1 Wednesday, 28 July 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

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

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, case number IT-00-39-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 Mr. Margetts, you may proceed to examine the witness, but before

11 doing so, Mr. Egrlic, I'd like to remind you that you gave a solemn

12 declaration at the beginning of your testimony, and that solemn

13 declaration still binds you.

14 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just before I proceed with the

16 questions, I'd just like to address Exhibit P233.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. MARGETTS: We had a discussion in private session in relation

19 to that exhibit yesterday. I'd just like to advise the Court that we do

20 not wish to tender this exhibit under seal.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. MARGETTS: It was tendered in a previous proceeding and it

23 was not tendered under seal in that proceeding.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that's, then, clear.

25 Mr. Registrar, you made note of it, I take it.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, would Exhibit P233 be able to be

3 returned to the witness.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 WITNESS: ASIM EGRLIC [Resumed]

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 Examined by Mr. Margetts: [Continued]

8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I ask you again to return to the entry for 5 February

9 1992 in this diary. And if at this time you could refer to the entry for

10 item 3, which is headed "The attitude towards the referendum." And you'll

11 find that this entry commences on the page that is headed "4 January."

12 Mr. Egrlic, in this entry, there are instructions set out in

13 relation to the attitude that the SDS members are to take in respect of

14 the referendum that was to be held in Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to

15 the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. One of the entries states that

16 "The SDS members are to care about the referendum as much as about last

17 year's snow." In Kljuc, can you describe the attitude that the Serbian

18 people took to the referendum?

19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. STEWART: There's something fundamental that's wrong with

22 this whole approach of putting diaries in front of a witness. This is

23 another person's diary altogether. It -- it appears clear, because no

24 such question has been asked -- it has got nothing whatever to do with

25 this witness. He had no hand whatever in this diary. He's confirmed he

1 never saw it before he came to this Tribunal. To put somebody else's

2 diary before a witness in this way is effectively no different from

3 counsel, for example, preparing a note of the points that appear in the

4 diary and feeding that note to the witness. And we see inherent in the

5 question that's been asked, it is in effect a disguised, but a very thinly

6 disguised, leading question, because it puts the entry in the diary and

7 invites the witness. The questions can simply be put as questions and

8 this diary should be discarded.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Margetts.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we need to deal with these matters in

11 the most efficient way possible. The more specific the question can be

12 and the more specific the witness's answer can be, the more that is going

13 to assist the Court in what is a very complex case. Without going into

14 the nature of this diary, it's our submission that this diary is a

15 document and is an instrument that can focus the witness's attention on

16 precisely the instructions that were being implemented in Kljuc. The only

17 evidence I seek to draw from this witness is his observations in relation

18 to how those instructions were implemented in Kljuc, and accordingly, it's

19 our submission that it's wholly appropriate that he respond to those

20 matters, which were matters that were being specifically attended to in

21 the municipality in which he was the leader of one of the principal

22 parties.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand there seems to be, well, quite

24 a fundamental difference of view.

25 May I ask both parties: This diary, not being a diary written by

1 this witness, Mr. Stewart, do you think that the diary could be admitted

2 into evidence -- well, let's say even without this witness, so without his

3 comment? I mean, because one of the consequences of saying, "Well, it's

4 of no use to show a diary of another person to this witness," would you

5 consider this to also be preventive from admitting it into evidence just

6 as a document, without being introduced by the author or without being

7 introduced by the person who seized it, who tells us where he found it? I

8 mean, I'm trying to find out to what extent the parties differ in view as

9 to whether or not admit this document as it was said sometimes, from the

10 bar table, just the document. Do you consider this possible, Mr. Stewart?

11 MR. STEWART: It's possible for a diary to be admitted. For

12 example, take the extreme case: Somebody writes a diary with a detailed

13 account of what's happened and is dead.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. STEWART: In those circumstances, one would expect that if

16 the diary can be properly verified, that for what it is worth, with the

17 appropriate weight, it would be admitted.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. STEWART: So we certainly don't suggest any extreme position

20 such as written material can't come in. But it does have to be properly

21 verified.

22 So Your Honour, certainly without going into it, there are

23 circumstances if the proper proof, verification is gone through, there are

24 circumstances in which a diary may be admitted, for what it's worth. But

25 the entirely separate question: Whether even in those circumstances is

1 proper to put it in front of another witness is very much the question.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. STEWART: And Your Honour, what Mr. Margetts, who, if he'll

4 be patient with me for one moment -- what Mr. Margetts is suggesting is in

5 fact -- and I don't mean this disrespectfully or offensively to

6 Mr. Margetts personally or his colleagues, but it's in effect a lazy way

7 of doing it. That's the effect.

8 JUDGE ORIE: He says an efficient way, but...

9 MR. STEWART: But it's -- efficient, yes. It would be very

10 efficient simply to feed to a witness a long list of precisely the points

11 that the Prosecution wishes to establish to make the case against

12 Mr. Krajisnik and ask the witness to say yes or no to every one. That's

13 the extreme end of the spectrum of efficiency.

14 What Mr. Margetts is talking about is identifying points which

15 are highlighted by this other person's diary and then asking this witness

16 about those points. Well, the Prosecution can do that job. They can use

17 this diary. They can go through. They can identify, which in effect they

18 have to do anyway, because that's what Mr. Margetts is doing by asking

19 these questions. They have identified the points on which they wish to

20 ask this witness a question. What they then need to do is that small

21 extra step of converting that point into the appropriate, balanced,

22 non-leading question without needing then to put the actual point in the

23 diary to the witness. It's simply an unnecessary and in fact, unfair

24 step, and the method of identifying the points and then putting the

25 question in a proper form is -- is perfectly efficient. It leads to a

1 fair result and it is efficient, and it's simply a -- it's, again, no

2 offence, the Prosecution are trying to do their job, but it is simply a

3 lax way of doing it, and it involves this distinct element of leading, as

4 we see from the very first question this morning, because the -- the

5 diarist's view of this matter is very clear. That's contained in the

6 question put to the witness. The question is no longer a neutral

7 question. The witness is then no longer being asked the point in a

8 neutral fashion. He has been fed, within the question, a distinct

9 viewpoint, and this is an absolutely improper way of doing the matter, and

10 there are points at which the simple label "efficiency" must, with

11 respect, not be allowed to divert the questioning into a form, and the

12 presentation of the case into a form which is not fair and not proper.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it surprises us that Mr. Stewart has

15 raised this issue this morning, given the discussions that we had in

16 private session yesterday.

17 The issue of this diary coming into evidence is merely an issue

18 of the order of proof. Secondly, I haven't heard from the Defence that

19 they're going to object to this diary being admitted into evidence from

20 the bar table. But one way or the other, either this will be admitted

21 from the bar table, it can be admitted with evidence from those that

22 seized it, it can be admitted in evidence from witnesses we anticipate to

23 bring before the Court.

24 So the question of this diary going into evidence is something

25 that I think we should leave to one side.

1 In terms of this being a lax way of asking the question, or being

2 reduced to merely an issue of efficiency, that's not the case at all, in

3 our submission. It's precisely for the reasons of fairness that we are

4 putting the precise instructions in the precise words, as they are

5 recorded in evidence that will be before this Court. That means there is

6 no input from Prosecution into the interpretation of those words, and it

7 means that the witness is responding precisely to the evidence that this

8 Court will have to consider in relation to the instructions that were

9 given to the lower levels.

10 So where Mr. Stewart says this is not neutral, in fact that's the

11 very essence of the reason we're putting it this way, so that we can

12 ensure absolute neutrality and absolute accuracy.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, the Chamber considers the best way of

15 dealing with the matter the following: Let's just take the example we

16 just had. You'd like to see whether what the witness experienced in

17 reality is consonant with what has been written on paper. Often it may

18 well be possible to ask this witness, without specific reference to the

19 relevant page of the diary, to ask, for example, what the attitude was

20 in -- in view of a plebiscite or a referendum or whatever. You could have

21 asked him, and there's nothing then against drawing the attention of the

22 Chamber to what extent this supports certain parts of this diary.

23 If the witness would have said, "Well, they paid as much

24 attention as the rain in spring," then of course you could have confronted

25 the witness with the existence of evidence, and then we start from the

1 point of view that one way or the other this diary could be admitted into

2 evidence and then say, "There is evidence which says so and so and so,

3 would that contradict your answer and to what extent and what facts make

4 you think that you should pay as much attention as spring -- as rain in

5 spring rather than snow in winter or snow in summer?" That's the best way

6 to deal with it, because it gives you an opportunity to go back to the

7 precise wording of the diary and to instruct -- to give the diary, but not

8 after first having -- having given an opportunity to the witness to

9 respond spontaneously to the issue where you have a specific portion of

10 the diary in the back of your mind.

11 But the Chamber very much would like to know what you had in the

12 back of your mind once the witness has answered the question, so that we

13 can find it, and if there's any need to further explore the matter, since

14 there is some -- since the answers are not congruent with what is written

15 on paper -- and let's not forget what's written on paper is not what

16 happened in reality; these are two different things. So to confront the

17 witness, "This and this instructions were given," that of course doesn't

18 automatically mean that they were implemented, that they were visibly

19 implemented, and we'd first like to know what the witness recalls from

20 what he experienced in reality, and then of course the question whether

21 this is congruent with what is in the diary is very important.

22 If you would please proceed this way. And of course, there might

23 be certain moments where it is more appropriate to draw the attention of

24 specific wordings or whatever, if that becomes relevant. But please

25 indicate that and perhaps first draw the attention of the Chamber to the

1 part you would like to refer to and indicate, for example, by saying, "I'd

2 like to read this or that line to the witness, or the seventh line in

3 order to put additional questions." Then we can form ourselves an opinion

4 on how appropriate it is, and perhaps you could put the question already

5 and then see whether it's -- whether that question could also have been

6 put to the witness without reading that part.

7 So we'd like to keep some control over that. If you would please

8 proceed this way, then we'd now --

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, two points.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. STEWART: With respect, I'm much obliged for that clear

12 ruling.

13 The -- the -- as far as that question is concerned, well, the

14 witness has heard about 15 minutes debate about that particular question.

15 Well, that's water under the bridge or last year's snow or something like

16 that. The -- but the practical point is the witness should, we suggest,

17 be invited to hand back the diary, if the circumstances arises Your Honour

18 just mentioned a moment ago, where it's necessary to show it to him -- and

19 it may often not be necessary, because it's a very short passage. He can

20 simply be given that orally. But he should give up the copy of the diary

21 in front of him.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's say that in order to prevent a lot of

23 walking up and down for the usher that the diary that's in front of you,

24 you may consult it on the pages when instructed to do so, and then -- I

25 mean, the front page is not really dangerous, is it, Mr. Stewart?

1 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, he -- with respect, he must,

2 please, put the diary somewhere where he -- it's right in front of him at

3 the moment. But if it can be put to one side -- if it is conspicuously

4 put to one side, then that's quite satisfactory.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, he doesn't consult the -- the diary

6 when -- we'll look at that.

7 So the diary you have in front of you or whether it's a bit to

8 the left or a bit to the right is not the main issue. You should not

9 consult it unless instructed to do so. And then we'll tell you exactly

10 what page to go to.

11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, he could, for example, perfectly

12 easily just put it on the ELMO to the left of him.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's a very practical matter. If it's closed

14 and if he doesn't consult it, that's sufficient.

15 Yes.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, in light of Your Honour's ruling, I

17 won't need to refer the witness to the diary.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then it may be returned.

19 You said there were two issues, Mr. Stewart. The second one --

20 MR. STEWART: I think I mentioned the first. I just commented

21 about that particular question.

22 MR. STEWART: Oh, that was --

23 MR. STEWART: That was point number one. Point number two was

24 the diary.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the ruling is for future questions, if

1 Mr. Margetts thinks the question to be of importance, he may put it again

2 to the witness.

3 MR. STEWART: Yes, understood, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I appreciate that the witness will

6 not have the diary before him and the witness will not be asked questions

7 about the diary. But for the Trial Chamber's benefit, I'd be pleased if

8 the copy of the diary could remain before the Trial Chamber.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have it -- at least, I have it in front of

10 me.

11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I ask -- I'm sorry to be on my feet

12 again. But Mr. Margetts is quite right. And in response to Your Honours'

13 questions, we -- we simply reserve our position as to this diary and its

14 admissibility, because at the moment no application has been made,

15 therefore no objection could possibly be raised, and we reserve our

16 position. But in advance of this diary coming into evidence, to invite

17 the Trial Chamber to be looking at points in the diary as we go through

18 does seem to be rather cart before horse.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's exactly the reason why I -- my first

20 question to the parties was whether they considered that the diary as

21 such, apart from this witness, could be -- could be admitted into

22 evidence. You reserve your position.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the reservation made by the Defence,

25 Mr. Margetts, yes, perhaps I'll give you an opportunity first to...

1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, Mr. Stewart has come very late with

2 this suggestion that he may or may not object to this diary. This diary

3 has been admitted from the bar table in another Trial Chamber.

4 JUDGE ORIE: In another trial. Yes.

5 MR. MARGETTS: There's -- there is an affidavit I can produce to

6 the Court from an investigator who seized it. There is a 92 bis

7 application pending in respect of the admission of the transcript of a

8 witness who referred to this diary and was able to substantiate it.

9 If it was the case that the Defence intended honestly and truly

10 to object to this diary, then it's my submission that the appropriate time

11 for the Defence to indicate that was when this diary was introduced

12 yesterday. We've now spent quite some time in private session talking

13 about this diary. We've spent another 15 or so minutes this morning

14 talking about this diary. It seems to me that Mr. Stewart needs to state

15 his position clearly: Does he object to this or not? He's had ample time

16 to consider it. And the way this has proceeded, in our view, is wholly

17 inadequate. And if Mr. Stewart now wishes to reserve his position, that's

18 something that he probably won't change. And there's no point debating it

19 further. But in future, it would be beneficial for these proceedings if

20 the Defence was to state their position clearly and precisely at the

21 appropriate time. And we will save a lot of time in these proceedings.

22 That said, in light of Mr. Stewart's statement that he reserves

23 his position on this diary, it's not our application that the diary be

24 before the Trial Chamber. We're content to proceed with the questioning

25 of this witness and possibly at a later time we'll assist the

1 Trial Chamber with indicating the potential link between this diary and

2 the evidence that was elicited from this witness.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, does the author to be dead in order for

4 this diary to be admitted? I take it that you have knowledge of where it

5 comes from and that, as the Prosecution says, affidavits can be provided.

6 You said you reserve your right. Is that to say that you have not finally

7 made up your mind, or do you oppose to it or ...?

8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it means exactly that. When

9 Mr. Margetts said he didn't think my position would change -- of course my

10 position may change if at the moment I'm reserving my position. I won't

11 reserve my position forever; I can't do that. The position is,

12 Your Honour, that when a -- when an application is made in the proper way

13 for admission of this diary, then my position will no longer be reserved.

14 I shall have to take a position in respect of that, and that is -- that's

15 where I stand.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. STEWART: The 92 bis applications for the moment, we

18 understood had been expressed -- had been deferred at the express request

19 of the Prosecution anyway. But so far as the -- what we how often do on

20 the Defence side, Your Honour, is we think about these things.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. STEWART: That's what happens, and we discuss them amongst

23 ourselves.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course the question is whether time had

25 been sufficient until now to think it over, and of course if you insist on

1 such an application to be made.

2 MR. STEWART: Well, I thought -- I'm sorry, Your Honour. I beg

3 your pardon.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I -- we'll allow Mr. Margetts to quote from the

5 diary. Whether we read it or not is a different matter, but to quote from

6 the diary if there's any need to confront the witness with the content of

7 this diary. To say if, witness, if someone would have written, and then

8 you can take the exact line relevant and you can confront the witness with

9 that.

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I just comment? I --

11 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Stewart. We are not commenting. We are

12 continuing now with the examination.

13 MR. STEWART: May I submit, Your Honour?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, for 30 seconds.

15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it -- it really -- it follows from

16 everything I said. It is simply unnecessary and inappropriate for any

17 quotation from this diary to be --

18 JUDGE ORIE: No, there has been a ruling on that. Mr. Margetts

19 will start his questions without reference to any part of the -- but he

20 may quote or -- parts of the diary if needed, and then later on I take it,

21 Mr. Margetts, that you'll write down where questions answered by the

22 witness are related to certain parts of the -- of this diary, and if there

23 was no need for further questions, that you'll indicate, when tendering

24 the diary, as a matter of -- you said you intended to tender the diary.

25 You'll clearly indicate in the following order, this question to

1 witness Egrlic related to that part of this diary. And if there's any

2 need, in view of the answer of the witness, to further explore any

3 discrepancies between the diary and the answer of the witness, then you

4 may quote those parts of the diary relevant.

5 So either we find later what link there is if the diary is

6 admitted into evidence, or we find it now by your quotations, if there's

7 any further need to explore the matter at this very moment.

8 Please proceed.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Just one clarification in respect of my comments regard

11 Mr. Stewart's position. When I referred to his position, I wasn't

12 referring to his position as to the admission or non-admission of this

13 document. I was referring to the fact that he currently reserves his

14 position on the document.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. MARGETTS: That was the issue I was referring to.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

18 MR. MARGETTS:

19 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recall the referendum that was scheduled for

20 the end of February, early March in Bosnia-Herzegovina in relation to the

21 sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. In Kljuc, what was the response of the Serbian people to this

24 referendum?

25 A. The Serbian people did not vote in the referendum; whereas, the

1 Bosniak and the Croatian peoples did. And those citizens who wanted to

2 vote in the referendum could do so and did so, and they voiced their

3 opinion on the question that was proposed in the referendum.

4 Q. As at 5 February 1992, were there discussions in Kljuc in

5 relation to the issue of whether a war option would be pursued or peace

6 would be pursued?

7 A. This issue was not addressed in that particular way. There was

8 never any discussion about war versus peace, at least in not so many

9 words. This issue was never treated in that way. However, judging by the

10 situation that was -- that existed in Kljuc and some activities, the

11 security situation deteriorated by the day, and one could easily conclude

12 that this situation might escalate and turn into an even more serious case

13 of order being disrupted in the territory of the municipality.

14 Q. Yesterday we referred to a number of documents and announcements

15 that were written by yourself and Mr. Omer Filipovic. In those documents

16 and announcements, you referred to a war policy being pursued. In your

17 previous answer, you spoke about the escalation of events. Did you

18 perceive that that war policy that you referred to was escalating in the

19 Municipality of Kljuc?

20 A. Yes. Because during the month of February, in addition to the

21 obvious armament of the population, units of the former JNA were stationed

22 in the compound of the former forestry company, and this compounded the

23 situation in the territory of the municipality.

24 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in February 1992, there was discussion in the media

25 in relation to the issue of the declaration of the autonomous region. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 one of the issues that was discussed was the issue of the application of

2 what was referred to as the ethnic principle as one of the criterions for

3 the division of Bosnia into autonomous regions. In the context of the

4 division of Bosnia, how did you see that ethnic principle applied in

5 Kljuc?

6 A. I said yesterday that Kljuc had been annexated [as interpreted]

7 to the Autonomous Region of Bosnian Krajina by the will of the Serbian

8 people. This is where we recognised this ethnic principle, given the fact

9 that the will of other ethnic groups residing in the area was neither

10 listened to or respected. The other municipalities around Kljuc where the

11 Serbian population was in a majority also took such decisions, and their

12 municipalities were linked up with the autonomous region.

13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to present to the witness

14 the next exhibit. It's the first one listed on the second page of the

15 exhibit list, and it's dated 18 February 1992.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A number, Mr. Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P234 and P234.1

18 for the English translation.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 MR. MARGETTS:

21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, this is a handwritten document which purports to be

22 the minutes of a meeting of the Municipal Board of the SDS on 18 February

23 1992. If I could refer you to the second page of this document and in

24 particular an entry which is below the halfway mark of the document and is

25 in relation to item 2 on the agenda. And this is a report presented by

1 Veljko Kondic.

2 Could I ask you to read that entry in respect of the report

3 presented by Veljko Kondic wherein he refers to the issue of

4 regionalisation of local communes and, secondly, he speaks about problems

5 relating to the location of the JNA in Laniste, and then I'll ask you some

6 questions in respect of that.

7 Mr. Egrlic, in this report, Mr. Kondic states that the SDA has

8 raised the issue of regionalisation of local communes. Can you comment in

9 relation to whether or not that is an accurate statement?

10 A. This statement is not correct. The SDA raised the issue of

11 organising the Bosnian Municipality of Kljuc, to which I testified

12 yesterday.

13 Q. Secondly, he speaks about problems relating to the location for

14 the JNA in Laniste. You've mentioned before that army units came to

15 Kljuc. Did you observe army units at Laniste?

16 A. Yes, I did. And there was a discussion on this issue at a

17 meeting of the National Defence Council. Representatives of the Serbian

18 Democratic Party wanted to see JNA units which had been withdrawing from

19 Knin to be stationed at Laniste. We, on the other hand, were of the

20 opinion that there was no need for that and that such a development could

21 only instill fear amongst the citizens. However, since the SDS had a

22 majority in the council, they voted in favour of these units coming and

23 being stationed at Laniste. After that, the workers protested because

24 Laniste is a forestry company compound and the workers of the company

25 Sipad Kljuc had their workshops there, their restaurant, and other

1 facilities. As from then on, all of these facilities were occupied by the

2 troops, so the workers did not have any place where they could prepare for

3 their work in the forests.

4 Our role was to calm the situation down. On one occasion, we

5 were asked to come together to Laniste in order to deal with the

6 situation. On that occasion, I saw JNA units stationed at Laniste; I also

7 saw that they were armed. There were cannons lined up facing the town.

8 Q. Who did you go to Laniste with?

9 A. I went together with the Secretary for National Defence and

10 Jovo Banjac, who was the president of the Municipal Assembly. We wanted

11 to deal with the situation and to stop the workers' strike. They -- the

12 workers did not concede, the conditions for their work was no longer in

13 place once the troops were stationed there. And finally this place,

14 Laniste, was totally closed for business.

15 Q. Was the Secretary for National Defence a Serb by the name of

16 Slobodan Jurisic?

17 A. Yes, Slobodan Jurisic was his name.

18 Q. And about -- or around about when did you go to Laniste?

19 A. It might have been around the 20th February.

20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I refer you back to the first page of the document

21 that is before you, and in particular I refer you to item 4, which is

22 listed on the list of agenda items. This item refers to: "The

23 organisation of the Territorial Defence, enhancement of combat readiness

24 of the population." Did you observe that a Serbian Territorial Defence

25 was being organised as at February 1992?

1 A. Yes. This was permanent as of the second half of 1991 onwards.

2 However, as of the beginning of 1992, this was even stepped up. There

3 were constant mobilisation calls to the ranks of the Territorial Defence.

4 The number and presence of soldiers in the territory of the municipality

5 increased. Every citizen could observe that.

6 Q. How did the arrival of the army at Laniste make the Bosniaks in

7 Kljuc feel?

8 A. Even before that, people were scared. And once the JNA arrived

9 at Laniste, there was even more anxiety among the people and the fear for

10 their security increased.

11 Q. In April 1992, was there any change in the capacity of the people

12 in Kljuc to receive radio communications? And I'm referring to radio

13 broadcasts.

14 A. As far as radio programmes are concerned, they were still

15 broadcast. People did listen to the radio. The only thing that changed

16 was the management of the radio. Before that, the editor-in-chief was

17 Mr. Asmir Burzic, who was replaced sometime in April by a gentleman who

18 was a member of the Serbian Democratic Party.

19 Q. What nationality was Mr. Burzic?

20 A. He was Bosniak.

21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with the document that's before you

22 now.

23 MR. MARGETTS: And I'd now like to present Mr. Egrlic with the

24 next exhibit, which is the second one on the second page. The exhibit

25 that's dated 29 April 1992.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, this document would have number 235,

2 I take, and the English translation, 235.1?

3 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

4 MR. MARGETTS:

5 Q. Mr. Egrlic, these are the handwritten notes of the meeting of the

6 SDS Municipal Board on the 29th of April, 1992. I'd like to refer you to

7 a discussion that took place in respect of item 1 on the agenda, which was

8 "Consideration of the security situation in the municipality." And in

9 particular, I'd like you -- I'd like to refer you to the comments made by

10 Vinko Kondic that commence in the bottom three lines of the first page and

11 run through to almost the middle of the second page.

12 Just before I do that, I'd just like to ask you: Who is

13 Mr. Vinko Kondic?

14 A. Vinko Kondic was the Chief of the Police Administration in Kljuc.

15 Q. Was he the brother of Mr. Veljko Kondic?

16 A. No, not his brother. They were related.

17 Q. Did you have an association with Mr. Vinko Kondic prior to 1991?

18 A. Yes, I had contacts with him. We worked together in the same

19 construction company, the Sana of Kljuc.

20 Q. Did Mr. Omer Filipovic have contacts with Vinko Kondic prior to

21 1991?

22 A. Yes, he did. They were friends. Their families were friends.

23 Q. Over what period of time did you observe the relationship between

24 Mr. Omer Filipovic and Mr. Vinko Kondic?

25 A. Before the war and during 1991, and as much as I can remember,

1 this continued in 1992, up to April sometime.

2 Q. Returning to the document before you. The opening comments from

3 Mr. Vinko Kondic are that "The situation in Kljuc Municipality is

4 unbearably calm." Do you have any comment you'd like to make in regard to

5 that?

6 A. I think in a way -- how shall I put it? In a way, this is a

7 mocking comment on the situation, as if they were expecting some unrest

8 and found it strange that there were none, that there wasn't any.

9 Q. When you say, "They were expecting some unrest," what do you mean

10 by that?

11 A. I think there were many occasions when citizens were upset and

12 they had probably been expecting citizens to react to the shooting

13 occasioned by the departure of fighters to the Croatian battlefield and

14 found it strange probably that people did not react in the way they had

15 expected.

16 Q. So as at 29 April 1992, the situation in Kljuc was calm, was

17 peaceful, there was no reaction to the shooting.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Despite these initial observations, Mr. Kondic continues, and he

20 says, "We cannot overcome the situation in a peaceful way."

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MR. STEWART: There is really quite a serious error in the

24 translation here.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's --

1 MR. STEWART: The word in Serbian, I understand, is at the

2 beginning of that sentence, "We cannot overcome," it goes, "Mi nastojimo."

3 And nastojimo, n-a-s-t-o-j-i-m-o, it's something that anybody with

4 knowledge of the Latin language will see that it's "we," it means, "We are

5 trying to overcome this situation in a peaceful way." So this translation

6 could hardly be wronger.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are two issues first, whether there's

8 any dispute possible about what the text says in B/C/S because it's

9 handwriting. You always have to be very careful with that. And the

10 second issue is how it then should be translated as written.

11 Could a copy of this document be put on the ELMO and then

12 specifically the B/C/S portion.

13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I ask who is going to be invited

14 to rule on this? Because it's not really a matter for the witness at all.

15 JUDGE ORIE: No, of course not. It's a way -- it's a way of all

16 interpreters to be able to --

17 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. That's what I was

18 concerned about.

19 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- I take it that it's on the third page, the

20 Vinko Kondic, the second -- let me just have a look.

21 MR. STEWART: Obviously I'm getting my information from

22 Ms. Cmeric.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. I do not expect you to have taken a

24 B/C/S course.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this will appear on the second page

1 of the B/C/S.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the second page of the B/C/S, the upper

3 part.

4 Could the -- let's first see whether it's clear enough on the

5 video monitor.

6 Yes, is this readable for the booth? I invite one of the --

7 THE INTERPRETER: It is. It is.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then in the translation, we find a line which

9 says, "Serbs are the majority population in Kljuc." The relevant part is

10 the sentence prior to that one. Could perhaps it first be read to see and

11 also to give Ms. Cmeric an opportunity to check whether there's any

12 discussion possible about what the B/C/S says. Could the B/C/S booth read

13 aloud that sentence prior to the one, "Serbs are the majority population

14 in Kljuc."

15 Now, I have to change ...

16 Ms. Cmeric, were you able to follow the reading and do you agree

17 that.

18 MS. CMERIC: Yes. I'm sorry, Your Honours. I just couldn't find

19 the right channel. Is that the B/C/S channel, number 6? I don't hear any

20 translation.

21 MR. STEWART: It might be 5. Oh, no, that's French. Sorry.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Number 6.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Number 6 is the B/C/S channel.

24 MS. CMERIC: Yes. Yes. Yes, thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could it perhaps be read again.

1 MS. CMERIC: Yes, the reading is correct.

2 JUDGE ORIE: The reading is correct.

3 Could we -- could we, then, please receive the translation of the

4 line just read.

5 THE INTERPRETER: English booth: We are trying to deal with or

6 overcome the situation in a peaceful way.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There seems to be an error in translation,

8 Mr. Margetts.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. This is an official CLSS

10 translation, and we will send -- send that back for amendment.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we -- we understand they don't mean

13 they're trying to deal with the situation in the booth in a peaceful way,

14 which is what it -- which is how it sounded. Although, we hope that is

15 the position, of course.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well --

17 MR. STEWART: It's just the way it came across, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. There's never any competition in

19 the booth, as far as I am aware of.

20 Please proceed.

21 MR. MARGETTS:

22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, consistent with that corrected translation, there's a

23 reference in the last sentence of Mr. Kondic's report which states "We

24 decided not to change our insignia. We must be wise, bring everything to

25 a conclusion without war and achieve the final goal."

1 At that time, what did you understand to be the final goal of the

2 Serbs?

3 A. Well, from all the preceding activities, one could infer that the

4 final goal was to create a parastate in the territory of Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina to be annexed to Serbia.

6 Q. I refer you to the comments which appear just before the middle

7 of this second page, and they're comments attributed to Jovanka Cvijic.

8 And this person refers to the refusal of the Muslims to sign the pledge of

9 loyalty. As at 29 April 1992, had you been asked to sign a pledge of

10 loyalty? And if so, what was the nature of that pledge?

11 A. They required all Bosniaks who worked in administration agency

12 in -- in agencies in the police department and in senior positions in

13 enterprises to sign a pledge of loyalty -- or rather, a declaration of

14 loyalty to the Republika Srpska. That meant that the citizens of Kljuc

15 municipality would also in this way accept this new parastate in the

16 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17 Q. And skipping the comments of Vinko Kondic and moving to the

18 comments of Veljko Kondic on that second page. He states that the power

19 in Kljuc is really at the hands of the Serbs. As at 29 April 1992, is

20 that an accurate statement?

21 A. That is a correct description, because power was in fact in the

22 hands of the Serbs, even in 1991.

23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. That's all my questions in respect of

24 that document.

25 In the course of reviewing the comments of Mr. Vinko Kondic in

1 that previous document, there was a reference to the change of the

2 insignia and division of the police. Can you describe to the Court the

3 nature of the request that was made to the Muslims in regard to the change

4 of the insignia and the various meetings you had with representatives at

5 the municipal level and other levels in relation to the proposed change of

6 the insignia.

7 A. Their demand to change the existing insignia and accept new

8 insignia was especially prominent in the ranks of the police, considering

9 that in the period 1991 to May 1992 the police was a mixed force. The

10 Bosniak policemen were asked to sign not only the declaration of loyalty

11 to the Republika Srpska but also to sign a statement confirming their

12 acceptance of new uniforms and new insignia on those uniforms, which they

13 refused. They refused because the new insignia were not in conformity

14 with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or rather, the Assembly

15 of Bosnia and Herzegovina had not adopted any law or enactment on the

16 change of insignia. It was done instead by the leadership of the SDS and

17 the autonomous authorities in Banja Luka, and they -- it was they who

18 wanted Bosniaks to accept them too.

19 Q. At the municipal level, who did you discuss the issue of the

20 change of insignia with and what was said in these discussions?

21 A. When this demand was raised, to change the insignia, they sought

22 approval from the political organisations, the SDA and the MBO. They

23 wanted us to suggest to the policemen in some way that they should accept

24 the new insignia; however, we did not wish to do that because the insignia

25 had been changed in circumvention of the Constitution of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the new insignia represented symbols only of the

2 Serbian people, and therefore disregarded the rights of Bosniak policemen,

3 who were until then part of the police force in Kljuc.

4 Q. When you refer to "they," who were the representatives of the

5 Serb people that you discussed this with?

6 A. There was Vinko Kondic, as Chief of the Police Administration;

7 Veljko Kondic, as president of the Municipal Organisation of SDS of Kljuc;

8 and Mr. Banjac, as president of the Municipality.

9 Q. How did they explain the reasons for the change of insignia to

10 you, and what did they say in respect of their role in arriving at this

11 conclusion?

12 A. In Kljuc municipality, we managed to stall on that issue for

13 quite a long time because there was a certain degree of tolerance on the

14 part of the representatives of the Serbian Democratic Party; however,

15 eventually they said that they were not the ones who had the main say in

16 the matter. They said that it was higher authorities who really decided

17 on that, and they told us to visit Banja Luka and the Centre of Security

18 Services, headed by Stojan Zupljanin, and they said that if Mr. Zupljanin

19 should agree that the insignia remain, as they used to be until then, they

20 would not object. So that meeting with Mr. Zupljanin was scheduled, and

21 we went to Banja Luka to have talks with him.

22 Q. Who went to Banja Luka to talk to Mr. Zupljanin, and about when

23 did this meeting take place?

24 A. I and the late Omer Filipovic went to Banja Luka, together with

25 Jovo Banjac, Vinko Kondic, and Veljko Kondic.

1 Q. Did this meeting take place in early May?

2 A. The meeting was held on the 2nd or 3rd May. I don't know

3 exactly. But the outcome of the meeting was negative; we did not reach

4 any agreement there. Mr. Zupljanin, you could say, laughed in our faces,

5 saying that it was a done deal. He gave each of us a beret with new

6 insignia, telling us to take it back and show it to the Bosniak policemen.

7 He said we should tell them to accept it because it looks quite good.

8 Q. Mr. Zupljanin said it was a done deal. What did you think he

9 meant by those words?

10 A. We understood him to mean that he was not able to decide on that

11 one way or another, that some other people or other organs were the ones

12 who decided on that, and that we were talking to a man who was unable to

13 help us in any way in this matter.

14 Q. At that time, Mr. Zupljanin was the head of the regional police

15 in Banja Luka, yet from what you said, he didn't have the power to decide

16 in respect of this matter. From his answers to you, who did you think had

17 made the decision for the change in insignia?

18 A. I can only surmise. But generally speaking, symbols such as the

19 national flag --

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

22 MR. STEWART: The answer follows -- in some ways the problem

23 follows from the question. We've had this point many, many times before,

24 actually. The --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. STEWART: Mr. --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I can -- I'll give some instruction to

3 Mr. Margetts, and if there's any reason to --

4 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- to make any further submissions, you may do so.

6 Mr. Margetts, the questions are almost invitations for

7 speculation. Could you please ask the witness if he interpreted certain

8 words in a certain way, what those words then exactly were. And how, based

9 on what he heard, he drew these conclusions.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. MARGETTS:

12 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you drew the conclusion when you were speaking to

13 Mr. Zupljanin that some other people or other organs were the ones who

14 decided on the issue of the change of insignia. Can you recall precisely

15 what it was in Mr. Zupljanin's words or manner or presentation to you that

16 resulted in you forming that conclusion?

17 A. Well, the fact that he told us that it was a done deal and there

18 was nothing he could do about it.

19 Q. After you left the meeting, how did you travel back to Kljuc and

20 who did you travel with?

21 A. We travelled in two passenger cars; I and late Omer Filipovic and

22 Vinko Kondic took one car, and Veljko Kondic, Jovo Banjac, and --

23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter forgot the third person --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- took the other car.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please again tell us who the third person

1 was. You said Veljko Kondic, Jovo Banjac, and ...?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In one car travelled I and

3 Omer Filipovic and Vinko Kondic, and in the second car, Jovo Banjac and

4 Veljko Kondic.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No third person in the other car?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, just the driver.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

8 MR. MARGETTS:

9 Q. As you travelled in the vehicle with Mr. Kondic, did you discuss

10 what had taken place at this meeting and what would then follow from the

11 comments of Mr. Zupljanin?

12 A. Yes. We talked informally.

13 Q. What did Mr. Kondic say?

14 A. Well, he had been saying even way back that it had to happen

15 because the adjacent municipalities effected this before the

16 Kljuc Municipality and the Kljuc Municipality had to make these changes.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there are two very short exhibits

18 that I'd like to present to the witness. I'm mindful of the time, but I

19 would be able to do that in a couple of minutes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take those minutes and then have a break. So

21 first, if they're really short. I take it that within five, six minutes

22 we could deal with them?

23 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, and we'll then have a break

25 until 11.00 later.

1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if the witness could be presented

2 with the two documents which are appearing as the fifth and the

3 sixth -- oh, sorry, that is the fourth and the fifth documents on the

4 second page of the exhibit list. They are dated respectively 4th May and

5 5th May. And if the witness could be given the 5th May document first and

6 have the 4th May document placed on the table next to him.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The 5th May document will have number 236 for the

8 original and 236.1 for the English translation. And the 4th of May

9 document will have P237 for the original and 237.1 for the English

10 translation.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. MARGETTS:

13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, the document you have before you is an order of the

14 president of the Council for National Defence, Jovo Banjac. And pursuant

15 to the second item of this order, it imposes a curfew in the Municipality

16 of Kljuc. Do you recall seeing this order around the 5th of May, 1992?

17 A. I attended the session of the council, which adopted the decision

18 to issue this order.

19 Q. What was your position in respect of the curfew?

20 A. We asserted and substantiated with fact that there was no reason

21 to introduce this curfew to restrict the movement of people and put up

22 obstacles in streets, which would intimidate citizens even more. But they

23 contradicted us, saying that they wished to stand in the way of people

24 coming back from battlefields carrying weapons, that they wanted to

25 prevent the citizens from being disturbed, that they wanted to run checks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 on the movement of people, and they voted in favour of introducing this

2 curfew, regardless of our objection, and following the curfew, following

3 the decision on the curfew, they blocked completely all intersections and

4 introduced this 10.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. curfew.

5 Q. Was the late Mr. Omer Filipovic present at this meeting, and did

6 he also oppose the curfew?

7 A. He attended as vice-president of the Municipality, and he was

8 also opposed to this, together with all the other members of the council

9 who were Bosniaks. In our view, there was really no need for this curfew,

10 not from our standpoint.

11 Q. I refer to the document, and it states in the preamble that "This

12 order is made pursuant to the decision by the government of the Autonomous

13 Region of Krajina." Was there any discussion at this meeting in relation

14 to any order that had come from the government of the Autonomous Region of

15 Krajina?

16 A. There was no specific mention of any order that had arrived, but

17 they justified the introduction of the curfew by saying they wished to

18 have control over the armed soldiers who were present around town.

19 Q. Did they say that they had arrived at this decision by their own

20 volition or that, alternatively, they felt bound to implement this

21 decision?

22 A. They claimed they had to implement this decision for the reasons

23 I've stated.

24 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with that document. If you could refer

25 to the document that's on your left. This is a reasonably poor copy of

1 the document, and I'm referring to the document that's been marked P237

2 and is a decision of the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina, dated 4

3 May 1992.

4 But could you refer to item 4, which is the fourth paragraph

5 down, under the heading, "The decision."

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, in view of the quality of the

7 document, could you please first invite the witness to read that paragraph

8 to see whether at all there's any text he could say something about.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.

10 Q. Mr. Egrlic, that paragraph I've indicated, could you please read

11 that out to the Court just to verify that the reproduction is sufficient

12 to draw your comment on.

13 A. Unfortunately, it is not visible in all places, so I cannot read

14 it in its entirety.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, wouldn't it be then a good moment to

16 have our break for 25 minutes and upon return to produce perhaps a copy

17 which could be read? Because there must be somewhere some copy. Yes.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. We'll attempt to do so.

19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until 11.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

21 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we resume, Mr. Margetts, I'd like to address

23 the Prosecution in respect of the response to the motion filed by the -- I

24 think, Mr. Hannis, it's more your cup of tea. The Prosecution has asked

25 14 days, the normal delay, for responding to the motion on the

1 translations. The Chamber would very much like to hear, I would say, the

2 global position, well, let's say, by tomorrow. By "global position," I

3 mean by the -- without too many details, whether the Prosecution has made

4 up its mind already whether to oppose against granting the motion or

5 partially oppose or supports or whatever. The Chamber would very much

6 like to receive that also in order to determine whether the full 14 days

7 should be granted or not or whether -- well, it's important for us to

8 know.

9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we could file something that soon, just

10 advising you of our general position, with regard to the motion. We would

11 like to have additional time to file a fuller response, because the two

12 senior trial attorneys on this case, Mr. Tieger and Mr. Harmon, are out of

13 the country --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. HANNIS: -- and we need to contact them and consult with them.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I do understand. But a global position,

17 even if it would have -- would have been done orally. It's not

18 necessarily done in writing. But I then take it that you could explain

19 your position in not more than two or three minutes.

20 MR. HANNIS: Yes, we will, Your Honour. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So we expect that, then, to be done tomorrow in the

22 afternoon, if possible.

23 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.

24 Oh, yes. Perhaps you'd first provide the witness with a legible

25 copy of the 4th of May, that's 237, the original. Yes.

1 Mr. Egrlic, could you please give it another attempt to read

2 paragraph 4 of this document provided to you now in a -- at least, a

3 better copy. We'll see whether it's legible.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Item 4, it says: "A curfew is

5 being introduced in the entire territory between 2200 hours and 0500

6 hours, except for those with official authorities issued either by the

7 police, the military police, or the Serbian Territorial Defence."

8 JUDGE ORIE: There's only one small thing in the oral translation

9 now, whether it says "for everyone," was missing. Could I ask whether

10 that appears in the original or not, as read by the -- perhaps we could

11 ask Ms. Cmeric to give the -- the position of the Defence.

12 In the written translation, we find "for everyone," which was not

13 part of the oral translation.

14 MS. CMERIC: Your Honours, the original doesn't read -- there's

15 no word "everyone" in the original document.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It doesn't make that much of a difference, but

17 I just wanted to check.

18 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

19 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, referring to paragraph 4, as you have just read it

21 into the record, is that consistent with the curfew that was introduced on

22 the 5th of May in Kljuc?

23 A. Yes, it is.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. That's all I have in respect of that

25 document.

1 Now, Mr. Egrlic, we understand that certain events occurred on

2 the 7th of May, 1992, and we will address those events. I'd just like to

3 ask you a couple of small questions in relation to matters preceding the

4 7th of May, 1992.

5 We referred to the change of the management of the radio station

6 in April 1992. Prior to 7 May 1992, had there been any other dismissals

7 of Bosniaks from their jobs?

8 A. Yes, Bosniaks were dismissed from the financial transaction

9 institution. Rifat Silajdzic was dismissed from there, from the SDK, and

10 this is the only dismissal I am aware of that happened before the 7th of

11 May. After the 7th of May, however, everybody else was dismissed.

12 Q. Prior to the 7th of May, what were the reasons given for the

13 dismissals of the gentleman from the radio and gentleman from the SDK?

14 A. They were told that since there had been a takeover in Kljuc,

15 they had to be replaced by individuals from the SDS.

16 Q. Mr. Egrlic, what happened on the 7th of May, 1992?

17 A. On the 7th of May, flags were put up on the buildings of all

18 public institutions. Those were the flags of the Serbian Republic of

19 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The insignia on the police uniforms were changed,

20 and it was said officially that Bosniaks, given the fact that they had not

21 signed a document pledging loyalty to the new state, those who were

22 employed in state bodies, that they could leave -- they were urged to

23 leave the municipality building and pretend that they were on holiday, and

24 if they were needed, they would be called back to work. All this was

25 accompanied by the entry of the Serbian army, units which were composed of

1 reservists from the territories of Sanski Most and Prijedor

2 municipalities; namely, units which were part of the 6th Krajina Brigade

3 and which had already had control of all the roads in the municipality and

4 the most important points around the town, as well as all the institutions

5 in town.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to present two exhibits to

7 the witness. The first exhibit is the sixth exhibit on the second page,

8 the one that's dated 8 May 1992 in the exhibit list and has the ERN for

9 translation 01107351. And the second one I'd like to introduce is one

10 that's further down the page on the exhibit -- the second page of the

11 exhibit list, and it's got the date 18 May 1992 and has the ERN on the

12 first page, 01906806. If they could be presented to the witness and if,

13 in fact, the second document I've referred to could be presented first and

14 numbered first.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, would you please first deal

16 with the 18th of May document.

17 Mr. Margetts, the 8th of May document, I do not find the date,

18 apart from in the first line saying that "The Crisis Staff of

19 Kljuc Municipality informs and --" oh, yesterday. Yes, the 7th of May,

20 makes it the 8th of May; is that a correct understanding?

21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That's the clarification in

22 respect of that document. In fact, the date ascribed to this first

23 document I'm referring to is an error. There is no reference on this

24 document, as far as I can see, to 18 May, in fact, there is a handwritten

25 annotation which is "18-05/92," which I think is the number of the order

1 itself, not a reference to a date, and the context of the document

2 indicates that it is not a document produced on the 18th of May.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. MARGETTS:

5 Q. Mr. Egrlic -- sorry.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it could not be the 18th of May, since if the

7 soldiers still have to be provided a cooked dinner on the 8th of May, then

8 you couldn't decide that on the 18th.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

11 So we make that an undated document.

12 And then also in the description, it's an order by Branko Basara

13 without a date, I take it?

14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

16 MR. MARGETTS: If we could have numbers for these exhibits,

17 please, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, the second one first, the undated first.

19 Mr. Registrar, I think we are at P238; am I correct?

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the order gets the exhibit number

21 P238 and its English translation gets the exhibit number P238.1.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

23 THE REGISTRAR: And the public announcement gets Exhibit Number

24 P239, and its English translation, P239.1.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

1 MR. MARGETTS:

2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in your answer to the previous question, you referred

3 to the 6th Brigade. Can you refer to the document before you, and do you

4 note that at the top of that document it refers to the 6th Partisan

5 Brigade command?

6 A. I can see that.

7 Q. Is this the unit of the JNA you were referring to as the unit

8 that entered Kljuc?

9 A. It is.

10 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can I refer you to the bottom of that order and the

11 entry numbered 9, which continues on over the page, and the subparagraphs

12 of that order 9(a), (b), (c), and (d). In respect of the deployment of

13 the platoons and companies referred to in paragraph 9, is that consistent

14 with what you observed in Kljuc on the 7th of May, 1992?

15 A. Yes, it is.

16 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with that document. If you could take

17 a look at the second document, which is the public announcement.

18 In particular, I'd like to refer you to the fifth paragraph on the

19 first page, which is the second paragraph from the bottom on the first

20 page. And this paragraph states that "Since the Kljuc Municipality

21 reached the decision in respect of joining the Autonomous Region and that

22 this is part of the territory of the Serbian Republic, the Kljuc

23 Municipality will automatically be obliged to implement laws and decisions

24 reached by the Assembly of the Serbian Republic and the Assembly of the

25 Autonomous Region."

1 Mr. Egrlic, can you comment on this public announcement?

2 A. This announcement for the public is addressing the citizens in

3 order to explain what had happened on the 7th of May, 1992, in light of

4 the fact that the citizens were astounded by the developments. This is

5 the way things were explained to them, an attempt to explain things to the

6 citizens, and to indicate to them where the Municipality of Kljuc would be

7 as of then on within this new system and organisation. This also served

8 to show that the citizens would be guaranteed all of their rights and

9 freedoms and that the citizens should not construe the increased presence

10 of the troops as an attack on the freedom of any ethnic group. The

11 citizens, Bosniaks, Croats, and some Serbs, who had not been informed of

12 what was going on, needed an explanation because on -- on the surface

13 whatever happened in Kljuc these days looked like an occupation of the

14 Municipality of Kljuc.

15 Q. You said that the citizens were astounded with the developments.

16 But in respect of the matter that is set out at -- in the fifth paragraph

17 on the first page, that is, the demand for obedience to the laws of the

18 Assembly of the Serbian People, is this not something that you had

19 predicted and informed the citizens about from as early as September 1991?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Secondly, you referred to the fact that the document guarantees

22 the civil rights of persons, regardless of their national or religious

23 affiliation. And I refer you in particular to the fourth paragraph from

24 the bottom of the second page, which has as its condition to that

25 guarantee of rights that "Those citizens behave correctly towards the

1 authorities and do not disturb peace or threaten the safety of citizens

2 and property."

3 Subsequent to the 7th of May, 1992, were the civil rights of the

4 Muslims respected?

5 A. They were not respected. First of all, their freedom of movement

6 was limited, both in time and in space. Notebooks were introduced at the

7 checkpoints and Bosniak citizens had to identify themselves and explain

8 and account for their movements. The individuals who discharged certain

9 duties in administrative bodies lost their jobs, and I cannot say that the

10 words written here were honoured at all.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the

12 exhibit which is the third exhibit on the third page of the exhibit list,

13 which is dated 26 June 1992, and I'd also like to show the witness the

14 exhibit which is dated 21 July 1992 on the third page and the exhibit

15 which is dated 3 August 1992 on the third page, and I'd like to show them

16 in the order of the 26th June first, the 21 July second, and the 3rd

17 August third.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may distribute them.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the exhibit number for the document

20 dated 26 June 1992 will be P240, and its English translation gets Exhibit

21 Number P240.1.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. While Mr. Registrar is distributing further

23 the documents, the 21st of July will be 241 and -- for the original and

24 241.1 for the English translation; and the document of the 3rd of August

25 will be 242 and 242.1 for the English translation.

1 MR. MARGETTS:

2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you have the document dated the 26th of June, 1992

3 before you?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. And do you see that that's a review of executive positions held

6 by employees of Muslim nationality?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could you run your eye down the list of names and tell me whether

9 or not most or all of these people were dismissed from their jobs.

10 MR. STEWART: The question really should be whether any of them

11 are, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. STEWART: It should be any of them. Because once again,

14 these questions time after time after time point directly towards the

15 answer that -- that counsel is looking for.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the witness has already said that the

17 Muslims were dismissed from their jobs, and these are all the executive

18 positions in the municipality where Muslims were employed, so the evidence

19 has presupposed the question; nevertheless, if Mr. Stewart wishes to

20 insist, I'll restate the question and I'll ask Mr. Egrlic whether any of

21 these people were dismissed.

22 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Margetts, I'm just looking at the

23 previous answer in respect of dismissals.

24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, or he could say which, if it's --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart --

1 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, I'm trying to help.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I am saying that I'm checking the previous answer.

3 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I was trying to be

4 helpful. By --

5 JUDGE ORIE: I appreciate that.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I can't find the line where the witness said

8 about -- I think he said that two people were fired before the 7th of May

9 and then after the 7th of May -- I can't find the line.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. The witness refers to those two

11 people being dismissed. But in response to the question just prior to my

12 introduction of these three documents, he stated as follows -- and it's

13 on -- at the transcript I have before me, it's at line 42.4.

14 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 42.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Line --

16 JUDGE ORIE: 4, yes.

17 MR. MARGETTS: -- 11.29.33. The witness stated: "The individuals

18 who discharged certain duties in administrative bodies lost their jobs."

19 JUDGE ORIE: It was in my mind that he said something about after

20 the 7th of May, but --

21 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I refer to page 37. Yes.

23 "After the 7th of May, everybody was dismissed." I take it

24 that --

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before the 7th of May, it was just the radio

2 and the financial institution, I think it was the DSK or DK --

3 MR. MARGETTS: SDK, yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: "And then after the 7th of May, everybody was

5 dismissed."

6 Under those circumstances, the objection is denied.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. STEWART: The different objection is, then, what the

9 Americans called asked and answered, then. If that's the position, if my

10 learned friend is saying he'll simply repeat it, if he wishes. Having got

11 the answer they were all dismissed, why do we then need to go through a

12 list? Because if a witness does actually mean what he says, we're simply

13 going over the same ground again.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, I do understand everybody

15 was dismissed, not to be the full 100 per cent, a large number, and

16 the -- Mr. Margetts is now trying to clarify what exactly in more specific

17 terms the answer would mean. Is that correct?

18 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

20 MR. MARGETTS: The basis for the question is -- to twofold:

21 First of all, it's to provide further particulars to the answer that's

22 already been given; and second of all, it's to refer specifically to a

23 document that was produced by the Serbian government themselves, which he

24 will then be able to give direct evidence in relation to the individuals,

25 that they were aware of --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. MARGETTS: -- as either being employed or not employed.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

4 MR. MARGETTS:

5 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'll repeat the question: The document before you,

6 dated 26 June 1992, lists various Muslim employees in executive positions.

7 Were any of the people listed in this document dismissed?

8 A. All these people were dismissed.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic.

10 If I could refer to the next document. I've finished with that

11 document. That's P241.

12 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask for one clarification to the witness. You

13 said, "They were all dismissed." It's quite a list. Did you review the

14 list at this very moment, or did you review the list prior to giving

15 evidence in this courtroom?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I reviewed this list before, and I

17 know all these people personally, and I know that all of them were

18 dismissed from their jobs, and even though I hadn't meant to say this

19 before, but here, in addition to the directors who were Bosniaks, there is

20 also the name of Drasko Banjac, a Serb, who found himself on this list

21 because he was married to a Bosniak. Therefore, they considered him

22 unreliable and he was dismissed too.

23 JUDGE ORIE: That answers my question.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

25 MR. MARGETTS:

1 MR. MARGETTS: If Mr. Egrlic could be presented with the Exhibit

2 P240 -- 241. Sorry.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are -- yes.

4 MR. MARGETTS:

5 Q. Mr. Egrlic, is this the decision terminating your services as

6 chairman of the Executive Committee?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 MR. MARGETTS: If the -- I've finished with that document. If

9 the witness could be shown Exhibit P242.

10 Q. Mr. Egrlic, does this record of 3 August 1992 refer to the

11 departure from the municipality of your wife?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you explain to me the circumstances of her departure and what

14 happened to your family property following her departure.

15 A. The majority of citizens from Kljuc municipality were driven out

16 in the most brutal way possible; they were deported in trailer trucks, and

17 they had to pay significant sums of money for this deportation. Before

18 being deported, they had to pay all their utility bills and turn over

19 their unmovable property to the municipal authorities. A record was made

20 of this surrender of property, wherein a statement was taken from every

21 citizen in question that he was renouncing his property in favour of the

22 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kljuc municipality. This is

23 something that had to be done by everyone who had immovable property,

24 because it was a precondition for leaving Kljuc municipality. So it was

25 done by my wife too because she, too, had to leave Kljuc.

1 Q. I've finished with that document, Mr. Egrlic.

2 Now, returning to the 7th of May, 1992, you said that the people

3 who were not loyal to the Serbian government were removed from the

4 municipal building. Where did you go after the 7th of May, 1992?

5 A. After the 7th of May, 1992, we established an office in the

6 Velagici local commune, in the building of the cultural hall in order to

7 be able to have contacts with citizens, and that is where we worked from

8 the 7th May onwards.

9 Q. And when you say "we," you are referring to yourself and

10 Mr. Omer Filipovic and your close associates?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Was this office in the settlement of Pudin Han? And if so, how

13 far north of the city of Kljuc is Pudin Han?

14 A. It was in Pudin Han, 3 kilometres or so away from Kljuc.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

16 exhibit, which is the document dated 12 May 1992 and is the seventh

17 exhibit on the second page of the list.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would get number ...? I take it

19 243 for the original and 243.1 for the English translation?

20 MR. MARGETTS:

21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, this is a decision that purports to have been made by

22 yourself on the 12th of May, 1992. Did you make this decision and did you

23 sign this document?

24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I see a similar problem, I think, as you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 have.

2 Mr. Margetts, the copying of the original has been done in such a

3 way that only part of the document is visible; only the left upper part.

4 So, therefore, signatures are not even -- could we compare your copy

5 and -- my copy looks like this. Yes.

6 Could you please check the copies provided. Because it has been

7 enlarged and only part of the document is available.

8 Could it be put on the ELMO -- could you do without it for a

9 second?

10 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Without the original?

12 What -- and perhaps -- what is the original that has been

13 presented to the witness? May I have -- could you please hold the

14 document 243 so that I can have a look at a distance.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no signature.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have a similar problem.

17 Could this original be replaced by the one in the hands of the

18 usher.

19 Mr. Usher, could you please give the other copy, the complete

20 copy to the witness. And then after he has briefly inspected it, put it

21 again on the ELMO so that we can all have a look at it. And since the

22 first question was about signatures, perhaps the lower part.

23 Mr. Usher, could you assist to -- the witness to put it on the

24 ELMO.

25 Mr. Egrlic, you'll see it left -- to your left-hand side, but it

1 could also appear on the screen. The usher will help you.

2 Please proceed.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the signature is

4 concerned, it says here, "President of the Executive Council,

5 Asim Egrlic," in print. However, this signature here is not mine. The

6 document was signed by Tihomir Dakic, vice-president of the

7 Executive Committee.

8 MR. MARGETTS:

9 Q. And as at the date of this document, that is, 12 May 1992, you

10 had no knowledge at all of this document or this decision?

11 A. I had no knowledge, nor was I able to make any decisions, since I

12 did not attend at all from the 7th of May onwards.

13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that was another leading question.

14 These are blatantly leading, these questions. That's -- the form of that

15 question should be: Did you have any knowledge? Not "you had no

16 knowledge," with a question mark tacked on the end of the answer that

17 counsel is looking for.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. MARGETTS: We have proceeded on the basis in this proceeding

21 that expedition is a consideration in examination-in-chief, and given that

22 this is a very peripheral document on a very peripheral matter, it was

23 merely with expedition I sought to proceed.

24 I have no comment to make about the substance of Mr. Stewart's

25 objection, I just have a comment to make about how we can expedite the

1 proceedings.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, the question: "Did you

3 have any knowledge?" And the answer, "no," or "You had no knowledge of

4 it?" And the answer, "yes," is as far as time is concerned, just as

5 expeditious. So, therefore, would you please -- where it really doesn't

6 save time and where it's -- it's not only time, but it -- the starting

7 point is if a question could be phrased during the examination-in-chief in

8 such a way that it's not leading or leading to the minimal, apart from

9 those areas that are not contested at all, then that should be chosen.

10 And the example is a clear example with exactly the same number of words

11 and also only one word answering that question would have created exactly

12 the same result, and there you should certainly choose the less leading

13 way.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. MARGETTS:

16 Q. Mr. Egrlic, as at 12 May 1992, did you know of this decision?

17 A. I did not.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I've finished with that document, and

19 I'd like to --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that you'll provide the proper

21 copies of 243, the original, to both Defence and Chamber.

22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: That will replace that.

24 MR. MARGETTS: If Mr. Egrlic could be shown the document dated 14

25 May 1992, which has the translation ERN, 01106533.

1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, could we have the original B/C/S

3 version. I don't know whether you have another copy, but at least --

4 there's one in the hands of the -- of the registrar, because otherwise we

5 are without.

6 MR. MARGETTS: And if the Defence could be provided with our

7 second copy.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 Yes, now, the 14th of May document will then get number 244 for

10 the original and 244.1 for the English translation.

11 Now, Mr. Margetts, there is some confusion. We have two

12 documents on the list "14th of May."

13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this is the --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I see. No. No, it's clear to me. There's no

15 confusion. I'm a bit confused.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, could you refer to the first page of this document.

19 And I'll just describe what the document is. It's the minutes of a

20 meeting of the 14th of May between the Command of the military,

21 Colonel Galic, and presidents of various Serbian municipalities in the

22 region of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.

23 Mr. Egrlic, could you refer to point 5 under the listing on the

24 first page, "Present at the meeting," and could you read the name there

25 and tell me whether that is the president of Kljuc.

1 A. It says here: "President of the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc,

2 Jovo Banjac," yes.

3 Q. Could you refer to paragraph 11 -- or point 11 under that

4 heading, and could you tell me who Rajko Kalabic is.

5 A. Rajko Kalabic was a deputy first to the Parliament of Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina and then to the Parliament or the Assembly of

7 Republika Srpska.

8 Q. I refer you to the second page of this document and the heading

9 "Kljuc," and note that the first words of this section read: "After the

10 partial takeover of power." As at 14 May 1992, was that an accurate

11 representation of the authority that was in the hands of the Serbian

12 Municipality in Kljuc? That is, did they have total power or only partial

13 power over the territory?

14 A. They had total power, even before this date when this meeting

15 took place.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder, why was the extra question

17 put at the end is what we ask. Once again, the -- if the question had

18 stopped, "Was that an accurate representation of the authority that was in

19 the hands of the Serbian Municipality in Kljuc?" That would have been a

20 shorter and more efficient question. The addition -- this is happening

21 time after time after time -- the addition contains with it the answer

22 that the counsel is looking for.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Can I respond.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Just to say that I think in the addition the only

3 two options were presented, and accordingly, again, it was done for the

4 reasons of the expedition.

5 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, if they're the only two options,

6 they don't need saying. And how it can be expedition to add unnecessary

7 words to a question absolutely is beyond us.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts, there are more options. There

9 could have been no takeover of the power at all. That would be already a

10 third option. And, of course, the purpose of refraining from

11 unnecessarily leading is to give an opportunity to the witness to say,

12 "Well, partially takeover territory -- from a point of view of territory

13 it's correct or from a point of view of" -- well, whatever. There are a

14 lot of other options, and I -- it might well have been that the witness

15 would have said, "No, it was not a partial but a total takeover." Fine,

16 we would then hear that.

17 So although it is perhaps not dramatic in respect of this, in

18 view of what the witness said before about the power, but if you think

19 that you should put that question to the witness in this context, where it

20 was already another context, you could do it just as open as suggested by

21 Mr. -- By Mr. Stewart.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Mr. Egrlic, could you please refer to the third page of this

25 document, and in particular the second-last paragraph that appears on that

1 third page, commencing with the words, "the president of Kljuc."

2 In the first sentence of that paragraph, it is stated that

3 Jovo Banjac said that "In Kljuc the policy of finding a peaceful solution

4 to the problems was still being pursued." As at 14 May 1992, was that the

5 case?

6 A. On the 7th of May, there was a brutal takeover, and there was

7 nothing to the effect of a peaceful solution. We were completely

8 peaceful, for that matter, but a peace -- finding a peaceful solution was

9 not a topic of discussions.

10 Q. After the 14th of May, did you meet with Jovo Banjac and discuss

11 the situation in the municipality with him?

12 A. We asked for a meeting to see what the situation in the

13 municipality was and to try and give the name to what was obvious. We

14 wanted to receive information from them. At that meeting, which was held

15 in the municipality building, there was me, there was the late

16 Omer Filipovic, Jovo Banjac, and Veljko Kondic; however, they kept on

17 insisting and urging us to sign the document on loyalty to the Serbian

18 republic. We, on the other hand, as far as the municipality of Kljuc was

19 concerned, insisted on the troops being removed with their weapons and on

20 the life continuing the way it was before the 7th of May, before 1991, for

21 that matter.

22 The meeting ended without a conclusion, and we parted, and this

23 was our last meeting with these gentlemen.

24 Q. Approximately what date did this meeting occur?

25 A. It was around the 20th of May.

1 Q. At this meeting, what did Veljko Kondic say?

2 A. I can't remember the details of what anybody said at that

3 meeting. However, it was very clear that in that area we could not do a

4 thing to restore things to the way they were before, and it was also clear

5 that the Serbian people were aiming for a special state, as outlined by

6 the high policy of the Serbian Democratic Party, and that if anything,

7 then only that further deterioration of the relationship was in store for

8 us.

9 Q. Subsequent to the meeting in the municipal building, where did

10 you go?

11 A. After that meeting, we went to the Lovac restaurant for a drink

12 and an informal chat. We all had known each other for a long time, and in

13 an informal conversation sometimes more is said than during any official

14 meeting, and that's why we accepted the invitation for a drink and an

15 informal chat. We thought that that might be an opportunity to convince

16 them that there was no need for such a number of troops and military

17 equipment in the area of Kljuc.

18 Q. Who went to the restaurant for this informal discussion?

19 A. All of us went there: Me, Mr. Banjac, Omer Filipovic,

20 Veljko Kondic, and Vinko Kondic, all of us who were present at the

21 meeting.

22 Q. How did you travel to the restaurant and with whom?

23 A. I went with Mr. Banjac. I travelled in his car to the

24 restaurant. And the others left before us in another car. They were

25 already in the restaurant when we arrived. As he was leaving the car and

1 locking the door, Jovo Banjac told me that they had to implement what had

2 been outlined; namely, that people would have to be moved from this

3 territory, that there would have to be an exodus of people from this

4 territory. I asked him, "What kind of exodus? How do you mean moving

5 people? How can that be carried out?" He said that, "From some

6 territories in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs have to leave, and from the

7 others, Bosniaks and Croats had to leave. So that their respective

8 minority percentages would not be more than 5 or 6 per cent.

9 I told him that this was plain crazy and that I couldn't

10 understand that anybody could have conceived that in their head and that

11 this was totally undoable. And this is how our conversation in front of

12 the restaurant ended. Then we entered the restaurant itself.

13 Q. Jovo Banjac said to you that they had to implement what had been

14 outlined. What did you understand him to mean by those words?

15 A. It was certain by that time that the leadership of the SDS had

16 planned the ethnic cleansing of the territory and they also planned for

17 some of the ethnic groups to become a minority in that territory.

18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I refer you back to the document that is before you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask one intermediary question. Your

20 answer to the last question was translated, "It was certain by that time

21 that the leadership of the SDS had planned ...." What is the factual

22 basis of this knowledge? Because it's a statement, rather than an

23 observation of facts.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I concluded that based on the hard

25 line offered by Mr. Banjac. It seemed to me that he personally did not

1 share that view but that he would be willing to implement what had been

2 outlined by the policy. According to him, the resettlement of people from

3 certain territories was nothing but ethnic cleansing, and the

4 establishment of mono-ethnic territories in the State of Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer comes down to that -- it seemed to you

7 that he personally did not share that view, so it was the view of others,

8 and you're talking about policy. On what basis did you in your earlier

9 answer elaborate on who those others might have been?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The higher leadership of the

11 Serbian Democratic Party.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's a repetition of your answer. But on what

13 basis you concluded that those were the -- the others and not, well, let's

14 say, the foreign ambassadors or Greek government? I mean, others, and

15 then you say "those." What -- on what factual basis did you conclude, as

16 you just repeated, who those others were?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I based that on the fact that

18 Mr. Banjac always consulted with the higher bodies for all important

19 decisions, and I believe that the resettlement of some ethnic groups from

20 some territories was an exceptionally important decision. Having known

21 Mr. Banjac from before, I sincerely doubted that such an idea could be his

22 own and that he was in the position to think along these lines because

23 such a policy had already been established and outlined at a higher level.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you mentioned "higher bodies." Could you

25 further specify what you meant by that.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The SDS in Kljuc had to go to the

2 Serbian Autonomous Region and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina whenever some decisions or the implementation of such

4 decisions was in question.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your answers.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

7 MR. MARGETTS:

8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you've described earlier in your evidence the very

9 close association you had with Mr. Banjac.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I see your microphone is not on.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Apologies, Your Honour. I'll repeat the question.

12 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you've described in your early -- your evidence the

13 very close association that you had with Mr. Banjac. Were you aware of

14 occasions when Mr. Banjac visited higher-level members of the SDS party?

15 A. He would attend meetings; however, I did not discuss that with

16 him. I didn't ask him where he went. I know that he went to Banja Luka.

17 I know that because he would ask me to sign his travel orders for

18 Banja Luka. I had to sign those for him.

19 Q. Did he go to Sarajevo?

20 A. Sometimes we went to Sarajevo together up to September or October

21 1991. After that, he didn't go there. Whenever he needed to establish

22 some contacts, he would go to Banja Luka.

23 Q. Did higher-level members of the SDS party visit Kljuc?

24 A. Some did. Mr. Nikola Koljevic, who was a member of the

25 Presidency; there was one such meeting that I attended in my capacity as

1 the president of the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly. On one

2 occasion, Radovan Karadzic also visited us, but I did not attend that

3 meeting.

4 Q. When did these visits take place?

5 A. Mr. Koljevic came in the first half of 1991.

6 Q. Do you know when Mr. Karadzic visited?

7 A. Karadzic came a lot later, but I can't remember when.

8 Q. Do you recall what was discussed at either of those meetings,

9 with either Mr. Koljevic or Mr. Karadzic?

10 A. I don't know what was discussed at the meeting with Karadzic. As

11 for Mr. Koljevic, during that meeting, while I was there, the discussion

12 was along the most general lines, the development and growth of the

13 municipality, and so on and so forth.

14 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'd like to refer you back to the document that's

15 before you, in particular page 3 of that document. You'll see

16 approximately -- just above the middle of the page there is a reference to

17 "Strategic goals formulated at a meeting in Banja Luka." It states that

18 "These goals were presented at that meeting."

19 I'd like you to read the first goal, goal number 1, that is,

20 "There must be a state separation of the three national communities," and

21 tell me whether that goal was implemented in Kljuc.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. How was that goal implemented?

24 A. In the following way: There was a complete takeover of power by

25 the SDS and the Municipality of Kljuc was linked to the SAO Krajina, which

1 was part of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2 Q. Practically for the Muslim citizens, how did that -- the

3 implementation of that goal affect them?

4 A. They lost their jobs. They were terrified by the situation.

5 They no longer had a vision as to how things would end. They were

6 deprived of their rights, because they had lost the most important thing

7 that any individual is entitled to, and that is their right to work.

8 Later on they were expelled from the area, which after that has

9 become completely ethnically clean.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note the time. That ends my

11 questions in respect of this topic.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll -- and how much time would you

13 still need? We had in the beginning -- you had an assessment, anything

14 between six and eight hours. I think we're now at approximately six, a

15 little bit over six hours.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. We will do everything possible

17 to finish in the next session.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If it would come to any questions about

19 conditions and circumstances in the Manjaca camp, which I can imagine on

20 the basis of the 65 ter summary, I'd draw your attention to the fact that

21 while the previous witness was examined, that there seemed not to be major

22 disagreement to -- between the parties. So I would like to cut that

23 really short and I might even intervene myself. But that should really

24 take not much time.

25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until ten minutes to 1.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, please proceed. Yes.

5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could the witness be presented with

6 the next exhibit, which is the second-last exhibit on the second page with

7 the English translation Y0018557.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would get number ...?

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be 245 and 245.1

10 for the English translation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

13 MR. MARGETTS:

14 Q. Mr. Egrlic, prior to arriving in The Hague recently, had you seen

15 this document before?

16 A. I saw this document when I arrived in The Hague.

17 Q. This is a statement from Omer Filipovic. And on the last page,

18 it is dated 29 May 1992. Where was Omer Filipovic on the 29th of May,

19 1992?

20 A. On that date, Omer Filipovic was at the police administration of

21 Kljuc or Gradiska, I don't know precisely, in prison, in detention.

22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you had an opportunity since you arrived in

23 The Hague to read this statement?

24 A. Yes, I have.

25 Q. And in general terms, to the best of your knowledge, and to the

1 matters that you have knowledge on, is this statement accurate?

2 A. For the most part, the greatest part of the statement, it is.

3 Q. Could you refer to page 3 of the statement, and in particular to

4 the paragraph that starts -- the last paragraph on -- in -- on page 3,

5 which goes over to page 4. There's a reference there to a directive.

6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could we just have the first few words

7 of the paragraph, because it's been located in the B/C/S version, but for

8 those of us in the English version, just the first two or three words

9 would be helpful.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. It's on the third page of the English version

12 and it attempts -- it commences: "I attempted to copy the organisation of

13 the existing staff."

14 MR. STEWART: Thank you so much.

15 MR. MARGETTS:

16 Q. There's a reference to you in this paragraph, Mr. Egrlic, and it

17 states that you were a member of the TO staff and supposed to perform the

18 political functions. Is that correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Now, if we refer back -- no, actually, if we refer to the first

21 paragraph appearing on page 3 and to five lines down - and in the English

22 version, this is the second page, and it's commencing four lines up from

23 the bottom - there's a reference to a directive for impeding military

24 columns, and it states that Mr. Filipovic informed you, Mr. Egrlic, about

25 the contents of the directive. Is that correct? Did he inform you about

1 that directive?

2 A. It's not correct, and I don't know what this is about.

3 Q. Having read this a couple of days ago, do any other matters occur

4 to you in this document that you consider to be incorrect?

5 A. There is one thing. As far as the Territorial Defence is

6 concerned, Mr. Filipovic is talking mainly about the strength and the

7 level of organisation. The Territorial Defence was mainly a concept, an

8 idea to be implemented. It never reached the stage of actually lining up

9 the members and inspecting the troops and the state of their military

10 equipment, their weapons.

11 Q. There are references to various Muslim settlements in this

12 document that are located north of Kljuc. Were you aware that there were

13 people who were assigned guard duty in the settlements?

14 A. I knew that there were village guards from the beginning of 1992

15 onwards, in view of the deteriorated security situations. We discussed

16 this at one of the sessions of the Municipal Assembly and took the stand

17 that monitoring should be organised, as well as village guards, because

18 some individuals had already made raids on villages with the aim of

19 robbery, and the idea was to prevent such raids in the future and protect

20 the villages from such raids.

21 Q. I'll now ask you some questions about matters that are referred

22 to in this document, but it won't be necessary for you to refer to the

23 document to provide your answer, but feel free to do so if you would wish

24 to.

25 Was Omer Filipovic appointed by the commander of the Territorial

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colonel Hasan Efendic, to be the commander

2 of the TO Staff of Kljuc?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did Omer Filipovic form that TO Staff and was it based in

5 Pudin Han?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And in consultation with you, did Omer Filipovic set out some

8 proposed organisation of that staff in the general region north of Kljuc?

9 A. There was talk about it. He, as a reserve lieutenant, was

10 supposed to develop some sort of organisational scheme for their

11 headquarters, for their staff.

12 Q. Did he refer to the employee of the Municipal Assembly,

13 Iksan Zukanovic, to assist him with this organisation?

14 A. I don't know about that.

15 Q. Were you aware whether or not a number of men who were approached

16 to participate in the TO were too scared to do so?

17 A. I couldn't answer that, because I don't know whom he had asked

18 and how they responded.

19 Q. Is it consistent with your knowledge at the time that, all in

20 all, there was a potential for a unit of about 1200 to 1300 men to be

21 formed?

22 A. Hypothetically, yes, because there were men of appropriate age

23 who could have become members of the TO. However, the prevailing

24 circumstances and the situation I have already described did not make it

25 possible to perform a proper mobilisation and to put together units in the

1 way that is common in military practice.

2 Q. In terms of the weapons available to these men, would there have

3 been approximately 800 weapons of various kinds?

4 A. I don't know about that, because there was no depot from which

5 weapons were issued, nor had there ever been an inspection to establish

6 how many weapons there were.

7 Q. On the 26th of May, was there an incident in Crljeni, a Muslim

8 settlement north of Kljuc, where approximately eight soldiers were

9 captured?

10 A. Yes, in the village of Crljeni, C-r-l-j-a-n-i [as interpreted].

11 There was an incident which occurred when seven to eight soldiers entered

12 the village with specific intentions. However, the village guards were

13 alert, and these people were captured and later released.

14 Q. Were they Serbian soldiers?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did Omer Filipovic meet with you and discuss this issue with you

17 and subsequently did you speak with Jovo Banjac about this incident?

18 A. Mr. Filipovic discussed this incident on several occasions, as

19 far as I know, with Mr. Banjac and Mr. Kondic, and these soldiers were

20 released in good health.

21 Q. You stated earlier that Mr. Filipovic was very -- a very good

22 friend of Vinko Kondic, and Mr. Filipovic in his statement here says, in

23 fact, that he and Vinko Kondic were like brothers since childhood. Is

24 that correct?

25 A. It is correct.

1 Q. On the 26th of May, did Omer Filipovic contact Vinko Kondic and

2 did he travel with Vinko Kondic around villages in the north of Kljuc in

3 order to settle down any situation that could have been developing?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. In my previous question, I mentioned the 26th of May. It may be

6 the 27th of May that I should have referred to, but in or around the 26th

7 of May did he do that?

8 A. Yes, he did.

9 Q. On the 27th of May, where were you?

10 A. On the 27th of May, in the morning I was in Pudin Han. Then I

11 went to see my family, which had already fled together with other families

12 from the settlement where they used to live.

13 Q. What was occurring in the settlement where they used to live?

14 A. Egrlici, Sehici, and Drezovici [phoen] were targeted with

15 gunfire, and they were afraid that the army would soon enter these

16 settlements, so they fled to the woods about 5 kilometres away.

17 Q. What happened to you on the 27th of May from the morning until

18 the evening?

19 A. That morning, I was in Pudin Han. Then I went to the place to

20 which my family had fled. And when I returned to my office in Pudin Han,

21 I realised that an incident had occurred in an area called Busije,

22 involving an exchange of fire between the army and the local village

23 guards.

24 Q. And what did you do in respect of that incident?

25 A. There was nothing to be done about it any more.

1 Q. What happened on the 28th of May?

2 A. That night, since I was unable to go home because I had no home

3 any more, I spent the night in a house in Pudin Han, and in the morning of

4 the 28th of May I had an accident. I shot myself from a pistol. And when

5 I tried to get to a hospital, I was stopped at a checkpoint just outside

6 the town and I was escorted to the police station in Kljuc, and from then

7 on to the Stara Gradiska camp.

8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, we'll deal with that matter in a few moments.

9 Just can you explain to me how it was you came to shoot yourself

10 in the foot.

11 A. The day before, scared as I was of the situation, I put a bullet

12 in the barrel without fastening the safety lock, and the next morning I

13 took my jacket with the pocket -- with the gun inside the pocket, and the

14 pistol fell out and fired.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness two

16 exhibits, two documents. The first one is one that is fourth up on the

17 second page of the exhibit list, and it's dated 28 May 1992, and the

18 translation ERN is 01107557. And the other one is on the top page

19 of -- the top of the third page of the exhibit list; it's dated 10 June

20 1992, and the ERN is 00914852. If the 10 June document could be marked

21 and shown to the witness first.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The 10th of June document would be 246, original,

23 and 246.1, translation; and the 29th of May -- the 28th of May, 1992

24 document would be -- would be 247 for the original and 247.1 for the

25 translation.

1 [Prosecution counsel confer]

2 MR. MARGETTS:

3 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you look at the document which is in handwriting.

4 Do you have that document before you? And purports to be handwritten

5 notes from the Kljuc police station.

6 Can you look at item 2 on the second page of that document, which

7 is headed "Staff TO," and can you confirm that that accurately describes

8 the staff of the Territorial Defence that we have previously referred to.

9 A. Yes, I can.

10 Q. In respect of the other positions and listings in this document,

11 do you have any knowledge of these matters?

12 A. I don't know exactly what your question refers to, but as it

13 regards the Crisis Staff, which is listed here as a body that existed, it

14 was only an idea and it never took off the ground because it was never

15 confirmed by the Municipal Council -- better, say the deputies who were

16 members of the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc. As for the other listings, in

17 my view this is just an outline as to what could be organised, in view of

18 the fact that there were human resources available, in view of their age

19 and their obligation to be part of the armed forces.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I'd like you to refer to the next

21 document, which is the order dated 28 May 1992 of the Kljuc Crisis Staff.

22 Can you tell me what occurred following this order?

23 And for the record, this is an order in respect of the surrender

24 of weapons and a call to the decent and loyal Muslims living in the area

25 to contribute to a peaceful solution.

1 A. This order was followed through. Units of the Serbian army

2 entered various settlements. What ensued was that the majority of the

3 population was brought in for interrogation. Some of the weapons were

4 found. A large number of the population was detained in the schools and

5 thereafter deported into the Manjaca camp. During that same period of

6 time, there were a number of killings and mass execution of the

7 population.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Could Mr. Egrlic be presented with the next

10 exhibit, which is the one that appears on the list on page 2, dated 1 May

11 1992, and the ERN is 03023558. It's the rather large handwritten

12 document.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would get number ...?

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P248 and P248.1

15 for the English translation.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Did I not already have 248? The handwritten

17 document, the previous one --

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the previous one was 247, which was

19 the Crisis Staff order.

20 MR. STEWART: We concur with that, Your Honour. That's where we

21 believe we've got to.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I --

23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then I indicated that wrong, yes. Then I stand

25 corrected.

1 MR. MARGETTS:

2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you take a look through this document and tell me

3 whether you recognise any of the handwriting in this document.

4 A. I saw this document for the first time when I arrived here. I

5 recognised the Cyrillic handwriting on page 1. This is Vinko Kondic's

6 handwriting.

7 Q. When you refer to page 1, could you read out the numbers, the

8 eight-digit number sequence of the page you're referring to. That's the

9 sequence that's stamped on top on the page.

10 A. The number is 00574398.

11 Q. So in the document that you have before you, you recognise the

12 handwriting on the page that has the heading "Number 1." Can you scan

13 backwards through the document.

14 In respect of the preceding two page, do you recognise the

15 handwriting on those pages? That is, from the number 00574396. Do you

16 recognise that handwriting?

17 A. The page is 00574399. This is the number on the -- on the next

18 page, and the handwriting is the same as on the previous page.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Egrlic, I think the question was about the

20 preceding, not the following pages, though I --

21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So would you please look at the last two

23 digits 96 and 97, so the previous pages. Yes.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the handwriting is the same.

25 MR. MARGETTS:

1 Q. And that is the handwriting of Vinko Kondic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In respect of the handwriting that appears on the pages that

4 precede the pages you have identified, that is, from the first page of the

5 document through to the page concluding with the digits "95," do you

6 recognise that handwriting?

7 A. Again, the handwriting is the same. This is Vinko Kondic's

8 handwriting.

9 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask one question. If you would look at

10 the page with the last two digits "88." You see there's an upper

11 part -- have you found it?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You have an upper part. You have a empty middle

14 part, and then a lower part. Is this all Vinko Kondic's handwriting?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not sure about the top part,

16 but the bottom part is in the Cyrillic script.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question was whether it was all

18 Vinko Kondic's handwriting. I mean, there are other people who can write

19 Cyrillic script, isn't it?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course there are, but what is

21 written in the Cyrillic script I recognise as Vinko Kondic's handwriting.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the non-Cyrillic, on the top of the page,

23 which would -- seems to be quite similar to what we find on the previous

24 pages and which also seems to be quite similar to what we find on 93 and

25 94?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This looks like -- like it, judging

2 by the lower part of the letters; however, having worked with

3 Mr. Vinko Kondic in the Sana construction company, I had a lot of

4 opportunities to see his handwriting in the Cyrillic script. As for the

5 Latinic script, I'm not sure that this is his handwriting; although, there

6 are similarities, especially when it comes to the lower portion of the

7 letters.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

9 MR. MARGETTS:

10 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I refer you to the page that ends with the numbers

11 "98" and has the heading "Number 1." In particular, I refer you to the

12 last paragraph on that page, which continues over to the page with the

13 last two digits "99."

14 If you look down at the last paragraph, that paragraph

15 commences - and correct me if I'm wrong - that paragraph commences:

16 "There are not many Croats on the territory of the municipality"; is that

17 correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In this paragraph, Mr. Kondic writes that "The Muslims in the

20 municipality are well organised." And we've dealt with the issue of your

21 organisation, so I don't need you to respond to that particular matter.

22 However, if you turn over the page, you will see on the page marked "99,"

23 that the final sentence of Mr. Kondic's report concludes: "It is

24 realistic to assume that the Muslim and Croatian forces cannot have even

25 an initial advantage but their activities may initially cause confusion in

1 our ranks."

2 How do you respond to that assessment of the Muslim capability

3 when assessed by reference to the strength of the Serb forces?

4 A. This is a good assessment, given the fact that the Territorial

5 Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Kljuc was neither organised nor

6 prepared well enough to wage any kind of war, and they knew it only too

7 well.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.

9 You have heard His Honour state before the previous break that we

10 don't need to receive from you very specific details of your detention in

11 the various facilities and what occurred, but if you could, without my

12 further prompting, just run through a brief chronology of where you were

13 detained after the 28th of May, who detained you, and if you were subject

14 to any beatings or other activities or witnessed beatings and other

15 activities, could you note those for the Trial Chamber and could you note

16 your observations in respect of what occurred to other people you were

17 detained with.

18 A. On the 28th of May, when I was arrested at the checkpoint close

19 to the town, I was taken to the police administration of Kljuc. There I

20 was beaten. In addition to the wound that I had already sustained, I had

21 various injuries on my head and on my body, and in that state I was

22 transferred to the Kljuc hospital, where I stayed for a while.

23 During the day, around 1.00 or 2.00 in the afternoon, I was in

24 the hospital, and then I was again taken to the police administration

25 building in an ambulance. In front of the building and in front of the

1 car where I was, I saw a truck with a canvas cover. This truck was

2 driving in front of us as we drove off in the direction of Banja Luka. In

3 the hospital, I had been told that we would transferred to the Banja Luka

4 hospital; however, we never even stopped in Banja Luka but, rather,

5 proceeded towards Gradiska. As we were leaving Banja Luka, during the

6 night the truck and the ambulance pulled over. Soldiers from the Logor

7 barracks came and I was beaten by them again, half conscious and covered

8 in blood. I saw people on the truck. They were being thrown out of the

9 truck with their hands tied behind their back -- backs. Those people were

10 beaten heavily and then again loaded onto the truck.

11 We set off again and arrived in the Stara Gradiska prison. I was

12 detained in one of the cells there together with another man, who was

13 unconscious. After a day or two, he was taken away. Later on I found out

14 that he succumbed to his wounds.

15 I was transferred to another cell, where I stayed for some 15

16 days or so, and then I was transferred to the Manjaca camp, where I stayed

17 for a few months and where, like everybody else there, I was exposed to

18 various forms of torture, beating, humiliation, deprivation of food and

19 water, and other such things.

20 When the Manjaca camp was about to be dismantled under the

21 pressure of the international general public and the Red Cross, 531 of us

22 were transferred to the Batkovici camp near Bijeljina. I stayed there

23 until the 29th of January, 2003, and then I was liberated, I was set free

24 in an exchange that took place in Orasje.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I would have a few additional questions, then. Were

1 the circumstances in Batkovici camp similar to the ones in Manjaca camp?

2 Or were they different?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were similar. The only

4 difference being the fact in Manjaca we were accommodated in cow sheds.

5 We lie on the floor, on the concrete floor on a very thin straw mattress;

6 whereas, in Batkovici, this mattress was somewhat thicker. It was a mat.

7 And the control was not so strict, or better say the treatment of the

8 military police who controlled the camp was somewhat better. There was

9 less beating. Fewer people would be called out during the night. We had

10 better access to water. We had an exterior faucet, so we could wash our

11 faces. We did not have all that in Manjaca. The conditions were somewhat

12 better and somewhat more bearable in Batkovici. Still, having said that,

13 both camps were very similar.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then for Manjaca, did you see anyone dying in

15 Manjaca?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I saw several people dying.

17 I saw several people being beaten. I saw several people being exhausted

18 from starvation. A lot of people became sick. I saw all that.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your answer to be that it was due to

20 the circumstances and due to the beatings that people were dying?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: As far as guards are concerned, who was guarding

23 Manjaca camp?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were many, and they were the

25 Serbian military police. Some of them ...

1 JUDGE ORIE: You said, "some of them." We didn't hear what the

2 following words were, if you spoke them. What would you like to tell us

3 in respect of some of these Serbian military policemen?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that I knew some of

5 them by name, the way they introduced themselves and the way others

6 introduced them. I learned some of their names or their nicknames. One

7 of them was Spaga. That was his nickname. I don't know his name. He

8 discharged the duties of the commander of that police force that was

9 guarding the camp. Another one was Zeljko Bulatovic.

10 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment the names are not of greater

11 importance.

12 About the Stara Gradiska camp, was the situation there close to

13 Manjaca or rather closer to what you said, the slightly better conditions

14 in Batkovici?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Stara Gradiska was nothing like

16 Manjaca or Batkovici. It was a building that had always been a prison,

17 and it had purpose-built cells where detainees were kept. I was in one of

18 those cells; whereas, others were in bigger cells which could hold up to

19 30 people. Actually, there were up to 30 people in the cell; although,

20 the capacity, the normal capacity of those cells was only up to five, six

21 people.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In view of food, water, sanitary situation,

23 was it better or worse than Manjaca?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The situation was worse when it

25 came to sanitary situation because we were humiliated; we experienced all

1 sorts of humiliation when we had to go and relieve ourselves, because

2 every time we wanted to do that, we would be beaten, and the time we had

3 at our disposal would be limited to three to five minutes.

4 As far as the food was concerned, it was somewhat better than in

5 Manjaca. We received water to a somewhat greater amount. In Manjaca, we

6 did not have any access to water. The detainees in Manjaca would bring

7 water in jerrycans from -- from a nearby lake. Very often there would be

8 tadpoles swimming in that water. The quality of that water was really

9 poor, but still the detainees had to drink it.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.

11 Any further questions, Mr. Margetts?

12 I notice that I'm guilty of that as well, that we are far over

13 the time already, 12 minutes. If it's a matter of one minute, I would ask

14 the interpreters to stay with us for that one minute. If it would be

15 more, we have to resume tomorrow morning.

16 MR. MARGETTS: Just one question on this topic.

17 JUDGE ORIE: One question, yes.

18 MR. MARGETTS: But we will -- we want the show a video, which

19 will take probably about 15 minutes, and I have a couple -- or about three

20 or four more documents. So I expect that we would like to run for about

21 20 or 25 minutes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We couldn't do it now because for all kind of

23 practical reasons and also since we have been sitting four hours today and

24 there's a Plenary of the Judges this afternoon, so we couldn't stay.

25 MR. MARGETTS: However, Your Honour --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. MARGETTS: -- could I just ask one question in respect of

3 Manjaca camp?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

5 MR. MARGETTS:

6 Q. Mr. Egrlic, what happened to Omer Filipovic in Manjaca camp?

7 A. In Manjaca, Omer Filipovic was killed in a very cruel way; he had

8 been tortured for days and died in great pain.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there's just one further matter, and

10 that is that the witness referred to his detention as lasting until 2003,

11 and that was --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. MARGETTS: That was --

14 JUDGE ORIE: We noticed that.

15 You said you were exchanged in 2003. May I take it that -- I

16 think you said January 2003. May I take it that you meant to refer to

17 1993?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's so, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clarified for the record as well.

20 Then we'll adjourn. We'll not resume tomorrow morning, but we'll

21 resume tomorrow in the afternoon at quarter past 2.00.

22 Mr. Egrlic, may I again instruct you not to speak with anyone

23 about your testimony given and still to be given, and we'd like to see you

24 back tomorrow in the afternoon.

25 Mr. Registrar, do we know in what courtroom? Will it also be

1 Courtroom I?

2 Well, the parties should inform themselves whether it will be in

3 Courtroom I or any of the other courtrooms, unless you would know

4 immediately, Mr. -- It's no problem. The parties will find the courtroom

5 where we are sitting, and if we are missing one, we will just wait until

6 they're there.

7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

8 JUDGE ORIE: It's in Courtroom I.

9 I again would like to thank very much the interpreters for having

10 given their extra time. Just for their consolation, the recess will be

11 next week, so no abuse of your cooperation could be made any more at that

12 very moment.

13 We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, quarter past 2.00.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of

16 July, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25