1 Wednesday, 1 June 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to -- there seems to be something
6 with the sound. Good afternoon. Good afternoon now. Everything has been
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Case number IT-
10 00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Mr. Harmon, I'm informed that you'd like to address the Chamber
13 prior to calling the next witness.
14 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much. Good
15 afternoon, Your Honours.
16 Mr. Gaynor will be taking the next witness. I just wanted to
17 alert the Court to an erroneous submission that I made yesterday and inform
18 the Court that I would like, at some point in time, to correct that
19 erroneous submission.
20 At the end of yesterday's proceedings, Your Honour was asking me
21 about a line that was found at the end of the Faretta case, and
22 specifically had asked me whether or not at further stages of the
23 proceedings would an accused's right to represent himself be diminished if
24 he made that assertion during the course of the trial, as opposed to before
25 the trial. I answered Your Honour's submissions incorrectly. I was --
1 believed that the question had been something different, and therefore my
2 submission to Your Honour, that is found on page 89 of the LiveNote, pages
3 -- lines 4 through 7, is incorrect. And I do believe that -- I would like
4 to be able to correct that submission; I don't have to do it now. I would
5 like to have the first opportunity to do so because I have case law, as
6 well, that will support the correct answer that might be beneficial to Your
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it, then, that you'll make a short
9 written submission in that respect?
10 MR. HARMON: I'm at Your Honour's -- I could make a full
11 submission now or a written submission.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is if a written submission would be
13 made, then, of course, we would have further delays in having matters
14 translated for Mr. Krajisnik, so therefore whether to do it now. I do
15 understand that you have to leave soon one of these days and --
16 MR. HARMON: Yes, I'll be leaving, I'll be out of the country
17 starting next week.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Starting next week. So this week you would still
19 be available. So, for example, if tomorrow or if at the end of the cross-
20 examination of the next witness you would have an opportunity, that you
21 would come to court and --
22 MR. HARMON: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So let's, then, find a suitable moment
24 soon for these submissions.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: We might have in that context one question for Mr.
2 Krajisnik as well.
3 Yes, Mr. Stewart.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm just wondering, really as a practical
5 matter, then, whether it's just going to be a matter of Mr. Harmon
6 correcting and possibly expanding that submission or whether it might be
7 convenient to try, according to some suitable timetable that fairly
8 accommodated everybody, to tie that together with such submissions as the
9 Defence would wish to make after a proper opportunity to consider the case
10 law, Your Honour, the opportunity to consider the case law, the need for
11 that slightly being demonstrated by exactly the sort of exchange that we've
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not unwilling to combine that. Of course, we
14 have the very practical question, I do understand that Mr. Harmon is
15 available this week, and, of course, if he confronts you with further
16 submissions, although I take it, Mr. Harmon, that it will not be very
17 lengthy. And if you would have any sources, perhaps you could provide them
18 to Mr. Stewart even before you say anything about it in court so that, Mr.
19 Stewart, you can prepare for it. Because otherwise you might be facing a
20 situation where new material has been introduced on which you could not
21 respond, and therefore I'm trying to --
22 MR. STEWART: That's very helpful, Your Honour. In fact, I was
23 going to suggest something, for those familiar with it, is very akin to the
24 standard English practice, which is based on our oral submissions approach.
25 We will exchange between counsel lists of authorities that we're going to
1 refer to; that's the way we do it. I'm not quite sure exactly how it's
2 done in the United States, but something like that seems to tie in with
3 what Your Honour suggests.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STEWART: And then we will all come to court better
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we still have the problem of the
8 submissions of the Prosecution not yet been translated, but at least then
9 we have a, I would say, a round -- well, at least counsel can exchange
10 their views on the matter.
11 MR. STEWART: Well, subject, Your Honour -- I do say subject,
12 Your Honour, to the Defence having -- of course, commitments of counsel are
13 something to be had regard to, but also proper time for the Defence to
14 prepare in this area is something.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: And I would add, Your Honour, that Mr. Krajisnik
17 has this morning really reiterated to me that he does very much wish to
18 have the translation of these Prosecution submissions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's the reason why an order was
20 issued yesterday to have them translated as quickly as possible.
21 One of the problems, of course, would be that the authorities
22 are not available in B/C/S, this legal material, or would they be, Mr.
24 MR. HARMON: No, Your Honour, they're available in English only.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. HARMON: And, indeed, one of the cases I tend to cite has
2 been referenced in our submission already.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. HARMON: So --
5 MR. STEWART: One thing I do know about English case law is it's
6 not readily available in B/C/S, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No.
8 MR. STEWART: I can tell Your Honours that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, here we see one of the practical
10 problems arising from not being assisted in legal matters. But let's not
11 move forward; let's do it step by step.
12 This matter having been discussed, Mr. Gaynor, it's you who's
13 going to call the next witness.
14 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Who is a 92 bis witness without protective
16 measures, and it is Mr. Zecevic.
17 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, could you please escort the
19 witness into the courtroom.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, while the witness is coming in, I'll
21 just briefly summarise what I propose to -- the course I propose to follow.
22 I propose to tender his two statements, tender two very brief contextual
23 documents, read a summary of the witness's evidence, and then draw the
24 witness's attention to a table in a third document and ask him to guide
25 Your Honours through it briefly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it, Mr. Stewart, that you've received
2 the material, also the additional material, a lot of numbers.
3 MR. STEWART: I think so, Your Honour, yes.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Zecevic. At least, that's my
6 assumption, Mr. Zecevic.
7 Before giving evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and
8 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the
9 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May I invite you to
10 make that declaration of which the text will now be handed out to you by
11 Madam Usher.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I solemnly declare
13 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. Please be seated.
15 WITNESS: BERKO ZECEVIC
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, you are called to testify under what
18 we call Rule 92 bis, which means that the Chamber has read the statement
19 you've given to the OTP and the Chamber has received some material, so,
20 therefore, it's mainly for the public that it will be summarised.
21 Mr. Gaynor, in view of the type of information, I take it that
22 the summary can be really very brief, because it's not about the details, I
23 would say, but rather about the kind of knowledge and some of the
24 experiences of this witness.
25 And once we've done that and once we've gone through some
1 additional material, it's mainly the Defence who will then have an
2 opportunity to cross-examine you. But please be aware, Mr. Zecevic, the
3 Chamber has read your statement thoroughly.
4 Mr. Gaynor, you may proceed.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll move directly to a
6 brief summary of the witness's evidence, which I'll read for the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps establish his identity. That would
8 be a good idea.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
10 Examined by Mr. Gaynor:
11 Q. Witness, could you give us your full name, please?
12 A. Berko Zecevic.
13 Q. Thank you, sir. I'll now proceed just to read a summary of the
14 evidence which you gave in your statements.
15 Dr. Zecevic is a mechanical engineer. He worked at the Pretis
16 ammunition factory in Sarajevo from 1975 until April 1992. He specialised
17 in the design, construction, and testing of military rockets. He was also
18 a part-time lecturer in defence technology at the University of Sarajevo.
19 He's a highly qualified expert in heavy weapons technology of the former
20 Yugoslavia and has testified as an expert witness in other proceedings
21 before this Tribunal concerning events in Sarajevo in 1994 and 1995.
22 In his written statement, Dr. Zecevic testified about the
23 appointment of Milorad Motika as director of Pretis in 1992. He described
24 an incident in February or March 1992 at a JNA barracks in Sarajevo during
25 which the commanding officer, thinking the witness was a Serb, told him
1 that he would issue the witness a machine-gun and ammunition for free, and
2 that the witness could come to the range in the barracks to practice using
3 the weapon and to receive training.
4 The witness describes a further incident in which he learned
5 that surface-to-air missile systems, which had been withdrawn from Croatia
6 in March 1992 and housed in the Lukavica barracks in Sarajevo, had
7 subsequently been redeployed to an area above Sarajevo, ostensibly for
8 protection reasons.
9 The witness describes the imposition by the JNA of roadblocks
10 around the Pretis factory in March 1992. The witness stopped work at the
11 factory on the 17th April 1992. The witness had heard that there was a
12 list of non-Serb people from the factory who were to be killed. Several
13 days later, the JNA took over the Pretis factory. The witness learned of
14 the existence of a list of 500 people who would be expected to continue to
15 work at the factory; all were Serbs.
16 The witness says that Pretis was heavily dependent on the supply
17 of raw materials from the FRY. Without the support of the FRY, the
18 production of ammunition at Pretis could not have continued.
19 That ends the summary. I'd now like to tender the witness's
20 statement of the 21st of July, 2002, and a short statement of the 18th of
21 February, 2003, which contains corrections to the statements of July 2002,
22 and I'd request that the registrar assign exhibit numbers to those two
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. The first
1 statement will then get the reference P753, while the second statement will
2 have the reference P754.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, I'd just like to clarify very briefly
5 for the record a couple of matters.
6 First, we've redacted the telephone number of an individual
7 who's named at paragraph 13 of the witness's statement. As this is a
8 public exhibit, we want to avoid any unwanted telephone calls to that
10 Secondly, I want to draw your attention to two details regarding
11 the B/C/S version of the statement of the 21st of July, 2002. Paragraph 7,
12 on page 3 of that statement, contains some highlighting, which I believe
13 was inserted by a translator, which has the effect of rendering a sentence
14 illegible. The sentence in question was clarified by the witness in his
15 second statement of the 18th of February, 2003, and a legible version of
16 page 3 is attached to the B/C/S statement.
17 The second point is that paragraph 32 on page 9 of the B/C/S
18 statement contains highlighting which obscures the date "2002," and we've
19 provided a legible version of that page showing that the original was, in
20 fact, 2002.
21 Now, I want to submit two contextual documents.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours are now receiving copies of those two
24 contextual documents.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. GAYNOR: And I'll very briefly summarise what they are.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please tell us.
3 MR. GAYNOR: The first is a document referred to in paragraph 7
4 of the witness's statement and is dated the 8th of June, 1992. It refers
5 to Milorad Motika as candidate for the directorship of Pretis, and it
6 refers twice, in the introduction and at paragraph 2 at the foot of the
7 page, in coordination with the SR Yugoslavia.
8 The second document is dated the 18th of June, 1922. We'd
9 invite Your Honours to consider that to be a typographical error; it should
10 read "1992." Now, this records the decision of the government of the Serb
11 Republic of BiH to appoint Milorad Motika as director of Pretis.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And numbers for those exhibits, Mr.
13 Registrar, would be?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
15 The first exhibit, reference number 3288, dated 8 of June, 1992,
16 will get the reference P755, while the second exhibit, the decision with
17 the ERN number 01245108 until 51 -- sorry, it's one page, will get the
18 exhibit number P5 -- sorry, P756.
19 I thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 MR. GAYNOR: I'd now request that the witness be shown a
22 document which is -- this has a cover fax sheet saying that this is from
23 the director of Pretis, Milorad Motika. It's addressed to the Ministry of
24 Defence of the RS army. It's copied to the General Staff of the VRS, and
25 it's dated the 11th February 1993. Attached to the cover sheet -- I'll
1 wait for Mr. Registrar to assign a number to this document. I'll request a
2 number for that document, Please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: I thank you, Your Honour.
5 This document will then be tendered and admitted into exhibit
6 under the reference P757.
7 Thank you, Your Honour.
8 MR. GAYNOR: If Your Honours would turn to page 3 of that
9 document at the top.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. GAYNOR: There's a header which says "Actual production
12 results and manufacturing conditions in 1992." The first sentence is:
13 "Actual output in the period from 25th April 1992 to 31st January 1993."
14 It's shown in tabular form and expressed by a number of special purpose
15 equipment per recipient.
16 Q. Now, Dr. Zecevic, I'd like you to turn to the table at the end of
17 that document. It's the last two pages of that document. Do you have that
18 table, Dr. Zecevic?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. Dr. Zecevic, were you familiar with tables of this kind from the
21 time that you worked at Pretis?
22 A. Yes. This is a part of the manufacturing programme for the
23 Pretis company, a part of the munition manufactured by this factory up
24 until 1992 and also during the war and even now. I mean, that's what they
1 Q. Thank you. Now, I want you to concentrate on the header to that
2 document and on the top two columns of the table. And you see that this is
3 a record of items delivered during the period 25th of April, 1992, until
4 the 31st of January, 1993.
5 In the first header at the top, it says "JNA" on the left and
6 then it proceeds to list what appear to be a number of brigades. Could you
7 explain for us what that means.
8 A. This provides us with an overview for the period between the 25th
9 of April, 1992, and the 31st of January, 1993, the names and types of
10 ammunition supplied to the JNA and the brigades within the framework of the
11 Republika Srpska army; for example, the Ilijas, Kosuska [phoen] Brigade,
12 and so on. And the last column gives us the total amount of ammunition
13 supplied over that period of time, and we've got a breakdown according to
14 the type of ammunition involved.
15 Do you need any further details?
16 Q. Yes, I do. I'll just draw your attention to that.
17 The first question is: Could you give us an overall picture of
18 the type of ammunition which is listed on the list in general terms. If
19 you could describe what that ammunition is.
20 A. It is between 76-millimetre and 152-millimetre calibre that we
21 are talking about, and it is a highly explosive ammunition that we are
22 talking about, fragmentation, or anti-armour bullets, depending on the type
23 of implement used in order to launch them. We've got tank ammunition,
24 Howitzer ammunition, and some from mortars, and guns, and rocket launchers
25 as well. So we're talking about ammunition which has a range of a couple
1 of kilometres -- between a couple and as many as 27 kilometres. So a wide
2 span of ranges with regard to the effect, as well, and also the destruction
3 between 10 and 35 metres away from the crater, in fact.
4 And as to armour bullets, for example, some very modern ones,
5 125-millimetres, which were meant for certain mortars, and that was top of
6 the range products at the time.
7 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to item number 12 as an example.
8 MR. GAYNOR: And Your Honours will find item number 12 on page 6
9 of the English translation.
10 Q. Now, you see -- would you describe for us what is -- first of
11 all, what is the kind of ammunition described as item number 12?
12 A. Item number 12, in the usual jargon at the time, it is a 105-
13 millimetre bullet TFG and it is a Howitzer ammunition, 105 millimetres,
14 with fragmenting effect. And apparently 5.880 kilogrammes were supplied to
15 the JNA, and roughly speaking 12 and a half thousand to the units of the
16 Serbian Republic, the Srpska Republic. And the range is about 11
17 kilometres, and the radius is about 17 metres.
18 Q. All right. I just want to clarify. Did you say that this
19 records that 5.880 kilogrammes were supplied to the JNA?
20 A. No. No. No. It is about the quantity, the number of pieces.
21 I'm not -- I haven't seen anything in kilogrammes. It just gives you an
22 overview of this ammunition over this specific period of time.
23 Q. Yes. Thank you. I think it might have been an interpretation
24 error. I was just clarifying the position.
25 Now, I want -- you said that it shows that about 12 and a half
1 thousand of these pieces of this kind of ammunition were supplied to the
2 VRS, and I want you just to confirm that the brigades listed at the top of
3 this document, from number 4 until number 21, are you saying that they are
4 all VRS brigades?
5 A. Obviously, because at that time it was only the Pretis factory
6 from Vogosca which was under the control of the Armed Forces of the
7 Republika Srpska. Here we've got the 27th back-up base, and it refers to
8 the Armed Forces of the Republika Srpska and then military post offices in
9 Koran and Romanija Corps. It is a high level, organised at the brigade
10 level, and the Drina Corps, as well. So it was not just the brigades but
11 the corps and individual military posts that got this ammunition.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, just one more point just to clarify. Is this a
13 record of quantities of munitions manufactured, or is this a record of
14 quantities of munitions delivered?
15 A. No. This is about the quantity of the ammunition delivered.
16 I would like to stress this for a simple reason. According to
17 the rules, which were applicable at the time in Yugoslavia, what was
18 important was the fact that this ammunition was manufactured in parts, in
19 spare parts, and there were warehouses at Pretis where all this was stored,
20 and there were emergency plans on the basis of which they would then be
21 dealt with and put together and completed. So the reference here is to the
22 ammunition delivered, not ammunition manufactured. So, in other words, it
23 is possible that more ammunition had been manufactured over the same period
24 of time.
25 Q. Now, my final question to you. You've described in your
1 statement the takeover of the Pretis factory, but in your statement you
2 haven't quite given a picture of the relative importance of this factory.
3 Could you explain to the Judges, in terms of size, what was the relative
4 importance of Pretis as a munitions factory?
5 A. It was a key factory for the entire JNA. I'm referring to the
6 JNA as it was up until 1992. It was one of the biggest ammunitions
7 factories in Europe, and it had a fairly high quality rating and
8 reliability rating. Whoever was in control of that manufacturing plant was
9 in a position to get supplies and thus put themselves in a position of
10 power in the course of the war. So it was not just important for the Armed
11 Forces of the Republika Srpska or Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was quite
12 important for the Serbian and Montenegrin Armed Forces.
13 By way of example, even now in 2005, that is, the part of the
14 factory that is in Sarajevo manufactures certain products for the Armed
15 Forces of Serbia and Montenegro, quite apart from the fact that war had
16 happened. In other words, Serbia has not been in a position so far to
17 supplant those traditions, that technological know-how and all that. So it
18 was an extremely important factory of primary importance in terms of the
19 balance of power in the course of the war between 1992 and 1995.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, that ends this examination, and we
21 can now proceed to cross-examination.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we'll give an opportunity to the Defence to
23 cross-examine the witness, Judge Hanoteau would like to put a question to
24 the witness.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Sir, I would like to refer you
1 to your statement, the one dated the 20th and the 21st of July, 2002. On
2 page 9 of that statement, of the English version of the statement, that is,
3 I would like you to clarify a sentence that I don't quite understand.
4 You said in paragraph 31, more or less in the middle of that
5 paragraph, you say [In English] : "… of the factory was also not present
6 and I was told that most of them were not present as they were part of
7 Crisis Staff created within the factory. Nerkez Tanovic, who was a member
8 of the management board and the Crisis Staff told me that his colleague
9 ..." and so on. I should like to understand why you talk about the Crisis
11 [Interpretation] Why do you refer to a Crisis Staff within the
12 factory; is that really what you meant? And why would there be a Crisis
13 Staff there? What was its role? Could you perhaps explain this a little
14 bit, please.
15 THE WINTESS: [Interpretation] By all means. According to the
16 concept of the People's Defence, which was prevalent in the Socialist
17 Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, at a time when a state of emergency was
18 declared or when political structures deemed that far-reaching changes had
19 taken place within society, a Crisis Staff would have to be set up, and it
20 would be made up of individuals who enjoyed the trust of political leaders,
21 et cetera. So the usual, normal subordination system within factories
22 would no longer apply. So these were reserve activities for exceptional
23 circumstances. And within that framework, up until 1990, there were some
24 special bodies or units when the Communist League was still the dominant
25 force in the former Yugoslavia.
1 In line with that, when it was felt that barricades were being
2 set up, the first set in March and then in April, when it was felt that
3 certain tensions might appear throughout the area, well, it was known who
4 would be within that Crisis Staff, normally the director and other people
5 from the factory. I think Nerkez Tanovic was a member of the executive
6 committee of this factory.
7 What I meant to say here was that after the war, when I talked
8 to him, he gave me the following statement, and that is clearly indicated
9 in my own statement. He said that his colleague, Branko Prodanovic,
10 informed him that there was a list of people who were no longer
11 appropriate, and that those people were at risk, that their lives were at
13 In line with that, he himself and a colleague, Sead Gradascevic,
14 who was the technical manager, well, they stopped coming to work after that
15 warning was issued. I quoted that statement to the investigator who talked
16 to me, and I offered to introduce him to this colleague so that he could
17 talk to him.
18 So in other words, the Crisis Staff, institutionally speaking,
19 was an in-built factor in all such factories, especially military
20 factories, in case there was a crisis.
21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So the Crisis Staff would, in a
22 way, take the place of the management, the regular management of the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Could we say that it was a kind
1 of a purely political body then?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By all means, because up until
3 1990, the entire system was under that direct control of the League of
4 Communists of Yugoslavia. Not a single director could be appointed in the
5 factory without the authorisation of the political or military bodies. You
6 couldn't just compete for the post and, having met the conditions, be
7 appointed to the post. It was essential to be the right kind of person.
8 Certain people from the military or from political institutions had to
9 determine that a given candidate satisfied their criteria and could pursue
10 a certain objective that they deemed appropriate.
11 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In your statement, do you mean
12 to say that the list of individuals who were to be eliminated was a list
13 compiled by the Crisis Staff?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Look, in that Crisis Staff --
15 well, the Crisis Staff was formed long before the crisis. It was formed
16 when a new leadership was established, and then rules were established as
17 to how they should operate in crisis situations, and this Crisis Staff was
18 a multinational Crisis Staff. These individuals would appear there. They
19 worked together, they lived together, and they tried to examine the
20 situation together. However, since the situation in April 1992 was more
21 than just abnormal, there were certain parallel activities taking place.
22 My colleague, Branko Prodanovic, soon left Pretis. He did not stay on in
23 Pretis, but he was the director of Pretis at that time. He left Pretis
24 when the crisis broke out and probably because he wanted to warn his
25 colleagues with whom he had lived there for years. He drew their attention
1 to the fact that there was a parallel list drafted outside the
2 institutions, a list that said that if the crisis became worse, other
3 people would be eliminated. This is terrible, but it's true.
4 In the building that I live in, when in May 1992 searches were
5 made, they found lists of individuals, not of individuals who had been
6 eliminated but who had to be taken to the Zrak factory, which is several
7 hundred metres from my house. They were supposed to be taken there, to be
8 placed in a camp because they were under suspicion, and this is how certain
9 individuals thought at the time.
10 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So who established these lists?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you shouldn't put that
12 question to me. I don't know. I've been quite clear in what I have said.
13 I have said that Nerkez Tanovic told me that Branko Prodanovic told him
14 that there was a list of non-Serbs who had to be killed. Nerkez Tanovic or
15 Branko Prodanovic can tell you about who compiled the list. I can't tell
16 you about that; I just provided the source of information.
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And one last question: This
18 Crisis Staff in the Pretis factory, was it in touch? Did it work together
19 with the Municipal Crisis Staff? Did their coordinate their activities?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should have cooperated with the
21 Municipal Crisis Staffs and the Crisis Staffs of other factories. It
22 should have been under the direct control of the Federal Secretariat for
23 National Defence because at the time special rules of conduct had been
24 established. There was a particular chain of command, of subordination, in
25 spite of the fact there was a multiparty system in Yugoslavia at that time.
1 But the military structure remained the same, and the Federal Secretariat
2 for National Defence still supervised military factories. And within the
3 Ministry of Defence, there was a military and economic sector, which
4 supervised or monitored military factors, and they controlled the supply
5 and delivery of goods. And naturally, if you have a counter-intelligence
6 officer in a factory and he has his office on the same floor where the
7 management board of Pretis has its offices, this officer has more men of a
8 number of men of his own in the factory, and this means that he had legal
9 access to such premises, and these premises were under -- were fully
11 Slobodan Barlorda was in office at the time, an educated man
12 from Sarajevo who became engaged after he had graduated. He became a
13 member of the military; he trained as a counter-intelligence officer. His
14 father was a national hero from the Second World War, respected and
15 prominent individual. But this is the role that this individual had.
16 As far as the system of subordination is concerned, there was no
17 particular change, in spite of the fact that a multiparty system had been
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, are you ready to cross-examine the
22 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You then may proceed.
24 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Mr. Zecevic, you say that you worked at the Pretis factory from
2 1975 to 1992. Did you work full time there throughout that entire period?
3 A. Yes. There were a few exceptions. In 1983 and 1984, I moved
4 over to another institute, the UNIS institute, which was a free association
5 of military factories. They formed their institute, and then I moved to
6 that institute and I worked in the ammunitions department. I was there for
7 11 months. And during that period of time, I did not work in Pretis, but
8 the project I was involved in in Pretis was a product that I controlled
9 from the UNIS institute from 1990 until 1992. I worked for three days in
10 Pretis and for two days at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering.
11 Q. So was that the only break in your employment at the Pretis
12 factory during the period 1995 to 1992 -- 1975 to 1992?
13 A. As far as I can remember, yes.
14 Q. You say in paragraph 3 of your statement that -- well, what --
15 when you first started work in 1975, what was your position? What was the
16 designation of your employment?
17 A. I was a project manager. I went to the research and development
18 department and I immediately started working on a missile system, and I
19 also assisted a colleague who was involved in Osa anti-armour missiles. I
20 was supposed to be his assistant since he had gone away on holiday. He was
21 an elderly man, and he soon fell ill, so I spent six months performing his
22 duties, so to speak, and at the same time, I started working on the
23 development of a 128-millimetre M-87 rocket.
24 As an example, to help you understand this --
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Zecevic, then. And you
1 -- when your employment came to an end in 1992, immediately before that
2 what was your employed position? What was the job title? A brief
4 A. I was the head of a department, the ballistics department, in the
5 Pretis factory. They kept restructuring the staff. I had three engineers
6 and two technicians who were under me.
7 Q. So you were still on the technical side.
8 A. I was always involved in the technical side.
9 Q. When you say that through your work - this is paragraph 3 - you
10 say through your work at "Pretis and my general experience in designing and
11 manufacturing weapons, I have detailed knowledge of the whole of the
12 Yugoslavian weapons industry until 1992." And then at the end of the same
13 paragraph you say: "I'm therefore able to describe the entire
14 manufacturing systems and operations of the Yugoslavian weapons industry
15 until 1992."
16 Now, that's what you say, but, Mr. Zecevic, can we take it that
17 your position --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- your position, the technical or technological side meant that
20 you were not involved in such matters as simply the buying and selling of
21 parts, the distribution of products?
22 A. Not exactly. According to the rules adopted by the military and
23 economic sector in 1985, in that rule book they defined the process of
24 development and the processes involved in research. As I was involved in
25 the development of ammunitions -- well, I have to explain this to you.
1 Up until 1986, development was under the control of the military
2 and technical institute in Belgrade. In 1986, the Central Committee of the
3 League of Communists decided that the military industry had to take charge
4 of its own development, and in accordance with that decision, I was the
5 first person who had the opportunity to develop things on my own, in spite
6 of the fact that I wasn't a member of the military and technical institute.
7 What does this mean? This means that in an organised system
8 such as the Military and Technical Institute, the development of a
9 projectile involves the work of a number of people, and the military and
10 technical institute had teams that worked on such things.
11 Since later in 1986, the opportunity was offered to factories
12 to start developing things by their own, and they wanted to become
13 independent of the institute I have been referring to. I started work on
14 the development of a 128-millimetre M-87 rocket, and as a result I had to
15 do a number of jobs, more jobs than the number of jobs that people in the
16 institute had to do. This meant that I had to spend more work -- I had to
17 spend more time working on these things than the people in military and
18 technical institutes.
19 Just a minute, though --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. In addition to designing and testing --
22 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Zecevic. I certainly don't wish to stifle you
23 from assisting the Trial Chamber in its task. It could be --
24 A. No, but I have to answer your question.
25 Q. You do have to answer my question, Mr. Zecevic. It --
1 A. I apologise, but I have to answer your question. I'll answer
2 your question in a very simple manner.
3 In order to take over a task, in order to become involved in a
4 project, the military council of the General Staff has to adopt a project.
5 You have to study the possibilities there and you have to analyse the
6 technical aspects. You have to examine the deadlines, the prices. You
7 have to see where you can obtain the materials, whether they have to be
8 imported or whether you can use local materials, et cetera, et cetera.
9 So I was involved in these matters. I was involved in
10 developing fuel, in the production of ammunition and obtaining materials,
11 in the course of development, and this involved the production of two to
12 three thousand rockets. This takes two or three years, and you have to
13 control all the stages, and you have to be familiar with all the procedures
14 involved. You have to go to a number of factories, you have to speak to a
15 number of people, you have to draw up contracts. In the course of
16 development, the people involved in development would sign contracts, and I
17 was one such person.
18 So for 17 years I had the opportunity to become familiar with
19 everything that was necessary in order to develop a rocket. And naturally,
20 this doesn't mean that I know how small ammunition is produced, but as far
21 as artillery and rocket ammunition is concerned - and that is what Pretis
22 was involved in - as far as that is concerned, I was fully familiar with
23 all the procedures involved. And I attended on four occasions the meetings
24 of the General Staff, and I defended my projects at those meetings. And
25 that is a very important role, one of the most important roles that an
1 engineer can have.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think everyone would agree that you at least
5 answered the question, but you gave a lot of details. And whether all of
6 these details are what Mr. Stewart is seeking is uncertain. Therefore, I
7 can imagine that in this context you would have said something like, Since
8 we restructured the teams that became multidisciplinary teams, including
9 both technicians and salesmen and marketing people, and since the team
10 being restructured worked closely together, I had knowledge of all of these
11 aspects. That would -- at least, that's how I understand your answer to
13 If you'd first give a concise answer, and if there's any further
14 detail needed, Mr. Stewart will certainly ask for it.
15 Mr. Stewart, you get answers to your questions though, but they
16 were rather detailed.
17 MR. STEWART: Well, to give certainty to Your Honour's comment,
18 you said "whether all the details of what I was seeking were uncertain."
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's an understatement.
20 MR. STEWART: I wasn't. I can say I wasn't seeking all the
21 details, to give certain certainty to that point.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, an understatement needs no
23 explanation, I thought.
24 Please proceed. Mr. Zecevic, could you please keep in mind that
25 if you give concise answers, and if we need any further details, we'll
1 certainly ask you for it. Yes?
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. STEWART:
4 Q. In a nutshell, Mr. Zecevic, your job was designed -- your job was
5 to design the things, wasn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And somebody else's job, then, was to make them?
8 A. But only after the item had been tested, and testing takes
9 between five and seven years. And during each stage, I have to be present,
10 during each stage of testing, those are the rules. Once the General Staff
11 has adopted --
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sure the Trial Chamber -
13 -without, perhaps, not being complete experts on munitions, of course, I'm
14 sure the Trial Chamber understands that designing and testing must be part
15 of the same exercise in relation to complex technology. We can take that,
16 I feel confident, as a given.
17 But subject to that, subject to your continuing input during
18 the testing process, it's somebody else's job to actually make them once
19 you were happy with the results of design and testing; correct?
20 A. Yes, by all means. By all means.
21 Q. It's somebody else's job altogether to sell them, so far as there
22 were markets, export markets, for example, to whom items would be sold.
23 It's somebody else's job altogether; correct?
24 A. That's not what it says in my statement. My statement doesn't
25 say that that was my job.
1 Q. Don't worry -- don't worry about your statement, Mr. Zecevic, for
2 the moment, please. If you'd just answer my question. Is that correct?
3 It was somebody else's job altogether to sell the things; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And not part of your job to make decisions about where factories
6 might be located, where production might be -- might best take place. Is
7 that correct?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You were asked for advice in relation to such matters, were you?
10 A. When studying the possibilities, when analysing the possibilities
11 - and this is what I did - we would then define or we would then establish
12 where the ammunition would be produced, the ammunition that I had tested or
13 the ammunition that any other expert had designed and tested. And there
14 was a clear division. We knew which factory would be involved in the
15 production of a given product. Pretis was involved in the production of
16 projectiles, the calibre of which was between 76 and 150 millimetres.
17 Q. All right. You didn't participate in decisions about where
18 factories, if that's the right word, or establishments to design and
19 produce weapons would be located, did you?
20 A. I did, because I drafted a proposal for a decision as someone who
21 was involved in studying the possibilities. At the end of the document,
22 there is a suggestion made as to where certain products will be made. For
23 example, SBS Vitez will produce rocket fuel, a detonator will be taken from
24 Bugojno, other items by Gorazde, et cetera. This was all in the proposal
25 forwarded to the military council.
1 Q. So --
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I just intervene, Mr. Stewart. Perhaps due to
3 your first question in this respect, it seems not to be clear anymore what
4 we are discussing. Are we discussing about where a factory would be
5 located, that is, where a factory would be established, where a plant would
6 be built, constructed, so that it could produce, or at what factory
7 production would take place, that is, an existing factory? You --
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ORIE: You're talking about both in your first question.
10 MR. STEWART: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And --
12 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- in your last question repeated the location of
14 the factories.
15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ORIE: But the witness seems to answer in terms of where
17 production would be located.
18 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, precisely. I realise the way
19 the witness dealt with my first question, I realise that it -- that that
20 distinction had emerged and that therefore it was necessary to split the
21 question or to focus on the matter of location, which is why I then asked
22 the second question in the form that I did.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it seems not to be clear to the witness.
24 MR. STEWART: No, that's true, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Zecevic, I think Mr. Stewart asked you whether you were
2 involved in a decision where to create a new production unit, a new
3 factory, and he was not specifically asking you where, in what existing
4 factory, production would be located. Were you involved in these first
5 types of decisions?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in accordance with
7 the rules in the JNA, it was quite clear which factories should produce
8 given types of ammunition, so that was quite clear.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you. Again, the question is not in what
10 factory to produce ammunition, but whether or not to establish new
11 factories where one would produce ammunition.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If a feasibility study was
13 drafted, well, the person who drafted the feasibility study would make such
14 proposals. It's quite clear.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that you're involved or you are not
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand what decision
18 you are referring to, what kind of ammunition you are referring to. The
19 Defence counsel has not been precise. There are certain rules that are in
21 JUDGE ORIE: We're not talking about rules. Let's just -- the
22 Pretis company would need a new production facility. Would you be involved
23 in where to locate that, to construct a new facility where they would
24 produce ammunition?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd only be involved if I was the
1 person involved in designing the ammunition that had to be produced at this
2 new location; only in such cases. I think I have been precise. If there
3 was some other project, in that case someone else would make proposals.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say if you were involved in the
5 development of the ammunition to be produced, you would be involved in the
6 establishment of a specific production facility where that would be
7 produced. If you would not be involved in that specific type of
8 ammunition, you would not be consulted or be involved.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
10 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, can you just help us. What is the SSNO referred to
12 in your -- that's the English version. I don't know whether that's the
13 B/C/S as well, SSNO in Belgrade. It's in paragraph 6 of your statement.
14 A. The Federal Secretariat for National Defence or the Ministry of
15 Defence in accordance with the usual norms.
16 Q. Now, you refer to an advertisement of the post of general
17 director of Pretis in 1989 and applications by Mr. Lepirica and Mr.
18 Bahtanovic, both of whom were apparently serving in the military at the
19 time. The -- do you remember there was also a Lieutenant Colonel Sekularac
20 who applied?
21 A. Sekularac.
22 Q. I apologise for the pronunciation, but the same, Radovan
23 Sekularac; correct?
24 A. Sekularac didn't apply then. At the time, Sekularac was the
25 director of the Iskra company in Serbia. He was the head of development a
1 few years earlier, but at that time, I don't think Sekularac was in that
2 post. Sekularac is now a director in Iskra, in Serbia, and at the time he
3 was one of the directors in that Iskra company.
4 Q. Well, can I try and jog your memory and see whether you can agree
5 with this. If I put this short scenario to you, that Lieutenant Colonel
6 Sekularac, Lieutenant Colonel Lepirica, and Captain Bahtanovic were three
7 applicants, but then, at the recommendation of the director of production
8 military personnel, were recommended to withdraw their candidacies because
9 all previous directors had been civilians and it was recommended that
10 should continue. Does that ring a bell with you?
11 A. I don't know. In what sense? Well, that's possible, but I
12 couldn't say. I couldn't say anything about that. I couldn't say anything
13 about Sekularac.
14 Q. Do you, therefore, have any recollection that Lepirica and
15 Sekularac withdrew their applications, but Captain Bahtanovic, who objected
16 to the policy, insisted that the process should go ahead with his
17 application, remaining an alive application?
18 A. I do remember Ismet Lepirica withdrew and Bahtanovic did not.
19 Q. And, in fact, Bahtanovic didn't get enough -- there was a voting
20 system for this, and he didn't get enough votes to be appointed, did he?
21 A. I'm unable to tell you.
22 Q. So you don't remember, then, that when competition for that --
23 open competition for that post was --
24 A. I really can't tell you how the vote proceeded.
25 Q. The reason I'm putting this to you, Mr. Zecevic, is because you
1 do give an account of this process in paragraph 6 of your statement. Do
2 you see? You describe the post was advertised, both Lepirica and
3 Bahtanovic applied, that they weren't appointed because they weren't
4 supported by the SSNO in Belgrade, and then you go on to comment that for
5 political reasons the most important departments were run by people from
6 two particular regions. So I'm just -- if you don't remember these things,
7 Mr. Zecevic, that's an entirely proper answer, I'm confident, in the eyes
8 of the Trial Chamber.
9 So do you remember or not that Mr. Prodanovic was eventually
10 elected when the public open competition was repeated?
11 A. Yes. He was elected at the second open competition, where he was
12 the only candidate. It was the traditional way things used to be done in
13 the former Yugoslavia.
14 I'd just like to tell you that if we look at the whole thing in
15 a more general way -- well, in that case, you have to consider all the
16 various aspects. Mr. Branko Prodanovic was a good economist, but he was a
17 manager of a small part of the Pretis factory, which was in charge of
18 transport vehicles.
19 Q. Mr. Zecevic, I'm so sorry, I don't wish to be rudely
20 interrupting, but I do wish to clear first whether what you're about to say
21 is in any sense an answer to any question I have asked. Because if not,
22 then we can, with respect, move on. Should we do that, then?
23 A. Go ahead.
24 Q. All right. In fact, Mr. Lepirica, withdrew, didn't he, just
25 before the matter was put to a vote?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Then in the next paragraph of your statement, paragraph 7, you
3 refer to the appointment of Motika, of Milorad Motika as a general
4 director. You say that Jovan Jovicic was in a position to propose names of
5 general directors to be appointed at the moment important special purpose
6 factories located within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then you
7 say: "I --" well, first of all, when exactly do you say, if you remember,
8 that Mr. Jovicic first proposed Mr. Motika?
9 A. I'd have to look at these papers. There is a document, in fact,
10 where Mr. Mocic [phoen]suggested -- it says the 8th of June, 1992.
11 Q. What says what? What document are we looking at now? Well,
12 rather than rely on my eyesight from that distance, Mr. Zecevic, perhaps
13 you -- and others who are further away, perhaps you could simply just --
14 A. I mean it's 01396688, the information on the possibility of
15 renewing manufacturing in these companies. I think you might have gotten
16 this document earlier on, at the start of this hearing.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand, Mr. Zecevic, that you've got
18 in front of you documents that are not presented to you at that very moment
19 to you by the party who's examining you? Because if a party examines you
20 on certain documents, they should be presented to you and then --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I got just now. The
22 Prosecution document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I can't see what it is.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, this is the first of the two
25 contextual documents.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if they are not the subject of
2 examination, they should be returned to the registrar because it's not for
3 the witness to make a small collection of documents he considers to be
5 Mr. Zecevic, this is not to say that you may not refer to
6 documents you are aware that are in existence, but you should have no
7 documents in front of you that were not presented to you by examining
9 MR. STEWART: Yes. Well, Your Honour, that document was
10 presented by the Prosecution a little bit earlier by Mr. --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then they should be returned after we've
12 dealt with them to the registrar.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wasn't contradicting or quarrelling
14 with what Your Honour was saying at all.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No.
16 MR. STEWART: I was simply trying to move matters along as a
17 matter of information.
18 I was saying -- I've just had a look at it myself, Your Honour.
19 It does contain different -- it's signed apparently by Mr. Jovicic and it
20 does contain, specifically, the point about proposal of Mr. Motika to this
21 position. So --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: That does, in fact -- Your Honour, the document
24 does help as an answer to the question I asked.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not criticising the witness for referring
1 to it.
2 MR. STEWART: Nor I, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to keep tight control over what
4 document is in front of whom exactly at this certain moment.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, I can only endorse that, with respect, Your
6 Honour, because in fact the document -- in that way. So I don't -- I don't
7 need, then, to spend time on that date.
8 Q. But, Witness -- we get -- I'm sorry, we get so used to calling
9 people sometimes witnesses, Mr. Zecevic, when they're to be anonymous. I
10 will use your name.
11 Mr. Zecevic, you say that you believe that the RS, or Republika
12 Srpska government, complied with this proposal because the General Staff of
13 the JNA was behind him. Now, that's just speculation, isn't it, Mr.
15 A. I wouldn't say that, you know, because the position that Mr.
16 Jovicic held as the president of the Association of Arms and Weaponry
17 Manufacturers, where all such plants came together and where all directors
18 in the last analysis, no matter who appointed them, unless there was
19 approval from the defence ministry, well, they could not hold such a
20 position in the first place. Mr. Jovicic was a person of some respect. He
21 had fairly respected results to show for his work at both Pretis and UNIS,
22 and then he was the president of an institution which exerted a
23 considerable influence, and it was under considerable influence from the
24 defence ministry. And it was quite normal, considering that at the time
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina had already been recognised by the UN as an independent
1 state. And now we have this influence being exerted by the Association of
2 Arms Manufacturers of Yugoslavia. I mean, this is my opinion. As to
3 whether this opinion is in line with your attitudes is quite another
5 Q. I just ask the questions, Mr. Zecevic. I have no attitude.
6 Mr. Zecevic, when you say you believe that the Republika Srpska
7 government complied with this proposal because the General Staff of JNA was
8 behind him, you mean specifically behind Mr. Motika, do you? Or behind Mr.
9 Jovicic? Who's the "him"? You're talking about Mr. Motika, are you?
10 A. In my statement, if Mr. Jovicic drafted a proposal, and the
11 result of that proposal was that colleague Motika was elected as director,
12 it meant that both of them were happy. I mean, Jovicic's proposal was
13 taken into account, and the other person was appointed as director.
14 Q. You see, Mr. Zecevic, what I'm putting to you is that in stating
15 it in terms of "I believe that the Republika Srpska government complied
16 with this proposal because the General Staff of the JNA was behind him,"
17 you're giving some grossly exaggerated importance to this process. You
18 don't know that the position wasn't just this, as I'm about to suggest to
19 you: That the General Staff of the JNA didn't think very hard about Mr.
20 Milorad Motika, and the government of Republika Srpska didn't think very
21 hard about Milorad Motika. They trusted that when they get a piece of
22 paper from somebody in a position of authority recommending that -- in
23 fact, four people, four engineers should be appointed to particular posts,
24 they let them get on with it. That's what happened, as far as you were
25 aware, wasn't it?
1 A. That's not correct. Because de facto, at that particular moment,
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia were two
3 separate states.
4 Q. Do you know that the General Staff of JNA even gave five minutes'
5 thought to Mr. Motika? Do you know that yourself?
6 A. I think I should remind you that my statement reads: "I think
7 that the government was in favour of this proposal." If I say "think," I
8 don't mean I know 100 per cent. This is my opinion, and I've tried to
9 explain the reasons behind that opinion as best I could.
10 Q. You mention a branch office in Belgrade: "The Pretis factory
11 opened a branch office in Belgrade." In fact, in the same paragraph,
12 you've mentioned another company, organisation, called Unis-factories. In
13 fact, it was Unis-factories that had a branch in Belgrade, wasn't it, and
14 not Pretis?
15 A. No. The owner of that branch office, according to the books, is
16 the Pretis company. It was itself founded in 1948, and UNIS in 1965.
17 That's a difference. According to the property records, et cetera, the
18 Pretis factory is the owner of that.
19 Q. Have you been looking at property records in relation to this
20 matter, Mr. Zecevic?
21 A. No. I was just on the workers' council at the Pretis company
22 when we were looking into the matter of who was the owner of Pretis, and so
23 I remember that.
24 Q. I beg your pardon. So the answer is you have, at some
25 point,looked at property records in relation to this matter.
1 A. I received information about the fact that the branch office in
2 Belgrade was indeed owned by Pretis, and Pretis was within the framework of
3 UNIS; in other words, UNIS was the holding company. All this is, of
4 course, arguable.
5 Q. Well, let's stick to what might be facts that you know. It's
6 this: UNIS had a branch. Pretis never opened a branch in Belgrade. When
7 Pretis joined Unis-factories, it joined with an organisation that already
8 had a branch in Belgrade; correct?
9 A. No, it's not correct. UNIS did not exist. There were five
10 factories which gathered together and created the UNIS company, and as soon
11 as UNIS was set up, automatically the branch office, which was in Belgrade,
12 came into its hands. But in terms of property relations, it was still
13 owned by Pretis, and UNIS used the premises. I suppose that's specific
14 enough for you.
15 Q. A small point actually, just on the -- the text. At the last
16 sentence of paragraph 8 - it may be a correction needed - the English still
17 reads: "I never detected nor heard of any discrimination against an ethnic
18 group in a weapons or ammunitions factory, and a person's ethnic origin was
19 never considered when he/she was employed or promoted," and I think the
20 next word in English must be "except" rather than "exempt," so "employed or
21 promoted except for high-ranking positions." Perhaps we can have an
22 agreement about that, Your Honour?
23 MR. GAYNOR: We certainly agree on that.
24 MR. STEWART: Grateful for that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That being a minor point, I'm looking at the clock,
1 Mr. Stewart.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. That's perfectly suitable if
3 that suits Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have, however, one additional question. I
5 would like, Mr. Zecevic, if you would agree, to ask you to do some homework
6 during the break, although I am hesitant to ask you.
7 In paragraph 25 of your statement, you give information about
8 where the major weapons and munitions factories were located at the
9 beginning of 1992. Could you please, over the break, review the list of
10 factories in Bosnia and Herzegovina and identify for us whether they were
11 in an area which soon after the beginning of 1992 came under Republika
12 Srpska control or under Federation control. Would you please do that over
13 the break, to give that some thought. But then, of course, you would need
14 a copy of at least page 7 of your statement.
15 I think, as a matter of fact, we'd rather keep the original in
16 the hands of Mr. Registrar. Could any of the parties provide --
17 MR. STEWART: I think we've got one, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: In B/C/S, then, preferably.
19 MR. STEWART: Oh, yes, exactly that, Your Honour. And I think
20 it's a clean copy.
21 Your Honour, we can hand it up straight away.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: We'll hand up the whole statement, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. STEWART: There's no --
1 JUDGE ORIE: At least, I take it, Mr. Gaynor, you have no
2 objections against that?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly not, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until a quarter past 4.00.
5 Mr. Stewart, could you give us any indication on how much time
6 you would need?
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm just working it out. I thought I
8 would need pretty much the whole of the first session, but I don't think I
9 started until about --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. STEWART: -- quarter -- or twenty past 3.00.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Half an hour? Would that be --
13 MR. STEWART: That's going to be a bit tight, Your Honour, half
14 an hour. It's going to be a bit longer than that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, let's say one hour in the next
17 MR. STEWART: It shouldn't be more than that, Your Honour, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, would you have any questions, and how much time
20 you would need for that?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't really tell you at this
22 stage whether I'll have any questions. It depends on how it goes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll, then, hear from you.
24 We'll adjourn until quarter past 4.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed. But perhaps not until
3 after we have asked the witness whether he could give us some information
4 about the location, that is, either Republika Srpska or Federation. Could
5 we just go through it. Production of air jet engines under British
6 licences, would that be in what territory?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be the territory under
8 the control of the Armed Forces of the Republika Srpska.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Production of radar and telecommunications
10 systems would be ...?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Armed Forces of the Republika
13 JUDGE ORIE: Rockets and gun propellants?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] HVO. HVO.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, HVO, that's Croatian. I only made a
16 distinction between Republika Srpska and Federation, but you make a further
17 distinction, HVO, yes.
18 Artillery and non-guided rocket ammunition?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Republika Srpska.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand the Army of the Republika
22 Artillery fuses for ammunition?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Army of the BH and HVO up
24 until 1993 and between 1993 to 1995, the Armed Forces of the BH.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then anti-tank and anti-personal mines?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same, since it's the same
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Infantry ammunition?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Armed Forces of BH and HVO up
5 until 1993, and afterwards, the BH Armed Forces.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And then production of combat weapons, Howitzers,
7 and multiple rocket launchers?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Army of BH and HVO until 1993,
9 and as of then, the Armed Forces of BH.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's the same.
11 Armoured vehicle?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Republika Srpska. The Armed
13 Forces -- or rather, the Army of the Republika Srpska.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Construction of planes and helicopters?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1992, machines were transferred
16 to Serbia, and the location itself was under the control of the HVO.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So you say under HVO control but without machinery
18 since 1992.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, without the machinery.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Optical electronics?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All three armed forces had parts
22 of production plants under their own control, but the main part of the
23 factory was under the control of the Armed Forces of BH. But parts of
24 production plants were in a number of locations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
25 so everyone could have some of these optical instruments manufactured.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then engines for military vehicles?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Armed Forces of the Republika
4 JUDGE ORIE: And finally, primers factory in Gorazde.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The BH army.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It already mentions a location, which is
8 Mr. Stewart, you may proceed.
9 And thank you very much, Mr. Zecevic, for giving this additional
11 MR. STEWART:
12 Q. Mr. Zecevic, perhaps on that -- while we're on it, that very last
13 point, primers factory, what's that? What does it mean, primers factory?
14 A. These are small elements which are placed into ammunition inside
15 bullets or inside ammunition in general, and they provide flame, and they
16 are subsystems of systems such as ammunition.
17 Q. And I hope I've got the checklist right, but then looking at the
18 items which you said at some point were under -- or in an area of the
19 control under the Republika Srpska, the first one was production of air jet
20 engines under British licences. Can you just give the name of the place
21 where it was?
22 A. Rajlovac in Sarajevo.
23 Q. And the fourth one down: "Artillery and non-guided rocket
25 A. Vogosca, Sarajevo.
1 Q. And then I think the next one was: "Armoured vehicle plant."
2 That's about four or five up from the bottom.
3 A. Hrasnica, Famos apparently.
4 Q. And then the penultimate one: "Engines for military vehicles."
5 A. Koran, Pale, and Hrasnica Sarajevo.
6 Q. And the one above that where you said that all three, by which
7 you meant, I think, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska armies, and
8 the Croats, optical electronics. Was that in split locations, did you say,
9 or ...?
10 A. Yes. Actually, there was the Zrak factory, which had production
11 plants in Kiseljak and elsewhere, Sokolac, and so on, on a number of
12 locations. But the original production plant was in Sarajevo, and then
13 later on they were outsourced elsewhere.
14 Q. And the -- if all three had control of some of this, the
15 particular location, then, that was under the control of the Army of
16 Republika Srpska in relation to optical electronics, where was that?
17 A. I can't tell you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, if you intended to cover all the
19 Republika Srpska locations, did I miss the production of router and
20 telecommunications systems?
21 MR. STEWART: I may have done, Your Honour. It's --
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's the second.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, the second.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The first one, the air jet engines was in Rajlovac
25 and then you jumped down to the fourth, which was Vagosca.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes, that's probably right, Your Honour. Well,
2 Your Honour is clearly looking at a list so -- JUDGE ORIE: Would you
3 tell us where --
4 MR. STEWART: The same question, Witness.
5 Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. The second one, production of router and telecommunications.
7 A. Banja Luka.
8 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'm obliged, Your Honour. Thank you. My
9 list had slipped there.
10 Q. We were -- let's go back to where we were, then, please, Mr.
11 Zecevic. I'd asked you about something which is at the end of paragraph 8
12 of your statement, where you say you never detected nor heard of
13 discrimination, except for high-ranking positions. In fact, not all
14 directors of this Pretis factory were Serbs, were they?
15 A. May I ask you to give me a document with properly-numbered
16 paragraphs? Because my document has been taken away from me, so I can't
17 find my way around it.
18 Q. Mr. Zecevic, largely you won't actually need the document,
19 anyway. If you do at some point, then I'm sure we can arrange for you to
20 have one with numbered paragraphs.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. STEWART: But actually I don't particularly wish you to have
23 the document, or you don't need it at the moment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No. Mr. Zecevic, if you first could return the
25 B/C/S version that had been given to you by Mr. Stewart through the
1 assistance of Madam Usher. And if Mr. Stewart wants you to read a specific
2 part, he'll present the document to you. If not, he'll put his questions
3 in such a way that the context should be entirely clear to you. If it's
4 not clear, please address me or ask Mr. Stewart.
5 MR. STEWART: Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Zecevic, may I -- see, the paragraph reference I'm giving is
7 for the benefit of others who are following this from the statement in
8 their hands.
9 The -- well, I put it to you specifically: Mr. Abas Deronja was
10 a director at Pretis for more than eight years, wasn't he?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And over a period in the -- when I say "more than eight years," a
13 period during the 1980s and early 1990s. That's correct, isn't it?
14 A. But which institution are you referring to?
15 Q. Of Pretis.
16 A. No. Abas Deronja was the director of Pretis before 1965.
17 Q. Oh, all right. And Mr. Fadil Numic, was he a director for more
18 than four years?
19 A. During roughly the same period, yes.
20 Q. And at what point, then -- when you say that a person's ethnic
21 origin was never considered except for high-ranking positions, at what
22 point in the hierarchy do you say that that exception came into play?
23 A. With reference to key positions, the company director or
24 department managers, according to the then-system, the so-called self-
25 management system, you had the companies, which were divided into
1 departments. And if you talked about directors of certain departments or
2 companies or executive committees, et cetera, a count was taken of who
3 should be in what position. It was in line with the general policy, which
4 was the prevalent policy in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, the so-called
5 national key. So it wasn't an exception, if I may say so, but in the
6 course of that process of deciding and defining who should hold what
7 position, there was always the possibility of channeling things in a
8 certain way and placing people in certain positions. And between 1975 and
9 1992, the director of Pretis has always been a Serb.
10 Q. Mr. Zecevic, what are you saying? Are you saying there was, in
11 fact, a quite deliberate policy of favouring the Serb nation or Serb ethnic
12 group during that period in relation to senior positions?
13 A. But could you please tell me which period you are referring to.
14 I don't want to provide a lengthy answer. I wouldn't want the Presiding
15 Judge to object to my answers.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Zecevic, yes. Mr.
17 Zecevic, you had yourself referred to the period 1975 to 1992. That was
18 the period you said: "And between 1975 and 1992, the director of Pretis
19 has always been a Serb." And when I referred to "that period," I meant the
20 period you just referred to. So there's no confusion after that
21 explanation. Are you saying that during the period 1975 to 1992 there was
22 at any time a quite deliberate policy of favouring the Serb nation or
23 ethnic group in relation to senior positions in Pretis?
24 A. There was such an impression, but during certain periods of time
25 from 1975 to 1992, well, that's the period during which I was in the
1 factory, and there were various reasons for which such things occurred.
2 Now, whether you want me to explain this or not is up to you.
3 Q. Mr. Zecevic, first of all, I put it to you that to the extent to
4 which a person's ethnic origin was considered for high-ranking positions,
5 it was because there was an overall policy over those years of ensuring, at
6 least, some sort of balance in important positions among members of the
7 different nations.
8 A. May I provide you with an example? You mentioned --
9 Q. Well, first of all, say whether that's right or not, Mr. Zecevic,
10 and then any example which helps to support your answer.
11 A. Well, may I provide you with an example? That's not quite
12 correct. You mentioned Mr. Sekularac, the third person who applied for the
13 post of director of Pretis and then he withdrew his application. Perhaps
14 there is something that I don't remember quite well, but as soon as he
15 withdrew his application, Mr. Sekularac rapidly became the director of the
16 Prva Iskra company, which is in the vicinity of Belgrade. You can check.
17 This person who was a candidate for the post of director of Pretis was
18 there. There were two other individuals who applied. He could -- he was
19 able to become the director of Prva Iskra, but the other two individuals
20 who had applied for the post of director in Pretis couldn't apply for that
22 So up until 1985, 1986, 1987, there was a quite clear
23 distinction. No one would have thought that there was a deliberate policy
24 that was being implemented in the sense of discrimination on the basis of
25 ethnic groups, but there was the general impression that most educated
1 people who were employed in Pretis had been -- were people from Belgrade.
2 They came to Sarajevo, which was a smaller town, and they had a slight
3 advantage. But this was never an advantage on the basis of their national
5 Towards the end of the 1980s, there was a quite noticeable lack
6 of balance. If you have a look at the leadership structure from the level
7 of directors of sectors and upwards, you would see that in over 80 per cent
8 of the cases, they were Serbs.
9 In the case of Mr. Motika in the 1990s, Mr. Motika was the head
10 engineer for explosive materials, and in two or three years he became the
11 director of a company. This can't happen anywhere in the world. You can't
12 have someone in an extremely important position in an ammunitions factory
13 and you can't have a person appointed to such a position if such a person
14 had no management experience behind him. That's my opinion.
15 Q. You -- and the reference is paragraph 11. You said that: "By
16 the end of Tito's life, 1980, the concept of defence of the --" we're
17 talking about former Yugoslavia –- "the Federation had started to change.
18 The changes in the military factories also mirrored the changes in the
19 SFRY. Although I was never involved in politics, I began to see how
20 politicians from the various republics were using their influence to change
21 the defence plan of the SFRY. Republic interests began to dominate over
22 the national interests of the SFRY."
23 You're putting it there in your statement - and is this correct
24 - as a process of change which began right at the beginning of the 1980s?
1 A. Yes. After 1980, after Tito's death. Perhaps after 1982 and
3 Q. But starting, in any case, in the early 1980s. That's what
4 you're saying.
5 A. Yes, by all means.
6 Q. And then if the politicians from the various republics were using
7 their influence to change the defence plan, were they, broadly, all looking
8 for the same type of change?
9 A. Could you please be more precise.
10 Q. Mr. Zecevic, I -- well, what I have in mind is --
11 A. I can tell you why I made such a statement. Up until 1980, the
12 situation was quite clear. It was clear that only a certain factory could
13 produce a certain kind of ammunition. Pretis could produce ammunition the
14 calibre of which was between 86 and 155 millimetres. Krusik in Valjevo, in
15 Serbia, produced shells of various kinds and missiles. However, from 1980
16 onwards there was pressure that was exerted, so anti-armour rockets that
17 were produced by Pretis were then produced by Soboda Cacak, and then anti-
18 armour projectiles developed by Pretis were transferred to Titovo Uzice.
19 That's where they were produced. So a factory in Macedonia was opened for
20 launchers, and another factory was under construction for infantry weapons
21 in Macedonia.
22 Q. Mr. Zecevic, just one moment. At this point I wasn't seeking
23 quite that type of detail in that sort of area. It was this: You say that
24 "Republic interests began to dominate over the national interests." So
25 just to be clear. The -- each -- of course, each representative of the
1 separate republics pushed the interests of his, her, their own republic.
2 That's what you're saying, right?
3 A. Well, it depended on the influence that a given republic had.
4 Not all the republics had the same kind of influence. Montenegro and
5 Macedonia and Bosnia didn't have the same kind of influence, so when
6 compared to the influence of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, not in economic
7 terms. This is a very complex issue. It's difficult for me to answer your
8 question simply by saying yes or no or by providing you with a couple of
10 Q. Mr. Zecevic --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to see whether I could understand the
12 testimony. You say the republic interests became more important than the
13 national interest.
14 First question: Did you --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the state interests at the
16 time, up until Tito's death, with regard to the locations in which
17 factories operated.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First of all, did you say this: That the
20 republics were seeking their own goals in economic terms or, rather, in
21 military terms? Because you are talking about --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In economic terms.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So you did not say that the republics were seeking
24 independence from other republics in terms of having ammunition available
25 to them, which would be a military matter; it was just economy. Is that
1 well understood?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was just a matter of economy,
3 because a lot of goods were exported to foreign countries, to Iraq and
4 other countries, and everyone was trying to make sure that their factory
5 could export as much ammunition as possible in order to obtain dollars. So
6 the interests at stake were economic interests.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that at least clarifies, for me, one of the
9 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
10 MR. STEWART:
11 Q. Mr. Zecevic, this particular piece of your statement concerns
12 what you have said, was politicians from the various republics using their
13 influence to change the defence plan of Yugoslavia. And that defence plan
14 you had yourself summarised in paragraphs 4 and 5 particularly, the first
15 element being that, in a case of attack there would be a withdrawal of
16 troops and vital industries into the mountainous regions of Bosnia-
17 Herzegovina and Serbia. So that's where many of the vital weapons and
18 ammunition factories were deliberately situated. And then another
19 characteristic - this is exactly the way you put it - was that each of the
20 military factories produced unique products, so they developed expertise in
21 the designated area of production.
22 So was it one or both of those elements, or some other element
23 that the politicians from the various republics were seeking to change?
24 A. What I had in mind was that their primary objective was economic,
25 and as a result, this also had certain military consequences.
1 For example, in the case of an attack carried out by the former
2 Soviet Union, that was what I had in mind. It's not a matter of certain
3 republics becoming independent, develop their ammunition on an independent
4 basis. They were primarily interested in the finances. But as a result of
5 such an approach, the concept that was in force up until that time could be
7 Q. So -- well, let me put it -- for example, are you saying that
8 whereas a key element apparently of the plan had been the deliberate
9 situation of such factories in mountainous regions, the presumably non-
10 mountainous republics pushed to unravel that element in their own economic
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you then go on to say in your statement that from 19 -- you
14 say since, but: "From 1984/85, Serbia felt they should become economically
15 stronger within the overall Federation, and they planned to set up some
16 important military factories in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro to
17 have a much larger share of weapons and ammunitions produced."
18 You lump Serbia and Montenegro together for this purpose, do
20 A. Well, there were some factories in Montenegro, too.
21 Q. Are have you done some study? Are you able to do more than
22 approach the matter in these rather general terms?
23 A. Well, to tell you why I came to that conclusion, I'll tell you
24 the following: The factory that I worked in had 5.000 staff. I was in the
25 development and research department. There were about 30 engineers there,
1 a total staff of 50, and we were responsible for the coordination of all
2 the work. During that period, preparations were underway to transfer a
3 bomb from Pretis to Belgrade. They started working on the 120-millimetre
4 anti-armour shell. This should have been developed in Pretis, and it was
5 transferred to Sloboda Cacak. There were some other requests, for example,
6 for a mine to be transferred to Krusik Valjevo. There was a 120-millimetre
7 shell developed in Pretis. They started working on it there, and then most
8 of that project was transferred to Partizan in Titovo Uzice. And then
9 there was the launcher for an anti-armour rocket, 190-millimetre rocket.
10 It was supposed to be made in Pretis. It was transferred to Macedonia.
11 And then the production programme for hand grenade was transferred from
12 Bugojno to Montenegro, and there were many other such cases.
13 Q. Well, Mr. Zecevic, you've given a number of examples, specific
14 examples, that you recall of movements of facilities. In relation to -- to
15 what you say here, that after 1984/1985 Serbia felt they should become
16 economically stronger, that was a distinctly economic policy, wasn't it?
17 That was what was driving it; correct?
18 A. Absolutely. Look, 125-millimetre projectile costs 1.000 dollars.
19 If you produce 10.000 such projectiles, well, do your multiplications and
20 you'll see what the profit was. And this was very advanced technology at
21 the time, and at the time I quite clearly stated that economic interests
22 were at stake.
23 Q. And so you've described, of course, that some -- all republics
24 were equal but some were more equal than others, and Serbia was very
25 powerful in relation to other republics, wasn't it?
1 A. Well, from the time that the SFRY came into existence, yes, it
2 always had a lot of influence. It had a lot of educated people, many
3 officers, officers in the JNA were from Serbia, et cetera. The capital of
4 Yugoslavia was Belgrade. When compared to Bosnia, Serbia was at an
6 Q. And you talk here about, in your statement, paragraph 12, Serbia
7 starting to parallel manufacture weapons and munitions, and you say this
8 parallel manufacture had previously not been permitted.
9 Mr. Zecevic, every republic was in favour of abandoning strict
10 parallel manufacture, wasn't it, if it suited that republic in its economic
12 A. No. At the beginning of my testimony, I said that there was a
13 rule of the military economic sector in the Federal Secretariat for
14 Defence, and this rule quite clearly stated how one could allow the
15 production -- authorise the production of new ammunition. When I mentioned
16 parallel production programmes, I said that the Pretis factory had started
17 producing 125-millimetre shells, and all of a sudden the same sort of
18 weapon was being produced in Serbia. They started producing the same kind
19 of weapon in Serbia. This was not reasonable for a small country like
21 Pretis produced 90-millimetre anti-armour shells; Sloboda Cacak
22 at the same time started producing a projectile, the calibre of which was
23 greater. So there was a parallel production line; that is what I'm talking
24 about. It wasn't reasonable in economic terms to proceed in this way if
25 you look at Yugoslavia as a whole, but if you look at Yugoslavia as a
1 collection of republics, a sort of economic organism, then this was
2 reasonable, from the viewpoint of a given republic. And that was what I
3 meant to say. I always thought of Yugoslavia as a system, as my state.
4 That was my view of Yugoslavia.
5 Q. Mr. Zecevic, what I'm putting to you is that it wasn't that
6 Serbia was wanting to break this rule about not having parallel
7 manufacturer, but the other republics were wanting to keep to the rule. It
8 was a -- a sort of, not free-for-all, but it was each man for himself.
9 Each republic wanted to get what it could, economically, with whatever push
10 it could, and if that meant parallel manufacture, well, that was what they
11 would go for. That was the position, wasn't it?
12 A. No, that's how it should have been. But you can't provide a
13 single example to show that a production programme in Serbia arrived in
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, was transferred to Macedonia or to Slovenia or to
15 Croatia. There are no such examples. That is how it should have been.
16 Q. You say in paragraph 13 of your statement, in the middle, you
17 say: "Before the war broke up --" it obviously means broke out. "Before
18 the war broke up in --" I said it myself. It clearly means before the war
19 broke out –-"in Bosnia and Herzegovina and onwards, the JNA always decided
20 prices of single ammunitions and pieces destined to JNA and most probably
21 to VRS, as well."
22 Perhaps you could clarify that, because you'd agree it can't
23 quite mean that, can it? Because before the war broke out in Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina there wasn't a VRS, was there?
25 A. Of course it did not exist. The matter is quite simple. All
1 military factories in the SFRY had reserve capacities for production for
2 the JNA that had been strictly defined, and there had to be a strictly
3 defined number of people who would be always ready in the case of war to
4 produce for the needs of the SFRY. And in accordance with these rules and
5 in accordance with the budget, they established what the amount of money
6 was that could be distributed for a given factory, and this would be dealt
7 with by correcting the prices. This was the case up until 1992. And this
8 relates to what I said about the Republika Srpska army.
9 Since 70 per cent of the value of all ammunition produced in,
10 for example, Pretis had to do with imports from Serbia, then naturally
11 those who imported the goods would dictate the final price of the product.
12 Since the factories in Serbia were under the control of the JNA, they
13 established the cost of production for the goods produced by those
14 factories. And then the conclusion is that the cost of production of the
15 factory of ammunition in Vogosca, which was controlled by the VRS army,
16 well, this cost should have been in line with the cost established by the
18 Q. So, Mr. Zecevic, we're -- we're getting economic -- into
19 economics in a way, which is straying from the question. The -- what you
20 say in your statement is: "JNA always decided prices of single ammunitions
21 and pieces destined to JNA." So you're talking about not the cost of --
22 A. Exactly.
23 Q. You're talking about what was going to JNA.
24 You then said: "And most probably to VRS as well." And we have
25 agreed that you can't be talking generally there about before the war broke
1 out because there wasn't a VRS.
2 So I'm inviting you to explain what you mean, then, when you
3 say, following on from the JNA always having decided prices of ammunition
4 and pieces destined to JNA -- what you mean when you say "and most probably
5 to VRS, as well." What do you say the JNA were deciding, and when, in
6 relation to the VRS?
7 A. If my memory doesn't fail me, in June 1992 the JNA had already
8 been transformed into the Yugoslav Army, so it was no longer the JNA. In
9 one of my previous answers, I was quite precise. The method used when
10 deciding on prices was identical. There were certain rules that had to be
11 respected, and the people who produced ammunition in Pretis were the same;
12 they were the people who were involved in production before the war, up
13 until 1992.
14 Q. Mr. Zecevic, the way your statement reads was: It was the JNA
15 who decided the prices of ammunitions and pieces destined to the VRS. That
16 was -- is that what you're saying?
17 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you, Mr. Zecevic, did you intend to
18 say that where prices were decided by the JNA and probably to the VRS, as
19 well, that this happened in respect to the JNA for the period when the JNA
20 was the important buyer of these materials, and that a similar thing
21 happened -- at least you assume that a similar thing happened to the VRS
22 once the VRS was established and had become a important client of these
23 production facilities?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, with respect, there are many
2 occasions on which I have acknowledged that Your Honour's question has
3 improved and clarified mine, but I'm afraid to say, Your Honour, this isn't
4 one of them. I --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then please put it in such a way that we get the
6 right answer.
7 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, it certainly helps now and then to try
9 to understand what a statement says and to try to listen to the testimony
10 of a witness such as to elicit -- such as to better understand what a
11 witness, sometimes not in perfect terms, intends to say.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, for five or ten minutes that's what
14 I've been trying to do. And the question I was asking, Witness --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart. Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: I am doing. I am doing, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STEWART:
19 Q. Mr. Zecevic, the question I asked you was whether you were saying
20 that it was the JNA who decided the prices of the ammunitions and pieces
21 destined for the VRS.
22 A. May I read my statement, please? Can you read it out to me, the
23 text of that paragraph referring to what I'm supposed to have said?
24 Q. Well, I'm reluctant to do the whole paragraph, Mr. Zecevic
25 because --
1 A. Okay. That part of the paragraph.
2 Q. Mr. Zecevic, you said: "Before the war broke out in Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina," and onwards, "JNA always decided prices of single ammunitions
4 and pieces destined to JNA and most probably to VRS, as well." That's --
5 perhaps, Witness, that's the sentence. Perhaps I can simply say, please
7 A. It's a very simple matter. Perhaps I wasn't quite specific
8 enough in my statement or -- but anyway, it's a simple matter.
9 Up until 1992, they decided on prices -- the JNA, I mean, and
10 when the Republika Srpska Armed Forces were set up, I said that it was
11 probably the same procedure, the price-setting procedure. Because I do
12 have the information that about 90 per cent of all elements were being
13 imported from Serbia when it came to the manufacturing of ammunition in
14 that period, between 1992 and 1995.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you say "the same procedure," do you intend to
16 say that VRS, as buyer of this ammunition, similarly decided prices, or did
17 you intend to say that JNA was deciding on prices of ammunition delivered
18 to the VRS?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order to make a
20 bullet or any kind of ammunition at Pretis, what was needed was to import
21 fuel, explosives, and other articles from Serbia. And they already had
22 prices which were determined by the JNA, which meant that basically 30 per
23 cent of the work was done by staff at Pretis and the materials were used
24 from the storage of Pretis. But the prices of any military products
25 manufactured by Pretis between 1992 and 1995 already included the price
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that had been set by the JNA in Serbia and Crna Gora or Montenegro or the
2 former Yugoslavia. So that was my basic idea when interpreting all the
3 various aspects of the problem.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It would also determine the price to be paid by the
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By all means.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. STEWART:
9 Q. Yes. Mr. Zecevic, is it this, in a nutshell: You're saying that
10 because the JNA were effectively the suppliers of components, that as an
11 economic matter their price-setting of their supplies to Pretis inevitably
12 dictated the price at which the completed product could be sold to the VRS?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So it wasn't that the JNA was in some way taking a decision for
15 the VRS. It was just the economic process.
16 A. If you say so.
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic, you're the witness. It's your evidence. Do you say
19 A. I tend to disagree for a simple reason, that there was an embargo
20 for imports of arms and raw materials for the production of arms and
21 ammunition for the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. And, of course, we could
22 discuss this matter at great length, and I don't want to waste too much of
23 your time.
24 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's no longer an economic aspect
1 we are talking about, because importing weapons from one country to another
2 was covered by the embargo of the UN, and any import of weapons into any
3 country is subject to some special procedure. We're not talking about
4 economic interests only, but about political interests, as well. So sales
5 of arms are not only economic transactions, but they also include a
6 political aspect, as well, and a security aspect involving the entire
7 region in which the transfer of weapons and ammunition is carried out. It
8 is a very complex issue indeed.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm sure in due course we can extract
10 from those answers sufficient --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will have to do that.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. STEWART:
14 Q. You go on in your statement - this is paragraph 14, for the
15 reference - to talk about how the contents of warehouses containing arms
16 were gradually being transferred to Serbia from 1988 onwards. You said:
17 "Those were the strategic stock piles of the JNA in the military
19 Do you know what the reasons were for that process?
20 A. I don't know. It is a statement of fact based on the warehouses
21 situated at Pretis, semi-finished goods and finished products, as well.
22 Q. Do you have knowledge yourself of the extent of transfer of
23 contents of warehouses to Serbia from 1988 onwards?
24 A. I can quote one example: 800 rockets, 262 millimetres with a
25 range of 52 kilometres, aimed -- or intended for Iraq which were stored at
1 Pretis, that in September 1991 they were transferred to Serbia, and it
2 should not have been done.
3 Furthermore, ammunition which was meant for Kuwait, 125
4 millimetres, was also owned by Pretis; it was the property of Pretis. And
5 there was a whole range of finished products. And from a purely objective
6 point of view, it was all under the control of the JNA, but up until then
7 it was customary for those products to be stockpiled and stored at Pretis.
8 And then at that period of time, in 1988, we noticed that these
9 stockpiles were being withdrawn. And if we add to that various implements
10 for the production of ammunition, which was the property of the defence
11 ministry and which was stored at Pretis as stockpiles, as reserves, that
12 too, was withdrawn, and also documentation on microfilms about the
13 production of ammunition, all the technological processes involved. At
14 that time, there was copying of those microfilms, and such copies were
15 taken away to Belgrade. That's the information that I've got.
16 Q. And the ammunition meant for Kuwait, when -- you say that was
17 moved. When?
18 A. In 1991.
19 Q. Your statement in -- refers generally to movement of contents of
20 warehouses from outside Serbia to Serbia. What degree of knowledge do you
21 personally have of the overall extent of movement of contents of warehouses
22 from all the other republics into Serbia in the period 1988 to 1992?
23 A. Nothing more than this, apart from rumours. But other than
24 rumours, what I've just told you and nothing else. Because I've had the
25 opportunity to actually witness those rockets which were brought from the
1 port of Ploce in August 1991 and they were stock piled at Konjic, and in
2 the course of the summer recess, that ammunition was moved.
3 By way of example, we are talking about strategic weapons,
4 rocket systems with sub-ammunition for anti-tank weapons and anti-armour
5 mines with sensors, and the price of a single rocket of this kind was about
6 11.000 dollars. And that ammunition was not a part of the weapons of the
7 JNA. It was meant for Iraq in 1990, because of the attack on the part of
8 Iraq, the attack on Kuwait, there was then the embargo. And so what I've
9 already told you about happened afterwards.
10 Q. In paragraph 22 of your statement, you say: "I was told by
11 Radovan Kakuca, one of my Serb colleagues, that from 1992, people of Serb
12 origin, and organisations who were aligned to the Serb nationalistic
13 parties, such as the SDS party, began to get weapons issued to them."
14 You say: "To the best of my knowledge about the structure of
15 the defence organisations in the SFRY prior to 1992, I'm aware precisely
16 how these groups could be armed. Following the order to centralise all
17 weapons held by the Territorial Defence forces, weapons were handed in and
18 stored in specified warehouses. A person was appointed as the warehouse
19 supervisor of this warehouse and had responsibility for the safekeeping of
20 the weapons stored within it and possessed data of weapons stored."
21 Mr. Zecevic, can we take it that all of that is information that
22 you have got from somebody else, about which you have no firsthand
24 A. Shall we take it step by step? Mr. Kakuca is somebody who works
25 with me at the development institute. He was a normal person, no
1 extremist, and everybody was worried about what was going on in 1992.
2 Q. Mr. Zecevic --
3 A. And --
4 Q. May just make a -- make a suggestion. This step by step is often
5 a very good method, but perhaps if you could just say if there are any
6 parts of that about which you do, in fact, have firsthand knowledge.
7 A. I was the deputy president of the rocketeers association of
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992, and prior to that I was the deputy
9 of the entire organisation for the entire Yugoslavia. And prior to 1991, I
10 got a letter in which my association was being offered several thousands of
11 rocket engines, 70 millimetres, American production. And I went to the
12 warehouse, and I took 500 of those rocket engines from the warehouse. It
13 was something that,up to then, would have been inconceivable.
14 And we went to a warehouse in Jenevica at Hadzici, and those 500
15 rockets were moved to Pretis, where I worked, and it was placed in a small
16 warehouse for the needs of the rocketeer association. That's one case.
17 And the other case, if you take the Falatici [phoen] warehouse.
18 It is situated in Sarajevo, and arms owned by the Territorial Defence of
19 the city of Sarajevo were sought there, as well as that belonging to all
20 the production plants situated in that area. For your information, the
21 arms for Territorial Defence was bought by workers from their own funds,
22 not from the budget of the defence ministry, but the workers had to pay for
24 In 1992, the JNA was in control of that warehouse, and at some
25 point in May 1992 there was a trench -- or rather, a tunnel dug out from
1 the other side, and all the arms were taken out of there.
2 Q. Excuse me.
3 A. So --
4 Q. Excuse me one moment, Mr. Zecevic. I wonder if you would simply
5 excuse me one moment?
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm not being wholly successful in
7 achieving the answers being directly and proportionate to the questions.
8 Help, Your Honour, is what I'm saying, Please. Please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Stewart, that depends also on the
10 way the questions are put. And sometimes - you may have noticed this - you
11 ask whether the witness has any personal knowledge of matter. He'll tell
12 you about the personal knowledge.
13 MR. STEWART: That's what I'm asking him for, Your Honour, about
14 those matters.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered your cry for help.
18 You'll get another ten minutes, Mr. Stewart, to finish your cross-
20 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon, Your Honour? I'm sorry, Your
22 JUDGE ORIE: You'll get another ten minutes to finish your
24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, is that help being declined? Because,
25 Your Honour, I've had tremendous difficulty in proceeding through my cross-
1 examination because --
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you're really interested to know, for example,
3 what -- you have spent lots of time on the final part of paragraph 11, on
4 paragraph 12, on paragraph 13, which are dominated by statements of the
5 witness saying -- and he answered: "The republic interests began to
6 dominate." Yes, that was an economic matter. And then the next one was
7 could they have profitable manufacture. In 13 we find a lot of economics.
8 You have spent an enormous amount of time on just establishing what this
9 already says, and what seems to satisfy you is that it's mainly about
10 economics and not about anything else. Well, that's what the statement
11 says. There was no need to go into that detail and to emphasise that again
12 and again and again.
13 So, therefore, it's also on the basis of the way you use your
14 time in cross-examination that you'll get another ten minutes, and I'll not
15 take this one minute off.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic, do you know that on the 16th and 17th of April,
18 1992, Muslims broke into the Pretis factory and carried away considerable
19 quantities of ammunition?
20 A. I know it was on a Friday evening. A Thursday or a Friday
21 evening at some point in April.
22 Q. And whatever precise date it was, then, they entered the factory
23 grounds around 4.00 in the morning with cargo -- two cargo vehicles, two
24 passenger cars accompanied by a police armoured car?
25 A. I don't have that information.
1 Q. You never heard anything about it? Is that what you're saying?
2 A. I don't have any information as to the armoured vehicles getting
4 Q. All right. Without the details, do you know that around that
5 date Muslims broke in, they had some sort of vehicles, passenger cars, have
6 you heard of them disarming security, carrying away seven 80 Osa rockets?
7 Have you heard of that?
8 A. Yes, I heard that they took anti-armoured rockets and some mines.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch what category of
10 mines, unfortunately.
11 MR. STEWART:
12 Q. And do you know that after that attack, which was successful,
13 they went back a short while afterwards with a larger group of about 100
14 Muslims and more trucks?
15 A. I don't know. I know something like that appeared, but I don't
16 know how many people or how many trucks. Why would I have to know that?
17 Q. Do you know that that second large assault was, in fact, repulsed
18 and that they failed to carry away any of the stock?
19 A. I know that some people lost their lives entering Pretis because
20 there is a plate in memory of those people who lost their lives.
21 Q. So you didn't consider it relevant when you gave two long
22 paragraphs of account in your statement, paragraph 31, 32, about the events
23 of April and lists of Crisis Staffs and the JNA taking over the factory.
24 You didn't consider it of any relevance to mention that, that there'd been
25 violent attack and a successful attack on this factory which had taken away
1 some of the stock? You thought that wasn't relevant, did you?
2 A. Hang on a minute. I thought it would be important for me to say
3 that General Divjak -- and that there was an attempt at occupation, at the
4 occupation of Pretis on the part of the JNA, and that the general invited
5 us as workers, engineers, technicians and so on -- he invited us to get
6 there. I mentioned that it was a key element, and I phoned up my director,
7 Radomir Ecimovic, at home to ask him, according to procedure, whether I
8 should go there. I acted in line with all the relevant rules and
10 And his wife answered the phone, Ljiljana Ecimovic, and she
11 said that everything was under control and it was a false alarm. And it
12 was kind of worrying to me that I, as a worker who spent 17 years working
13 at the factory, was barred from entering the premises. That was quite
14 frightening that I was barred from the premises up until 1996, and I
15 entered in 1996, and all my documents, everything I had left there, had
16 been taken away. And I have never managed to recover any of that. And all
17 my work of 17 years had simply disappeared.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, I think Mr. Stewart asked you whether
19 you thought it relevant to tell about this during your interview.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not one of the participants
21 in all that, so I thought it wouldn't be relevant for me to mention it.
22 MR. STEWART:
23 Q. Just going back to -- to what you said about that account that we
24 were exploring a few minutes ago, about how those Serb groups could be
25 armed and weapons being handed and stored in warehouses and the person
1 being appointed as the warehouse supervisor. And you go on to say: "I
2 believe that invariably the person appointed was connected to the SDS party
3 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This person also had to obey all orders from
4 commanders in the JNA."
5 Mr. Zecevic, you don't know that at all, do you? That's --
6 that's not your own personal knowledge.
7 A. The question of the investigator was the following: In what way
8 could weapons from the storehouse be taken out? That was the question.
9 And in line with that, my answer was: "I believe that in order for that
10 operation to be carried out, that is to say, for weapons to be taken out of
11 the warehouse and for only a few people to know about it" -- and then the
12 rest of my statement follows.
13 You have to look at it within this context. Every passage of my
14 statement is an answer to a question put to me by the investigators.
15 Q. Mr. Zecevic.
16 A. And the answer of the --
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic, here -- and now it's my turn to ask questions. And
18 that wasn't the bit that I was asking you about. I was asking you
19 particularly about your expressed belief that invariably the person
20 appointed was connected to the SDS party in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that
21 that person also had to obey all orders from commanders in the JNA. And I
22 was putting it to you: You just don't know that, do you?
23 A. No. All I have expressed is my opinion as to how that could have
24 happened. That's all.
25 MR. STEWART: No further questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
2 Mr. Krajisnik, would you have any questions to the witness?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have some questions for this
4 witness. Not many, I hope, but I would be grateful if I could have a ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zecevic, first of all, I think you've testified
6 before in this court, in this Chamber, certainly at this moment --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my third time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The accused is allowed to put questions to
9 the witness, as well. So just to inform you about this procedural aspect.
10 Yes, Mr. Krajisnik, you may proceed.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I wanted to say is that I
12 would be grateful if we could have a break now, a ten-minute break, so that
13 I can try to put my papers into order so as to avoid repeating certain
14 questions. But if that is not possible, I will proceed to put my questions
15 to the witness now.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have the second break a bit earlier than
18 usual, Mr. Krajisnik. That means that we'll resume at five minutes to
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.32 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for
25 allowing me to put questions to this witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're allowed to do so. Please proceed.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would first of all like to greet
3 the witness.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
5 Q. [Interpretation] I hope that we speak the language; although, we
6 may call this language in a different way.
7 A. I agree.
8 Q. Please make a pause between question and answer for the sake of
9 the interpreters. I have noticed -- or I noticed yesterday that when one
10 speaks rapidly, it can be difficult. I won't put any difficult questions
11 to you, because I'm not a lawyer. And there's another reason for which I
12 won't put difficult questions to you: I wanted three of your colleagues to
13 be located Branko Prodanovic, Milorad Motika, and Cekularac [phoen]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Sekularac. Interpreter's correction.
16 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. What I have to say refers to things that they said, and these
18 will be my questions, but let me tell you what I asked them. I asked them
19 what kind of a man you were. This is not contained in your biography --
20 Just a minute, please, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik. You may put questions to the
22 witness. Please proceed.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
25 Q. They spoke about you favourably, and that is why I will put
1 questions to you in the following way. I believe that everything you will
2 say will be the truth.
3 UNIS was a labour organisation and Pretis was also a similar
4 kind of organisation. We both worked in two of the best companies in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina; we've never seen each other before. And Mr. Deronja
6 was the director of UNIS. Just tell me, the office in Belgrade was part of
7 Pretis. It was Pretis's property, but it worked for all the factories --
8 all the departments of UNIS; isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Gorazde. There were three machines for producing military
11 equipment, capsules. They said that if you don't have such items, you
12 can't have a bullet. And these machines remained in Gorazde throughout the
13 war. Production was under the control of the ABiH -- or that factory was
14 there; isn't that correct? That's where these primers were produced.
15 A. Yes, the company was under the control of the ABiH. If you don't
16 have a primer, ammunition won't function properly, with one exception, in
17 Vorasacuk [phoen] and Krusik Valjevo, it was possible to produce primers.
18 Q. I just want to repeat what your colleagues said, and this will be
19 my only question: The only machines in the former Yugoslavia were in
20 Gorazde. You can say that wasn't the case, but that is what they told me.
21 Would you say that that is true or not?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Very well. Zrak Sokolac. Are you aware of the fact that part of
24 Zrak, which was in Sarajevo, which was under the control of the ABiH, are
25 you aware of the fact that part of this body was in Sokolac? Are you aware
1 of the fact that this part was not in operation?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the front line was at the very
4 gate of Famos, and Famos had an agreement with Mercedes and didn't work?
5 A. Yes. The front line was by part of the factory.
6 Q. Very well. Do you know whether Mr. Alija Izetbegovic wrote his
7 memoirs, the late Alija Izetbegovic?
8 A. I haven't read them.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you were perfectly right when you
10 asked the witness to make a pause and not speak too quickly, but you
11 immediately put the next question before we have even heard the answer of
12 the witness in translation. So would you please also make a pause, then.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you are right.
14 Nothing is easy in Bosnia. We want to do everything very rapidly. So I do
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't read Mr. Izetbegovic's
19 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
20 Q. If I told you - and you don't have to answer this - that Mr.
21 Izetbegovic said that you produced - and I mean the Muslim side; no offence
22 meant, but that's how we usually put it - he said that the Muslim side in
23 Sarajevo produced shells in the wire factory. Are you aware of this?
24 A. Well, yes. In 1992 and 1993, I organised the production of
25 ammunition for the needs of the BH army in Sarajevo.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. You have told the truth, and the truth will
2 always prevail.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you're not supposed to tell a
4 witness that he spoke the truth or not. It's finally up for the Chamber to
5 decide whether a witness tells the truth or not, and you may not comment on
6 this. Of course, I'm happy that you are convinced that this witness, in
7 your view, has told the truth, but you should refrain from saying any of
8 these things.
9 Please proceed.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I must say that the
11 task that counsel has to perform is very difficult. I do appreciate the
12 fact, but I will do my best to follow your advice.
13 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Could you tell me, around the 23rd of August, 1992, Pale was
15 shelled by the Muslim side. On that day, unfortunately, my wife died.
16 Could you explain to the Trial Chamber how it was possible for them to
17 shell Pale. What sort of weapons did they use? As an expert, you probably
18 know the answer.
19 A. Well, look, if I'm to tell you what my opinion is, I would have
20 to know what was found at the site of detonation. That's what I did in
21 Markale I. It wasn't possible for a projectile to be fired from Sarajevo.
22 Such a projectile couldn't have reached Pale. In the course of 1992, a
23 total of 110 projectiles, the calibre of which was 120 millimetres, were
24 produced. There were bombs, rifle-launched grenades that were produced,
25 and sometimes inflammable rifle-launched grenades. Such a shell could have
1 been launched from Igman. That is the only possibility. I don't know how
2 far it is, what the distance is between Igman and Pale, but if it's about
3 20 kilometres or more, as the crow flies, then only 130-millimetre gun
4 shell could have been used. I don't know. I was never in Igman. I spent
5 the entire war in Sarajevo, so I couldn't say anything about that. I'm
6 trying to answer you as an expert on the basis of the basic information
7 that you have.
8 Q. Very well. So someone who had shelled that location must have
9 had such a weapon.
10 A. Yes, that's true.
11 Q. Since I said that we both worked in two of the best companies - I
12 worked in Tatar [phoen] and you worked in Pretis - and we discussed
13 economic problems. At the time in Bosnia there were no ethnic divisions,
14 we will try to get the best out of Bosnia. Pretis is not just the only
15 example, but I'll provide you with another example. And I would like to
16 ask you to tell us --
17 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor.
19 MR. GAYNOR: I just want to record an objection that the accused
20 should ask questions and not make speeches.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, sometimes it is necessary to make a
22 short introduction to a question to put the context clearly to the witness
23 in which context that question is put to him. But I tend to agree with Mr.
24 Gaynor, that your introductions are too long and not limited to creating a
25 context. Please proceed with your questions.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll proceed. I have an example
2 for you.
3 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. The task Pretis was assigned were the sort of tasks that
5 companies in other republics were assigned. These tasks were distributed
6 among factories in Yugoslavia.
7 A. Yes, in accordance with our production schedule.
8 Q. The engineering companies distributed work between Slovenia,
9 Croatia, Bosnia. My company was allocated 10 million dollars more than all
10 the other factories in Yugoslavia, so could you reach the following
11 conclusion: As a Bosnian at the time, it wouldn't have occurred to me to
12 say that that wasn't right. Did we all strive to ensure that our republics
13 were in the best possible position?
14 A. The production of ammunition was above all --
15 Q. Could you just answer my question in economic terms.
16 A. Well, there is no comparison. As far as the production of
17 ammunition is concerned, there is always a political aspect. You can't
18 divide these two issues. You can't buy ammunition on the open market. You
19 can't buy ammunition freely. When this happens, then you'll be quite
21 Q. As far as the economic interests are concerned --
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. They told me that this was a self-propelled rocket, a PVO, and
24 that you made a mistake when you said that it came from Croatia. It was in
25 Lukavica, and it was transferred to Novi Sad. Are you aware of the fact,
1 and are you sure of what you said in your statement?
2 A. No, I didn't say it was -- it moved from Croatia. I said it was
3 in Lukavica and that I was to take my students to Lukavica. We didn't find
4 them there. They'd been moved at the time when I was supposed to train
5 them in relation to the use of an anti-aircraft system.
6 Q. They didn't come from Croatia.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know that these systems came from Novi Sad?
9 A. No, I'm not aware of the fact.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I'd just like to remind the accused
11 and indeed the witness to slow down between question and answer.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have asked you -- Mr. Krajisnik,
13 your questions always immediately follow the answer. I know it's not easy.
14 Please proceed.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I warned the witness, but I'm
16 making far more serious mistakes. I do apologise.
17 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Would it be correct to say that a LAP, a light rocket regiment
19 commanded by Mr. Dzakic, didn't come from Croatia. That's what it says
20 here, but it's probably a mistake. Is it a mistake?
21 A. Yes, it's a mistake.
22 Q. Do you know that the regiment was initiatively deployed in
23 Trnopolje and not in Sarajevo?
24 A. No, I'm not aware of that fact. I have no such information.
25 Q. As far as appointments are concerned, can you confirm from the
1 time that the communist system was in place, do you know that there was a
2 system of appointing people on the basis of ethnic membership?
3 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
4 Q. And people who were members of the League of Communists were in a
5 favourable position. They had an advantage; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Prodanovic said that there wasn't any kind of a list on
8 eliminating Muslims, and this is my question for you now: Do you know
9 where Mr. Prodanovic was in the course of the war?
10 A. I think he was in Belgrade.
11 Q. Yes. Does this seem to be an alibi? He went to Belgrade and now
12 he says there was no list.
13 A. No. This shows that he was a good man and he warned his non-Serb
14 friends in time. He told them to leave so that they would come to no harm.
15 Q. That's your conclusion.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If he says there was no list --
18 A. Well, I'm not telling you who told me about the list. Tanovic
19 Nerkez, you can ask this man himself, that's what he told me. I didn't
20 invent this; I relayed this information.
21 Q. Yes, I know. But if I now said that Mr. Prodanovic now says that
22 there was no such list, do you think that this was an alibi of sorts, the
23 fact that he went to Belgrade? If he went to Belgrade, they wouldn't
24 eliminate him.
25 A. Well, I can't tell you what my position would be about that.
1 Q. Very well. As far as the Crisis Staff is concerned, could you
2 explain something for the Trial Chamber, although Judge Hanoteau asked you
3 about this. After Tito's death, there were a lot of demonstrations, a lot
4 of protests, a lot of strikes, which was inconceivable. Were Crisis Staffs
5 established at the time?
6 A. There was a Crisis Staff that was established. There was a
7 reserve plan for crisis situations, which quite clearly stated what had to
8 be undertaken. It quite clearly stated what the composition of a Crisis
9 Staff was and what sort of authority a Crisis Staff would have. You were a
10 director in your company, so you must be aware of the fact that you had an
11 official for National Defence and social self-protection, and you know that
12 there were quite clear rules about how to behave in crisis situations. You
13 must admit that in 1992, after the demonstrations, after all the tension,
14 after the appearance of armed groups, one could no longer consider the
15 situation to be normal. You can't compare this to the strike carried out
16 by people who were unhappy because of the economy. So the situation was
17 such that it was quite reasonable to expect that a Crisis Staff should
19 Q. Please forget about Pretis.
20 A. I don't know about anything else.
21 Q. No, but I want to ask you about something else. Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina, when there were strikes, when there were crisis situations,
23 were you informed of the fact that at the time various representatives of
24 so-called Crisis Staffs appeared? At the time, are you aware of the fact?
25 A. No, I'm not.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Very well. You said - and I would agree with you - that as far
2 as the special purposes industry in Bosnia is concerned --
3 Have I made a mistake again, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you're not supposed to say whether
5 you agree with the witness or not. You can put questions to the witness.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.
7 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You said that in 1998 investments in companies outside of Serbia
9 were reduced. Would it be correct to say that in Pretis, at the time, a
10 significant investment was made? They invested into systems for producing
11 rocket systems and other special machines, and this was the case in Brastvo
12 and Novi Travnik, as well. They financed launchers, the Lorgan [phoen] and
13 Orkan launcher systems, and in Sloboda and Princip Cigana Vitas [phoen]
14 investments were made into rocket fuel, et cetera, et cetera?
15 A. Would you like me to answer that?
16 Q. Are you aware of this fact?
17 A. Yes, I know that such things occurred. But the situation is as
18 follows: Lefit[phoe] is a special machine for producing chambers, and it's
19 imported from abroad, and it was intended for the Iraq market. There was -
20 - these projects were financed on a 50/50 basis by Iraq and by others. And
21 the launchers in Brastvo, yes, the situation was the same. It was an
22 enormous project financed by Yugoslavia and Iraq together. As far as
23 rocket fuel is concerned, this is fuel -- well, a licence was bought in
24 1977 when President Tito was with Mr. Carter, and from 1977 to 1985
25 investments were made, not in 1988.
1 Q. So you agree that such investments were made?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Just for the record, your previous question
4 started, at least in the transcript, you said that in 1998 investments and
5 companies outside of Serbia were reduced. Were you referring to 1998, Mr.
6 Krajisnik, or to 1988?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1988. That's what it says in the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that how you understood it, Witness? Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood it correctly. Yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is what I said, but it was
12 probably misinterpreted.
13 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You mentioned the Krema system.
15 A. Krema.
16 Q. I have been informed that there was no such system but that it
17 was some sort of an improvisation, because if what you said had happened
18 had actually happened, it would have been a catastrophe. Do you stand by
19 your statement, or do you accept this explanation?
20 A. No. SFOR units, the multinational armed units that were in
21 Bosnia from 1996 and are still present in Bosnia have this in their
22 brochures. I have photographs of those rockets found by SFOR units in
23 territory under the control of the Republika Srpska army. There's Krema 1,
24 2, and 3. These are rocket systems with special warheads.
25 In 1994, these items were imported from the former Soviet Union,
1 from Russia. I have photographs here; I can show you to you if you like.
2 And in the second part of 1994 and 1995, there was an attempt to improvise
3 such a system, to copy such a system, but the results were not as
4 effective. This system operated in Sarajevo. I have photocopies of orders
5 here, orders from the Republika Srpska General Staff, in which it is stated
6 that in 1994 in the military technical institute two such launchers were
7 being produced. Mr. Ecimovic informed the Chief of the General Staff that
8 General Mladic, as the commander of the army, was the only person with the
9 authority to designate the location.
10 I also have information on documents signed by the director of
11 Pretis, Mr. Motika, that have to do with requests for six -- for bombs, 250
12 kilogrammes and 150 kilogramme bombs. I was part of the expert team that
13 in 1995 carried out on-site investigations when the TV station in Sarajevo
14 was attacked. I have information on various locations because the
15 television station in Sarajevo was targeted. So there's much that I could
16 tell you about this.
17 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. It's necessary to call
18 witnesses here who have established this so that they can explain to the
19 Trial Chamber what is, in fact, correct.
20 A. Could I just show you the photographs?
21 Q. Witness, allow me to finish.
22 A. I apologise.
23 Q. It's not necessary for me to have this submitted into evidence,
24 but naturally the Prosecutor and everyone else will state what their
25 position is.
1 Are you aware of the fact the director -- I apologise. Let me
2 just find this part.
3 Are you aware of the fact that Colonel Mensur Sacirovic remained
4 behind you in Pretis?
5 A. Not Colonel but Major, Major Sacirovic.
6 Q. Very well. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Mensur Sacirovic
7 was captured, maltreated, physically abused by Muslim extremists?
8 Unfortunately, I have to say "Muslims."
9 A. I saved him, and he was in my unit in 1992 and 1993.
10 Q. And are you aware of the fact that the director - perhaps I've
11 accelerated again - are you aware of the fact that the previous director of
12 Pretis, Jovan Vucic, was arrested in his flat? He was maltreated there and
13 taken to a Muslim prison.
14 A. No, I'm not aware of that fact.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank the witness, and I would
16 like to thank the Trial Chamber for allowing me to put questions to the
17 witness. I apologise for the mistakes I may have made. The work of a
18 lawyer is very difficult.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.
20 Any need to re-examine the witness, Mr. Gaynor?
21 MR. GAYNOR: No need, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Bench has no questions to you, either,
24 nothing could have triggered any need, but if I'm mistaking, Mr. Stewart,
25 even if some of the questions put by Mr. Krajisnik would have raised a wish
1 to put any further questions to the witness, I would allow you to put those
3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't need to.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Zecevic, this concludes your
5 evidence in this court. I'd like to thank you very much for having come to
6 The Hague and for your testimony given today, and I wish you a safe trip
7 home again.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE ORIE: The exhibits have been assigned numbers. Is there
11 any objection against the admission of the exhibits?
12 MR. STEWART: Not from me, Your Honour. I don't know about Mr.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Krajisnik?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My former Defence counsel is quite
16 right. No objections.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, it would be sufficient to just tell us
18 the range of the exhibits. That's what we usually do. It's from P, and
19 then you fill it in until ...
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I do take that
21 the exhibit number, and I list the exhibit.
22 P753, P754, P75 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd just give us the last.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. To cut it short, from
25 P753 to P757 are admitted into evidence. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we admit them into evidence but you number
3 Yes, the decision is, as you thought it would be, that they are
4 admitted into evidence.
5 Then, Mr. Gaynor.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Your Honour, we're ready to call the next
7 witness. I'll excuse myself, and Mr. Tieger will take over.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. GAYNOR: If that's okay.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Your next witness, let's just first check. Any
13 protective measures?
14 MR. GAYNOR: No protective measures, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, of course, I should ask Mr. Tieger,
16 because you just announced that it would be Mr. Tieger.
17 Mr. Tieger, no protective measures? Or should we -- no. No.
18 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No protective measures. And your next witness to
20 be called would be ...?
21 MR. TIEGER: Mr. Nielsen.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen.
23 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Nielsen into the
25 Yes, Ms. Loukas.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, while the witness is being brought in,
2 there's a matter I need to place on the record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is it necessarily done before we start with the
6 witness or ...? Because otherwise I would leave it till close to 7.00.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I'm happy to do that, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because for the witness it's not ...
9 I wanted to say good afternoon, Mr. Nielsen, but I should say
10 good evening, Mr. Nielsen.
11 THE WITNESS: Good evening, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules
13 of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that
14 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May I
15 invite you to make that solemn declaration, and may I also invite you to
16 put your earphones on because sometimes you get instructions to speak more
17 slowly, and that's usually done through the earphones.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen.
20 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth,
21 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Examined by Mr. Tieger:
3 Q. Good evening, Mr. Nielsen.
4 A. Good evening, Mr. Tieger.
5 Q. The Court has received your CV, so I will not go into that,
6 unless the Court is for some reason interested in further detail. I note
7 that it reflects your doctorate -- Doctor of Philosophy degree with
8 distinction, but as has been the custom here, I will refer to you by the
9 simple title mister during the course of your testimony.
10 The Court has also heard from other witnesses who were members
11 of the LRT or leadership research team, and so I will try to be brief with
12 the background that led to the submission of your report in this case and
13 your upcoming testimony.
14 First of all, is it correct that you were a member of the
15 leadership research team for the OTP of the ICTY?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. And you began your work when?
18 A. I began my work here in mid-June 2002.
19 Q. And is it correct that you are no longer employed by the OTP but
20 are employed by the International Criminal Court?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. And that has been since when?
23 A. I've been employed by the International Criminal Court since
24 August of 2004.
25 Q. Now, your work with the LRT involved conducting your own research
1 and assisting the research of others for the LRT?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And is it correct that that work involved the collection and
4 analysis of documents related to the conflict in Bosnia, and more
5 specifically in your case, to the Bosnian Serb Ministry of the Interior?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did that -- did you produce a report that focused on the
8 structure and activities of the Bosnian Serb MUP or Ministry of the
9 Interior during the year -- years -- well, the year 1992, but with the
10 background of the steps leading up to the establishment of the Bosnian Serb
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And is it also correct that that report was based on, in large
14 measure, on the extensive collection of original documents in the
15 possession of the OTP, many of which originated from the Bosnian Serb MUP
16 as well as other source materials which are identified in your report?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I wonder if the Court would wish to
19 mark the report with an identification number at this point, or the
20 relevant documents with an identification number, or would wish me to
21 proceed otherwise.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to -- the report has been presented
24 to the Chamber, this expert report, so therefore it's part of the
25 submissions. If later we would want to assign a number to it, we may do
1 that, but at this moment there's no need to proceed to that.
2 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in part, your report addresses some of the steps
4 leading up to the division of what was the joint MUP and establishment of
5 the Bosnian Serb MUP, from approximately the paragraphs 7 through 90 in the
6 report. I'd like to simply focus on a few of those steps that you identify
7 along the way, and I'd like to begin by drawing your attention to an item
8 found behind tab number 1 of the presentation binders.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are the presentation binders already provided to
10 the Chamber?
11 MR. TIEGER: I don't believe they have been, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. TIEGER: And while they're being distributed, I can indicate
14 to the Court that there are three binders containing 78 tabs. A further
15 note, that approximately a dozen of those tabs have been withdrawn;
16 although, for purposes of continuity, the numbering remains. And, in
17 addition, another approximately dozen of those tabs contain items already
18 in evidence. And as we go through, I'll attempt to identify those.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would have to go back exactly to the
20 guidance we Gave, but it was a substantial reduction of the numbers of
21 exhibits to be shown and also some guidance for the Defence, how to deal
22 with footnote material, et cetera. But let's first continue and see where
23 we go.
24 The most important is that first of all the witness receives the
25 binder we'll talk about.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I had just focussed your attention on the
5 intercepted telephone conversation contained at tab 1, which is a
6 conversation between Dr. Karadzic and Vitomir Zepinic on 24 July 1991.
7 Before we play a portion of that intercepted telephone
8 conversation, perhaps you can tell the Court who Mr. Zepinic was.
9 A. Yes, in this case, Vitomir Zepinic was, at the time of this
10 telephone call, the deputy Minister of Internal Affairs in the SR BiH MUP;
11 that is to say, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic
12 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. And was he the highest-ranking Bosnian Serb official within the
14 joint MUP?
15 A. Yes, he was.
16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the transition from witness to witness
17 was a little more abrupt than is often the case with a witness with this
18 many documents, so we're now attempting to find the Sanction -- the
19 intercept in Sanction, and if we can't, then we'll move on and address it
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If it cannot be found quickly, I'd rather you
22 to move on, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: I agree, Your Honour. And we'll return --
24 It's been found.
25 [Intercept played]
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can't find this text
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, let's restart it.
4 MR. TIEGER: My apologies, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would tell us where you'd start --
6 MR. TIEGER: Of course.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- then the interpreters, who have been provided
8 with the transcript, I take it, could find the beginning.
9 MR. TIEGER: I didn't realise that the clip portion had not been
10 made known to them before. That's found at page 8 of the English
11 translation, toward -- it's the fifth speaker's box --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. TIEGER: -- down from the top. And it begins with the line:
14 "Please be sure no one is appointed without all the Serbs giving their
15 opinion on that."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we restart, then, there.
17 [Intercept played]
18 THE INTERPRETTER: [voiceover]
19 "K: Please be sure no one is appointed without all the Serbs
20 giving their opinion on that.
21 Z: All right.
22 K: Nonsense, that man intercepted the premises here, without
23 authorisation he inter ... intercepted the premises and he intercepted-- I
24 mean, ran ... ransacked the food there, thinking that we were piling up
25 weapons in Sokolac, mother-fuckers.
1 Z: What did they give them --
2 K: Yes, I beg you, I'll call Devedlaka now to -- to see what he
3 thought there, when he suggested him.
4 Z: -- I -- in ... to see what it is.
5 K: I'll call Devedlaka to -- to ask him what kind of ... and if
6 Devedlaka's doing that without consulting with us ... well, he cannot
7 suggest that without consulting with us.
8 Z: Well, the people from Romanija suggested it to him.
9 K: They are not allowed to, this is the personnel of the Serbian
10 Democratic Party. I'll find him now and I'll tell him not to do these
11 things on a provate basis ever again.
12 Z: I'll find him. You don't have to ...
13 K: No, it's fine. They'll find him easily.
14 Z: Yes.
15 K: All right. Please, let the collegium meet every morning and
16 clear all that out. I was with Izetbegovic last night and with
17 Zulfikarpasic. And I told him, right into his face, we'll establish a
18 parallel government, parallel police. We'll withdraw our people and they'd
19 have to be paid by the governemnt. We'll withdraw all our people under
20 arms. We'll establish an entire parallel state wif you keep on screwing
21 us. And he just looked and blinked, because we'll do that. Not even God
22 could stop us in that, because they started to fuck with us and to fuck us
23 up. And there's no doubt, we'll do all of that in a week. So let there be
24 war. Let there be war. But we'll finish the job for once."
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, were you able to find the B/C/S part
1 of the ...?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was quite unable to find it.
3 But you don't need to play it again. I've heard it. But perhaps in the
4 future if Mr. Tieger could tell me exactly where it is.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, focussing in particular on the latter part of the
8 conversation -- the latter clip of that part of the conversation, can you
9 tell us what the discussion between Mr. Zepinic and Dr. Karadzic was about.
10 A. Well, the first thing to note about this conversation from the
11 point of analysis is that there are two versions of this conversation that
12 we have in evidence, both of which stem from July. However, I do footnote
13 that in my report in footnote 24.
14 What they're discussing here is consistent with the general
15 expressions made by Radovan Karadzic during this time period with respect
16 to the Serbs who worked in the SR BiH MUP. Karadzic had formed an opinion
17 that the SDS was the legitimate and sole representative of the interests of
18 the Serbs who were employed in the ministry. As such, the SDS party was
19 supposed to engage in scrutiny of any appointments involving Serbs. This
20 is the gist of what he is expressing in this conversation when he refers to
21 his conversations with Devedlaka. Karadzic was in particular concerned
22 about the appointment of Serbs who did not enjoy the full support of the
23 SDS or did not agree fully with the SDS's party programme.
24 In -- further in this conversation, we see one of the earliest
25 expressions by Karadzic himself about a possible alternative, parallel
1 police, as he calls it in this conversation, indeed a parallel state, if
2 the demands of the Serbs as expressed by the SDS, again, with --
3 specifically here with respect to the police, were not taken seriously and
4 were not agreed to by the other two sides. Those two sides, of course,
5 being the SDA, the Muslim Democratic Party of Action, and the Croat
6 Democratic Union; although, in this conversation he does only mention the
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Could we be
9 told who Devedlaka is. Could the witness please specify who this person
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, at this point I cannot specifically
12 say who Dragan Devedlaka was. I do know that he was a Serb who was
13 employed in SR BiH MUP at the time. I believe in State Security Service,
14 but I would have to check on that.
15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you spoke about the assertion that a parallel police
18 and a parallel government would be established. Did you report -- did your
19 report look at documents that also considered that possibility during 1991?
20 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, to quote the evidence
21 properly, the evidence of the witness was a possible alternative parallel
22 police, as opposed to the way Mr. Tieger has expressed it. The assertion
23 that a parallel police --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, is your microphone on?
25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. It's perhaps a little --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's one far away from you. Could you please
2 repeat what you said because I'm not quite sure that everyone could
3 understand it.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. It's just in relation to Mr.
5 Tieger quoting back the evidence of the witness. Mr. Tieger's question
6 was: "You spoke about the assertion that a parallel police and a parallel
7 government would be established," but, of course, the answer that the
8 witness gave was "possible."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I think the witness said "a possible
11 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I was actually referring to Dr.
12 Karadzic's statement: "And I told him right to his face we'll establish a
13 parallel government, parallel police. We'll establish an entire parallel
14 state if you keep on screwing us." I consider that an assertion, and
15 that's what I was referring to as a general matter, and clearly my question
16 could not be taken as evidence, and that really is an unnecessary
18 MS. LOUKAS: With the greatest of respect, even when one does
19 quote from the telephone conversation, it's quite clear that it is
20 conditional. There's an "if" there.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- but apart from that, Mr. Tieger, you
22 said: "Mr. Nielsen, you spoke about the assertion that a parallel police
23 in --" I have to check that first.
24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'll withdraw the question. I'd
25 really like to move on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. Mr. Nielsen, did your report examine documents from 1991 which
4 considered the prospect of a -- dividing the joint MUP into separate ethnic
5 Ministries of Interior?
6 A. Yes, the report did focus on several such documents.
7 Q. If I could direct your attention, then, to one such document,
8 located at paragraphs -- or which is discussed at paragraphs 33 through 39
9 of your report. And if I could ask you to turn your attention to tab 2 of
10 the presentation binder, number 1. It's binder number 1, tab 2.
11 That contains a document entitled "Possible ways of
12 decentralising Internal Affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Can you tell us
13 briefly, Mr. Nielsen, what subject this paper addresses and its
15 A. Briefly speaking, this report is a report written anonymously; it
16 is also undated. But it is written by a person or persons with a very
17 detailed knowledge of the operation of SR BiH MUP. The person or persons
18 who authored the report are writing from a Serbian perspective, and they're
19 considering the possible consequences of the decentralisation of Internal
20 Affairs organs in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 It bears mentioning here that those organs were at that time
22 quite centralised according to the laws that were in force at the time, and
23 the document assumes that the current security situation and therefore the
24 state of internal affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina is in a state of flux
25 and attempts to propose possibilities of restructuring Internal Affairs to
1 deal with that deteriorating security situation.
2 Q. And what conclusions does the document reach or propose?
3 A. The authors reach a kind of two-tiered conclusion that is in is
4 of itself somewhat contradictory. Let me explain. At the outset, they
5 take as an assumption, as I said, that there is a deteriorating security
6 situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that all of the three main ethnic
7 groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina are, in fact, facing danger as a result of
8 that situation.
9 What is considered here is -- in particular, at the outset, is
10 that decentralisation per se, that is to say, an environment in which each
11 of these three communities would go about forming their own Internal
12 Affairs organs, would actually lead to an additional, an accelerated
13 deterioration of that security situation. The authors, therefore, retreat
14 and ask whether there is any other ways in which the security situation can
15 be improved, and they look at it again, as I stated, particularly from the
16 Serbian perspective.
17 In paragraph 36, I refer to the first tier of conclusions, which
18 are four steps that assume the continued existence of a socialist republic
19 MUP in Bosnia and Herzegovina; however, again, with the context of certain
20 steps that would be taken by Serbian deputies in the SR BiH Assembly,
21 certain steps that would be taken with respect to a cooperation with the
22 Serbian autonomous areas, the SAOs that have been formed. That is the
23 first -- those are the first tier of steps, as well as the cooperation with
24 the Federal institutions in Belgrade.
25 However, the authors go ahead and consider that it might be
1 impossible to implement any of the -- or at least very difficult to
2 implement any of these four steps that I mention in paragraph 36, and
3 therefore, just to finish, in paragraph 37 they refer to four other steps
4 which -- or, excuse me, three more steps, which are more drastic. These
5 steps culminate, as you can see in point 3, with the establishment of a
6 Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs at the republican level.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm looking at the clock, and I remind
8 myself that Ms. Loukas would like to address us briefly as well.
9 Would this be a suitable moment to stop?
10 MR. TIEGER: If the time is needed, Your Honour, of course.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's three minutes to 7.00.
12 Mr. Nielsen, we have to hear -- I take it not in the presence of
13 the witness, necessarily, Ms. Loukas?
14 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, that's correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen, you're excused. You are instructed not
16 to speak with anyone about the testimony you've given until now and which
17 you're still about to give. We'd like to see you back tomorrow in the
18 afternoon, a quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.
19 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Nielsen out of the
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Just in relation to the situation that the Defence team finds
25 itself in. As Your Honours are well aware, we've made two adjournment
1 applications, and of course the second was subject to an appeal, and I
2 can't quarrel with that. Nevertheless, Your Honours have indicated that
3 you would wish to monitor the situation, and Your Honours are well aware
4 that our contention is that we are an underresourced, understaffed, and
5 time-poor Defence team.
6 And, Your Honours, I do wish to give you a practical example of
7 the way in which Mr. Krajisnik's right to an effective defence and a fair
8 trial is, in effect, being undermined. And that is that in our attempts
9 between lead counsel and myself to ensure that we cover every possible
10 base, Your Honours will have noted that of necessity it's very rare for
11 both of us to be in court. So I will be in court for stretches of times
12 with witnesses whilst Mr. Stewart is attending to out-of-court work, and
13 Mr. Stewart has been doing the same, for example, in recent weeks, while I
14 am attending to other matters that are necessary for Defence preparation.
15 Now, of course, in those situations Mr. Stewart was not in a
16 position to inform me, because of the strictures that we operate under,
17 that I would be dealing with this witness until late on Thursday evening.
18 That means that I have had Friday, the weekend, and up until today to
19 prepare for a witness of this significance.
20 Now, Your Honours, it could not be said, and I could not say as a
21 responsible and conscientious professional, that I am properly prepared to
22 deal with this witness. And that is a matter that the Trial Chamber should
23 be made abundantly aware of. The nature of the report, the extent of the
24 documents, there's over 500 footnotes with associated documents to be
25 examined and what have you. Your Honour, I don't want to put myself
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 forward as some sort of unrealistic perfectionist, but at the same time,
2 Your Honour, it's important that we do not fall below what we consider to
3 be, as a Defence team, minimum standards in relation to preparation for the
4 defence of our, it seems, "former client."
5 In those circumstances, when one considers the time that the
6 Office of the Prosecutor have spent preparing this report and the time that
7 we have available to analyse the report and prepare for the cross-
8 examination of the witness, again, Your Honour, we are placed in the David
9 and Goliath situation which we are constantly placed. And in those
10 circumstances, Your Honour, I think it's crystal clear as an example what
11 the implications for a fair trial are for Mr. Krajisnik, and also to place
12 it on the record as part of the background to why Mr. Krajisnik has made
13 the application that he has made to represent himself. And it is my duty
14 as a responsible and conscientious professional to place that on the
15 record, Your Honours, and I do.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for doing so, Ms. Loukas. You're right.
17 The Chamber has expressed that it will continue to monitor the situation.
18 Therefore, I thank you for drawing our attention to this, what you call an
19 example of what you consider to be a more permanent situation.
20 Is there anything else to be raised at this very moment?
21 Yes, Mr. Krajisnik.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Not on my part, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, we are already past 7.00, so if you
24 could please keep it as brief as possible.
25 MR. STEWART: Sorry, I did want to raise one matter, something
1 that I mentioned to Mr. Tieger the other day, Your Honour. Since he's here
2 and I'm here. It will just take 30 seconds.
3 It's that this was on the 26th of May, and this at page 13444 of
4 the transcript in relation to the Trial Chamber's decision on Witnesses 681
5 and 682. The Trial Chamber said it would be fair to allocate to the
6 Defence a total of four extraordinary non-sitting days for the preparation
7 of the cross-examination of those witnesses and said, and I quote: "It's
8 for the Defence to decide how to split this time and to inform the
9 Prosecution as soon as possible." That was last Thursday.
10 Now, Your Honour, we were waiting, among other things, for
11 information in accordance with the Trial Chamber's direction which, in
12 fact, reflected a long-standing request from the Defence for information
13 from the Prosecution as to the timetable and schedule and hours left for
14 its witnesses. And then on Monday the Prosecution gave me a projected
15 schedule in which they had selected four days.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STEWART: Without any consultation whatever with the Defence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that this is subject to further
19 negotiations in view of the ruling of the Chamber, Mr. Tieger?
20 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, we understood, I think quite
21 reasonably, that the Court's reference to the Defence's discretion about
22 how to split that time meant they could use four days for one witness, two
23 days for each witness, three days for one, one day for another. We did not
24 understand it to give them authority over what is, in any event, a very
25 difficult schedule to arrange.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't got your schedule in my mind at this
2 moment, but are all four days off prior to the first witness to appear?
3 MR. TIEGER: That is correct.
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger's comment makes no sense
5 whatever of the Trial Chamber's request that we should inform the
6 Prosecution as soon as possible. They couldn't have sensibly read it that
7 way, because if it was a decision for us internally to decide how to use
8 those four days, we would have no business informing them of it. Your
9 Honour, it was quite clear --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you could have --
11 MR. STEWART: -- that the Defence -- the Defence simply assumed
12 that we would have exactly the opportunity indicated that we, who have very
13 little control over this schedule, but in this particular area, we were
14 expressly given this and the Prosecution without -- no consultation
15 whatever with us simply presented us with this schedule and has chosen the
16 days for us.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'll check it in the transcript, Mr. Stewart.
18 MR. STEWART: I've read it, Your Honour. It's there.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, the Chamber certainly had in
20 mind whether you would need four days for one witness, then of course that
21 would -- if you would have split it up in three days and one day, or in two
22 days and two days, this would have consequences for the scheduling. But if
23 all four days would be prior to any of these witnesses to be called -- but
24 then even it might have been a better way to do it, Mr. Tieger, to seek the
25 advice of the Defence and say, "Would you rather have them early or late?"
1 I mean -- well, 24 hours is 24 hours, but nevertheless it sometimes is easy
2 to fit in or it's not good to have four consecutive days where you'd prefer
3 to have two days. For example, because you could continue to work on the
4 weekend and work on the same issue.
5 So, therefore, is there any way of further considering -- because
6 -- consider to listen to the Defence and see what wishes there are to see
7 whether they can be met? I'm not asking for days of negotiations. I'm
8 just trying to see whether this matter can be resolved.
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, of course I wouldn't rule it out
10 without making every effort to accommodate everyone, and I'm prepared to do
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. TIEGER: I will -- to the best of my recollection, those days
14 do, but weekends, by the way. Nevertheless, we'll take a further look.
15 We'll do whatever is possible. But I reiterate that it's a very tight
16 schedule dealing with witnesses who have been consulted over time, and
17 there are strictures that are outside the Prosecution's control.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. TIEGER: However, we'll certainly do our best, and I'm happy
20 to look at it again.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at it, the first two compulsory recess days
22 would be the 6th and the 7th of June; the next ones, the 14th and the 15th,
23 as you scheduled them. Could you please speak with Mr. Stewart, see
24 whether you could resolve the matter. If not, of course, then -- and in
25 the meantime I'll go through the exact wordings I used. But certainly one
1 of the most important things for the Chamber that we had in mind is that it
2 was not for the Prosecution to say, Here, you've got two days. Now we go
3 with the first witness; whereas, the Defence might have preferred to spend
4 four additional days on that witness, and not having them all available.
5 That was certainly on our mind. But I'll have a close look to the language
6 we used, and in the meantime, I take it that some conversation between you
7 might also assist in reaching a solution.
8 Anything else?
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can I say that -- I've said this
10 before. Of course the -- the Trial Chamber must look at the transcript.
11 But when counsel has read from the transcript, the implication that it
12 needs checking to see the wording is -- verges on the offensive, Your
14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, no.
15 MR. STEWART: I read from the transcript.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, of course I did not want to say
17 anything like that. I just want to have time, if possible one minute, to
18 just check in the transcript exactly what we said, and that's something
19 we'd like to do. And in the meantime you see whether you can resolve the
20 matter together with Mr. Tieger, and then we'll try to make the best out of
21 it. That's the situation what we are in, and there's no need even to think
22 about -- that I would not trust you if you quoted the transcript.
23 MR. STEWART: I accept that, then, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then is there -- I --
25 Mr. Krajisnik, I now have even to stress more that you should be
2 Please proceed.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to act in line with your
5 My suggestion, Your Honours, is as follows: I agree with my
6 former Defence team. One day should be --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you can trust the Defence team. The
8 ruling of the Chamber might be perfectly clear to you. Yes, please -- or
9 is it -- I take it at least that when you're talking about your former
10 Defence team that you're not referring to Mr. Brashich and Mr. Kostich, or
11 are you?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have full respect for the
13 Trial Chamber. I was just trying to make a joke, and, of course, I do
14 realise that they are my Defence team, even now. I hope I haven't been
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... or a joke.
17 Please proceed.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've almost forgotten what I was
19 going to say, Your Honour, but let me suggest the following: Perhaps one
20 day could be used by the Defence team, together with the Registry, and one
21 of your people. I know that a very wise and intelligent man used to sit
22 somewhere there, as well. So they could perhaps look for a way of solving
23 this problem. I mean, we don't need to talk at cross-purposes, and I think
24 the person I was referring to is Hartforth or something like that. So
25 together with the Registry representative, they could sit down together and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 come up with a proposal -- is that correct? That this is the person's
2 name? So, that would be my proposal: for them to sit down together and
3 sort things out. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the name is not exactly right, but I do
5 understand to whom you refer.
6 And sitting together with the Registry to resolve what problem
7 exactly? The funds you wanted to be informed about or ...?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this Defence team
9 could just sit down with them, and they will find a solution. I don't know
10 how. If I did know, I would suggest it myself. There are loads of
11 problems; they will sort something out, and then the Trial Chamber will
12 find it easier to reach a decision. But things must work properly. So
13 that's my proposal.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Your suggestion is understood that you're inviting
15 the Chamber to see whether Mr. Harhoff, as he's called, our senior legal
16 officer, could play any active role in resolving at least some of the
17 problems we are faced with at this moment. The Chamber thanks you for this
18 suggestion, and we'll see whether we can give it a follow-up.
19 If there's nothing else, I regret that I have to apologise again
20 to the interpreters and the technicians.
21 We'll adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.13 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 2nd day of
24 June, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.