstanding that, of course, Your Honours are professional Judges, so

24 there is nowhere near precisely the problem there is with a jury, the

25 removal of this difficulty is as we've stressed not a difficult thing to

1 do.

2 There is, in effect, apart from the time at which Mr. Deronjic

3 gives his evidence, there is no factor and no consideration which prevents

4 the Court from removing that inducement. It remains a large step,

5 whatever the reasons, to allow an important witness to give evidence when

6 he has this inducement there in front of him.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

8 MR. HANNIS: Two things, Your Honour. I'm advised by e-mail that

9 we do intend to lead some evidence regarding Mr. Deronjic's direct

10 dealings with Mr. Krajisnik. So there is --

11 JUDGE ORIE: But it does not appear in the summary.

12 MR. HANNIS: I understand that. And I --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Defence aware of -- I mean, is there anything

14 in the statements that have been disclosed to the Defence about direct

15 contacts? Because if you provide us with a summary, we expect that

16 summary to reflect the important parts of the evidence, and I couldn't say

17 that direct contacts between Mr. Deronjic and Mr. Krajisnik would not be

18 considered as having quite some relevance. So it really surprises me.

19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't know the nature of that, and I'm

20 just advising the Court that I didn't want to mislead you with what I said

21 before. It appears that there is some information contrary to what I may

22 have indicated initially. I will check with Mr. Harmon, who will be

23 leading Mr. Deronjic, and see if there should be some supplemental 65 ter

24 or something additional to reflect what it sounds like is being referred

25 to.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know, under these circumstances,

2 whether the Chamber really wanted to give a decision as soon as possible

3 in order not to unnecessarily cause the examination not to start by

4 tomorrow, that we really have to consider this, and we will inform you

5 later this afternoon on two questions: First of all, whether we take a

6 decision this afternoon; and the second, if we take a decision, what that

7 decision then is. Apart from whether we might issue a decision given in

8 oral form later in writing as well, but we have to consider this, and it

9 will not be until the second part of this afternoon that you'll be aware

10 of what the position of the Chamber is. And I also add that you should

11 prepare for all situations, that is, that we start with Mr. Deronjic

12 tomorrow or that we start with Mr. Deronjic later tomorrow morning, or

13 that we do not start with the examination of Mr. Deronjic. But I take it

14 that the Prosecution is able to deal with that situation.

15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we have -- other than Mr. Deronjic, I

16 think the only two remaining witnesses for this portion of the trial are

17 Pat Treanor, our expert, and Mr. Hasanovic, who was a witness that we had

18 difficulties with, it caused a change in the schedule earlier in the week.

19 He may not be able to be here until the 18th. So Mr. Treanor, I think, is

20 the only other witness available.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And would there be a possibility for you to

22 start with Mr. Treanor by tomorrow, if for whatever reason I would like

23 not to start with Mr. Deronjic or postpone his testimony.

24 MR. HANNIS: I think all things are possible. If Mr. Tieger is

25 watching, I hope he takes note of this conversation and adjusts

1 accordingly.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the last thing I have to do is to

3 apologise to the interpreters that I -- and the technicians that I did not

4 ask the permission to steal the last seven minutes of their time. We'll

5 adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.

7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 12th day of

8 February 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25