1 Thursday, 26 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Josse, are you ready to continue your examination-in-chief of
12 the witness?
13 MR. JOSSE: I am, thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you're still bound by the
15 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
16 WITNESS: TOMISLAV SAVKIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examined by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
19 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Savkic, I was asking you some questions in relation
20 to an act of sabotage that you were describing to the Court. As a result,
21 you said of -- from the information we saw in tab 6 -- could we go to tab
22 6, please. The question I need to ask you is the acts of sabotage that
23 you described, and I could read them out to you again if need be -- well,
24 first of all, did they actually ever take place? Were these various --
25 the tunnel you've described and the road, were they ever blown-up, yes or
2 A. Gentlemen, yes. The bridge in Nova Kasaba, there was an attempt
3 at blowing it up. It was not completely destroyed; however, as of that
4 moment on, it could no longer be used because most of the bridge
5 collapsed. When I spoke about the sabotage at the tunnel on the road
6 towards the mine, I can also say that most of the tunnel collapsed, and in
7 front of it there was a timber barricade some several tens of metres long.
8 So that road was also impassable. And the third incident --
9 Q. I'm going to stop you there. On what basis do you link those two
10 incidents, they'll do fine for this purpose, with this or any other
12 A. Well, it is a generally known fact that while preparations were
13 being made for armament and preparation of explosives, that the quantity
14 of explosives that had been seized at the time, and it was obvious that
15 this person in addition to crimes related to armament with automatic
16 weapons, did the same with the explosives. The explosives cannot be used
17 for anything else in such a situation but to destroy things.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, time-frame for these acts of sabotage,
19 could you please elicit that from the witness.
20 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
21 Q. Well, perhaps you could tell us the dates of each -- of the three
22 instances. I stopped you from telling the Court about the third because I
23 wanted to establish the basis, first of all. When did each one of the
24 incidents occur, please?
25 A. These instances took place before the front line was established
1 between the Serb and the Muslim forces. To be more precise, during the
2 period between the month of April and 21st of May.
3 Q. With the Court's permission, I want to, in fact, go back and
4 return briefly to a topic you were giving evidence about yesterday, simply
5 because I failed to deal with a particular document and then I will return
6 to the subject of arming that you begun telling the Chamber about. Tab
7 16, please. Mr. Savkic, we can see, can't we, that this is some sort of
8 MUP document?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How did you obtain this particular document?
11 A. I obtained this document through a friend of mine. He was still
12 at the time the chief of the public security station in Vlasenica.
13 Q. And what is significant about this document, please?
14 A. The significance of this document lies in the facts that I spoke
15 about yesterday, namely, the Muslim side had sent its policemen, i.e.,
16 candidates selected by the SDA, for training in Croatia, although this
17 should have been done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The biggest centre for
18 the training of the police was in Sremska Kamenica in Vojvodina, that is
19 in Serbia, so they could have been sent there as well. It transpires from
20 this document that the assistant minister of the interior, Mirsad
21 Srebrenikovic did that, and only a month or so before that he had been
22 appointed assistant minister as an SDA nominee. This is about the
23 document where 1685 is indicated, if you are referring to this document.
24 I must say that at that time in Croatia, there had already been a
25 state in place. They obtained their own state in February 1992. They had
1 seceded from Yugoslavia. So there could not have been any good intentions
2 behind sending the police for training in a state that had broken up from
3 the federal state, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was still a republic in that
4 federal state. This is indisputable.
5 Yesterday I spoke about the reasons why these policemen were sent
6 to there. The purpose, intent, of that training was to hide something
7 that the Serbian part of the police of Bosnia and Herzegovina should not
8 have been privy to.
9 Q. I'll stop you. We dealt with that yesterday.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 First of all, tab 16 needs a number, I take it. Yes,
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: D133, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 And Judge Hanoteau has a question for the witness.
16 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. I see something rather
17 ambiguous in what you've just said. Could you clarify what you've said.
18 These people who were sent to Croatia, were they professional policemen
19 who were sent, seconded to Croatia, or were they people who were going to
20 Croatia for training before becoming -- or before passing an exam or some
21 sort of competitive exam before becoming a policeman, an official
22 policeman. Could you clarify this point, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After a medical check-up, these men
24 were sent to Croatia. Many of them did not have any previous education.
25 They were sent there for a course, after which they were admitted into the
1 police of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What is obvious here is the fact that -
2 and I emphasise once again something that can be seen on tab 6 - that only
3 those people were sent there that were nominated by the SDA from certain
4 municipalities. And you can see clearly under tab 6 how those people were
5 chosen. I don't know whether any of them had previous training or
6 secondary education. I cannot either deny or contest that or confirm
8 MR. JOSSE:
9 Q. Could we just briefly deal with the list. The documents, for the
10 purpose of translation, have been split up. But as you understand it, the
11 list of 448 names was effectively attached to the letter from
12 Mr. Srebrenikovic. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could I ask you, do you know the ethnicity of Mr. Srebrenikovic?
15 A. Although ethnic affiliation is a personal thing; however, judging
16 by the name and the way he was selected by the SDA, there is no doubt that
17 he is a Muslim.
18 Q. You have conducted a cursory look at this list of 448 names, and
19 based on your knowledge of name -- of Bosnian names, what are you able to
20 tell us about the ethnic breakdown of these 448 names, please?
21 A. As I look at these people who had met the requirements of this
22 medical check-up, it s obvious that the requirements were met mostly by
23 Muslims and Croats, by and large. One can conclude that not only by their
24 names but also when it comes to the Croats, the Croat and Serb names are
25 rather similar. However, one can draw that conclusion from the names of
1 the municipalities where they came from. It is a notorious fact that some
2 of the municipalities are predominantly Muslim or Serb or Croat.
3 Q. I'm going to stop you, Mr. Savkic, because I wasn't asking you for
4 the basis of your methodology. But what was the result of your are
5 research through these 448 names? I think you -- you've marked it,
6 haven't you, on the very last page, very last page of the bundle?
7 A. Yes, yes. On the last page, it is to do the maths and see that
8 out of 313 candidates that met the requirements, 135 were non-Muslims --
9 actually, those were all Croats. The rest were all Muslims. However, I
10 have to clarify one more thing and to go back and do a reality check.
11 During that period - and not only during that period of time - to send
12 Serbs to Zagreb for training, given the well-known developments would have
13 been crazy.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I understand, but please correct me if I'm
15 wrong, I understand the methodology of which you said you are not that
16 much interested in to be the following: That if by name you could
17 identify someone as a Muslim then, of course, you would accept that he's a
18 Muslim; that there were 135 non-Muslims; and since Croats and Serbs could
19 not be distinguished through their names, that on the basis of
20 predominantly -- of the predominant population of a municipality, that one
21 could establish that the non-Muslims were Croats. You said you're not
22 interested in the methodology. It seems to be very relevant if you want
23 to draw conclusions, and especially to say that if a name could not be
24 identified as a Muslim name, then by the predominance of the population, I
25 would conclude that it must be a Croat -- and also for reasons of logic
1 because you would not send a Serb to Croatia for training, that is --
2 well, that methodology needs to be further explained in order to accept
3 the conclusions drawn on the basis of it.
4 MR. JOSSE: Well, I couldn't and wouldn't possibly argue with
5 that. If the Chamber are interested in the methodology, then it's
6 something I'll explore with the witness. I can only apologise --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If it is --
8 MR. JOSSE: -- in that regard.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if it is what he told us until now, that's a
10 mixture of logic and conclusions -- I mean, if 10 per cent of a population
11 is Serb and 10 per cent Muslim and 80 per cent is Croat, and if the name
12 doesn't identify anyone, then of course, on the basis of the municipality
13 being predominantly Croat is -- but -- let's say, I leave it up to you
14 whether you want to further explore it. I just wanted to let you know
15 that until now the methodology is not a very convincing basis for drawing
17 MR. JOSSE:
18 Q. Mr. Savkic, you've said, haven't you, that apart from anything
19 else you think it's extremely unlikely that any Serb would actually go on
20 such a training course. Is that correct?
21 A. That is correct, for well-known reasons. However, it is a
22 historical fact that not a single Serb went on that training. This is a
23 notorious fact.
24 Q. Could we move back to the issue of arming, please.
25 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, there are at least two documents which I
1 would now like to turn to, which are the subject of challenges by the
2 Prosecution. I've discussed the matter briefly with both my learned
3 friends. We're of the view, subject to -- the Chamber has to say that
4 really the witness should probably be asked to leave court because they do
5 require a ruling from Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Savkic, we have to deal with a procedural
7 issue which should be discussed in your absence. Therefore, I'd like to
8 is you to follow Madam Usher for a second. We'll hear the parties on the
9 matter, and then we'll invite you to return. It has got nothing to do
10 with you.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Wasn't it 2 and 8, Mr. Josse?
13 MR. JOSSE: Yes, it was.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What would be the best way, Mr. Josse? Would
15 you introduce the matter and then that we hear the objection by Mr.
16 Margetts, or would you say that Mr. Margetts could immediately --
17 MR. JOSSE: No, I'll briefly introduce the matter, if I may.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
19 MR. JOSSE: I was going to turn to tab 2 next. I was going to
20 invite the witness to produce the statement that we see there. I was
21 going to invite him to explain how it came into his possession. I don't
22 think, in reality, there's any dispute as to its authenticity by the
23 Prosecution, though I stand to be corrected in due course by Your Honour
24 about that. And in my submission, once the witness can, one, explain how
25 it came into his possession; and two, give some useful, further
1 information in relation to it -- be in a position to comment on it, it's
2 admissible as a document produced in time in the normal course of events.
3 Might I make this observation in passing: It can't be any less admissible
4 than the frequent newspaper articles that were put to the witnesses in
5 this case, but I can develop that in due course if I need to.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Just for our understanding -- of course we'll have to
7 ask the witness. But who you would -- who gave this statement to whom as
8 far as you can read it? And what's exactly on the basis of the text the
9 relevance of this statement?
10 MR. JOSSE: This was a statement that the author made to the MUP
11 in Vlasenica. It amounts to a confession to smuggling of arms. It
12 obviously followed his arrest by them. The relevance is: It indicates --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the same person as we earlier had --
14 MR. JOSSE: No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's a different --
16 MR. JOSSE: These are all different people, as I understand it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A similar smuggler, perhaps, or arms trader,
18 but not the same.
19 MR. JOSSE: That's right.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's a statement containing a confession made to the
22 MR. JOSSE: Precisely.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, we communicated to Mr. Josse a couple of days
2 ago that we would take objection to both tabs 2 and tabs 8 which are
3 statements given to the Vlasenica public security station after --
4 JUDGE ORIE: We come to 8 later, I take it? Only 2 has been
5 introduced until now.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Okay. Well, dealing with tab 2, that's a statement
9 that's given to the Vlasenica public security station on the 23rd of
10 April, 1992. And Your Honours have heard that Vlasenica was taken over on
11 the 20th of April. Subsequent to that people were taken to the Vlasenica
12 public security station and interrogated. The objection was based on
13 three rules. In our view, a statement of this nature should be either
14 introduced through the 92 bis methodology when the witness is not present,
15 if the witness -- if the deponent of this statement can be present, and
16 possibly 89(F) would be a basis for producing this statement. The third
17 ground we objected to this statement under was Rule 95, effectively that
18 we say that this statement was obtained by means which cast substantial
19 doubt on its reliability.
20 The first point, though, addressing Mr. Josse's specific
21 submission that this statement has no different character than a newspaper
22 article, we flatly reject that submission. A newspaper article has
23 various purposes of evidential value. One of the purposes is the
24 substantive nature of the information contained in a newspaper article;
25 the other purpose is, in fact, the fact that the information was
1 communicated to the public in general and it goes to other issues in this
2 case such as knowledge. So this statement cannot be compared with
3 newspaper articles, and, quite rightly, newspaper articles are treated in
4 a completely different manner and have been throughout this trial than
6 Whenever the Prosecution has sought to introduce statements of
7 this nature, it has been through the 89(F) or 92 bis method. The
8 exceptions to that are only when a particular witness has given evidence
9 of the intent or disposition or circumstances of an individual who has
10 given a statement, and we have challenged that version of events by
11 reference to a statement given by that individual.
12 Before I proceed any further, I should inform the Trial Chamber
13 that the deponent of this statement which is the document at tab 2, Munib
14 Ahmetovic gave a statement to the Tribunal in January 1995, where he set
15 out the circumstances preceding the giving of his statements and the
16 circumstances in which he gave this statement. I have copies of that
17 statement, which I would like to hand up to the Tribunal -- to the
18 Chamber. And I have provided -- I provided a copy of that statement to
19 the Defence yesterday. Effectively what he says is that --
20 MR. JOSSE: Well, I'm going to stop my learned friend for a moment
21 and ask the Chamber to distill these issues because why, I submit, does my
22 learned friend say that the provision of this statement to this Court now
23 assists this Court in determining the issue of admissibility of the
24 document that the Defence are putting before you?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it -- I did understand, but please correct
1 me when I'm wrong, that Mr. Margetts was intending to present to us a
2 document which would, I would say, basically support the reliance on Rule
4 MR. JOSSE: Well, then could I, just before that's done, respond
5 to the submission of the two. It may be that Mr. Margetts will still say:
6 Notwithstanding the way I put it, the Court needs to see this statement
7 and I won't object further --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I will give you an opportunity, then, to --
9 MR. JOSSE: -- submission is -- my response to what my learned
10 friend has said hitherto is that the submission is totally misconceived,
11 with respect.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I just stop here. Is it the fact
13 that Mr. Josse intends to restrict his response to 89(F) and 92 bis or
14 does intend of us Rule 95? Because in our submission -- I haven't
15 completed my submissions in regard to Rule 95.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may complete your submissions, that's not a
17 problem, but I think you wanted to present to the Court that document and
18 what I understand Mr. Josse said: Before you do so I would like to
19 respond to what has been said until now and which could influence our
20 decision on whether or not we would allow you to present this document.
21 MR. JOSSE: Yes. If my learned friend doesn't accept what I'm
22 saying now, I won't argue further and the document can go before the
23 Court, but --
24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, then --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
1 MR. MARGETTS: -- I would object to Mr. Josse responding to any of
2 my submissions and I would say that he should only be --
3 MR. JOSSE: Well, if Mr. Margetts takes that response, then I'll
4 let him present the statement to the Court. If he wants to be pedantic
5 like that, I'm not going to argue with it.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Well, Your Honour, I don't -- I request that that
7 remark be struck from the record. This is not pedantic --
8 MR. JOSSE: I'm not withdrawing any remarks --
9 MR. MARGETTS: This is the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now --
11 MR. MARGETTS: -- before this Court to proceed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Although I haven't -- I claim a relevant knowledge of
13 the English language, I have to look up what the word means. So as far
14 as -- at this moment matters stand, although it's on the record, I could
15 not decide whether it should stay on the record because in -- and I'm not
16 asking for any explanation at this very moment, but sometimes there are
17 words I am not familiar with. I should have listened perhaps to the
18 Defence translation.
19 MR. MARGETTS: In Deutsch, es ist "pedantische."
20 JUDGE ORIE: I said I didn't ask for an explanation, but
21 Mr. Margetts seems to misunderstand my English.
22 MR. JOSSE: Being that we're gentlemen common lawyers, we're both
23 now sitting down. I said I'm not going to deal with this in this way. If
24 Mr. Margetts wants to hand the statement to the Court, then perhaps that's
25 the best thing to do.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I would have given you an opportunity, but if
2 you refrain from it -- Mr. Margetts, you may proceed, and you're invited
3 to use words I know.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. Then I will hand the
5 statement up. I have copies here, four copies.
6 Your Honours, I think probably the most expeditious way to proceed
7 is for Your Honours to read the entire statement because it only covers
8 the period of three days and all of the matters in it do set the scene for
9 the specific issue at stake -- the issue that arises in 95 that expressly
10 at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6, there is an express denial
11 of all of the matters that appear in tab 2.
12 MR. JOSSE: Of course I have no objection to that, but I do hope
13 that the Chamber will, first of all, read the statement in tab 2, because
14 otherwise it's absurd. It literally is putting the cart before the horse.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- one of my problems at tab 2 at this moment
16 is -- because one of the first questions that came into my mind when the
17 issue was raised was: When was this person arrested? Because you said it
18 apparently is a statement given after his arrest. And in view of the date
19 of the take-over, of course, one of the first things I was thinking about
20 was whether the arrest was made before or after the take-over. The
21 statement is not completely translated, and, for example, this information
22 which I was seeking I could not at first sight -- find. So therefore, at
23 least where this seems to be a sensitive issue, the only partial
24 translation is a handicap.
25 MR. JOSSE: That's -- that very thought crossed my mind and --
1 yes, that's the position that the Chamber finds itself in, I regret to
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, before the Chamber rules on the
6 objection - and keeping in mind that this witness has several times
7 referred to what was general knowledge and what was logic and what was a
8 notorious fact, he may have known that notorious facts need not to be
9 proven at all, so there's even no need to speak about notorious facts -
10 but what could the witness tell us on the basis of the document you wanted
11 to confront him with?
12 MR. JOSSE: I think it's best to ask him that directly, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then he's confronted with it and -- has he
14 been present when this statement was taken, at least did you assume that
15 he was present?
16 MR. JOSSE: Well, I do not think he was present. I do not
17 understand that he was present further than that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You could say, because it was the witness who
19 will tell us. If he was not present, what type of questions would you
20 like to put to him in relation to this document? And if you tendered the
21 document it could have -- it could be interpreted in different ways.
22 Would you oppose to the other statement to be admitted into evidence?
23 MR. JOSSE: I would. I would, and I can develop my argument if --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JOSSE: -- if I need to and if the Court would allow me to.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because one of the problems would be that this
2 statement could be either evidence which would support that the person
3 involved was trading arms and distributing arms to Muslims, but it could
4 also be evidence of statements forced by the police at that time, false
5 statements forcibly given to the police. So the probative value of this
6 document could be very much in favour of the Defence case and, at the same
7 time, could also be very much in favour of the Prosecution case. But, of
8 course, we would not know what he would say, and therefore I wonder how to
10 MR. JOSSE: With respect, Your Honour, that's a problem for the
11 trier of facts in this case.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
13 MR. JOSSE: Namely, you and your brother Judges.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JOSSE: And that's an issue that the parties, if they choose,
16 can address at the appropriate time --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. JOSSE: -- at the end of this case. I have made a robust
19 decision that I want this document in.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear, and the Prosecution objects. And
21 the Chamber is confronted with a Rule 95 objection and the Chamber should
22 explore that objection to see -- and at the same time --
23 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I'm not suggesting otherwise, let me hastily
25 JUDGE ORIE: And what one usually does if such an objection is
1 raised, to ask the Prosecution: What makes you believe that this would be
2 a statement which would not be admissible under Rule 95? And we would
3 invite them to produce whatever they have in order to decide that matter.
4 That's what they're doing now more or less --
5 MR. JOSSE: Precisely --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And you object against this document?
7 MR. JOSSE: Yes. But -- and this was the point that I was going
8 to make a few moments ago.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. JOSSE: A point that Mr. Margetts understandably insisted that
11 the Chamber read the Prosecution's statement. The point I was going to
12 make is: His submission, I contend, is fundamentally misconceived. It's
13 fundamentally misconceived because the Defence are not seeking to put this
14 document in under Rule 92 bis or 89(F). So far is Rule 95 is concerned,
15 well, I submit that only applies to a statement that would be tendered
16 either under 92 bis or under 89(F).
17 The point here -- this is a document produced in 1992 at the time
18 of war that this case is trying at the moment and is effectively an
19 original document. The weight that you and your colleagues, Your Honour,
20 attach to this document is another matter altogether. But it's completely
21 different to the statement the Prosecution have provided, which is a
22 statement that has been compiled in contemplation of proceedings. I'm not
23 going to say these proceedings, but in contemplation of proceeding. And
24 therefore, clearly, would only be admissible, for example, under 89 (F) or
25 92 bis.
1 Could I draw an analogy? I think it's P780, lost my note for a
2 moment, that was series of statements that were deduced in evidence by
3 Mr. Davidovic of members of the Yellow Wasps whom he, Davidovic, had taken
4 into custody. The best argument I suspect the Prosecution could come up
5 with in distinguishing P780 which is about 30-odd statements, and this
6 particular document is that Davidovic had some personal part in the taking
7 of those statements. But frankly, from recollection, it was quite a long
8 time ago, he physically wasn't involved in taking all 30-odd statements.
9 That wasn't possible. (redacted)
13 So I would draw an analogy between those kind of statements and
14 this statement. It's effectively an original document, if I can put it
15 like that. The weight to be attached to it is a different matter
16 altogether. Your Honour, if the Prosecution were going to say: We
17 readily accept that each and every hearsay document they have presented
18 this Court, save those under 92 bis and 89(F) have not been deduced as to
19 the truth of their contents, then I assume the Defence would jump for joy
20 and say: That's marvelous. The thousands -- I'm exaggerating slightly,
21 but the hundreds of documents, for example, newspaper articles that have
22 been deduced in this case, we don't have to worry about them. As for the
23 truth of the contents, they're only there for some sort of contextual-type
24 purpose. From -- that would make everyone's life very much easier. But
25 that isn't the case, I suspect.
1 As I say, I don't think I need to develop my argument much
2 further. The basic submission advanced by the Prosecution is rather, I
3 submit, missing the point about this statement. And the witness will put
4 it into context as best he can. The Court may take the view there is
5 insufficient nexus between the witness and the statement. That's a
6 different matter and, really, the Court can't rule upon that until they've
7 heard from the witness and as to his connection with the statement and his
8 knowledge of its contents. That's how I put it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Josse.
10 Mr. Margetts, Mr. Josse has responded to your objection. Is there
11 any need to -- for further submissions?
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if I could, I would make some very
13 brief comments. The first is that the solution proposed or suggested is a
14 possibility by Your Honour is one that we would not oppose, and that is
15 that both the statement at tab 2 and the further statement be introduced.
16 In our submission, the further statement is one that the Court may more
17 readily be prepared to admit into evidence for the fact that it's quite
18 clearly not taken in circumstances where there was coercion.
19 The next point I would make is this: Mr. Josse's comments are
20 creative, would be our submission, but we never understood that Rule 95
21 only applied to 89(F) or 92 bis statements; that's certainly something
22 that's new to me -- or not new to me, but it's something that we reject.
23 The next thing is the analogy with P780 is, to use Mr. Josse's
24 expression, fundamentally misconceived. Your Honours will recall the
25 purpose or the issues that those statements went to when they were
1 introduced through Mr. Davidovic and with the protected witness. There is
2 a certain element of the fact that the 7(3) case was in issue at the time,
3 also notice as to crimes that have been committed, also the capacity of
4 the security forces to detain those who they wished for purposes they --
5 purposes that they deemed appropriate. The matters that were not
6 addressed in the statement -- in those statements were the substance --
7 were in part the substance of why we asked for P780 to be introduced.
8 It's an entirely different matter to this -- the introduction of this
9 statement. This is a very simple attempt by the Defence to subvert the
10 Rules in regard to the introduction of statements that support substantive
11 parts of their positive case. The Rules are clear. It's 92 bis or it's
12 89(F); they were applied stringently with the Prosecution. We have not
13 introduced statements of this nature for the purpose for which the Defence
14 wishes to introduce this statement.
15 So in our submission, either tab 2 should be excluded or,
16 alternatively, the solution of both of these statements being introduced
17 that was crafted by Your Honour. It may be an appropriate way forward
18 thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Mr. Josse, would you please respond and would you include in your
21 response the observations made by Mr. Margetts as to the applicability of
22 Rule 95 only to 92 bis statements or 89(F) statements, especially in view
23 of the fact that Rule 95 existed for quite some time --
24 MR. JOSSE: I'm not going to pursue --
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- before Rule 92 bis was adopted.
1 MR. JOSSE: I'm not going to pursue that point, and I've said
2 what's said, save for this, of course. Again, it's the cart before the
3 horse. The Court is going to have to decide the extent to which they use
4 the Prosecution's statement, whether it's admitted in evidence or not, in
5 order to exclude the Defence -- the exhibit that we're trying to put
6 before the Court. I say that because, of course, it doesn't automatically
7 follow that what's contained within that statement is true. We've had no
8 opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, just like, of course, the
9 Prosecution haven't had any opportunity to cross-examine the deponent in
10 the sense of what he's saying in the statement that we are producing. I
11 accept that.
12 Could I make two comments? First of all, I rely rather heavily on
13 Mr. Margetts' use of the word "in part" when he refers to P780. It may
14 well be right that in part it was put in evidence in reliance of what he's
15 just said, but it's the rest of it that may concern the Chamber.
16 Secondly, I would draw this analogy, Your Honour, supposing, supposing
17 Mr. Davidovic had been cross-examined - dare I go into this subject
18 again - with a statement that was purportedly written by one of --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second, please.
20 MR. JOSSE: That was purportedly written by one of the members of
21 the Yellow Wasps and had been obtained by the Defence, and it said: You,
22 Mr. Davidovic, you and your men forced this statement out of me and that's
23 why I made it. The Prosecution would have jumped up and said: We've got
24 no evidence of the provenance of this statement which the Defence are
25 producing. And if the Defence had suggested: Well, okay, P780 is going
1 to go in but the now reverse, the statement produced by the Defence also
2 needs to go in, the Court wouldn't have contemplated that particular
3 course. The fact that the statement that you have been provided with has
4 been taken by OTP investigators rather than, for example, Defence
5 investigators, the fact that it appears, rather grandly, on ICTY
6 note-paper doesn't mean to say it's anymore admissible than a document the
7 Defence would have produced in exactly the same circumstances which would
8 have been laughed out of court. So I mention that in terms of equality of
9 approach that the Chamber might want to bear in mind when they come to
10 contemplate this particular matter in due course.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will take an early break to consider the
14 matter, and upon return we'll give our ruling.
15 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, one other comment, thinking aloud, may I
16 address the Chamber --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we should deal with 8 as well, because
18 otherwise we would have to take another early break.
19 MR. JOSSE: Precisely. And what I was going to suggest, with
20 respect --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JOSSE: -- is that, and perhaps I should have done it this
23 originally but the witness being back -- to come back into court and deal
24 with both documents purely - and I will lead him as best I can in relation
25 to this - as to how they came into his possession. In particular 8 is a
1 more problematical document because it's handwritten. He has the original
2 of 8 with him, as a matter of fact, and gives the Chamber some idea as to
3 the extent to which he's able to comment on the matters contained within
4 it. I -- that's what I'd invite the Court to do at this particular
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. JOSSE: We always need to be realistic about it. The
9 Chamber's --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first -- we do look at these documents.
11 MR. JOSSE: Precisely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So perhaps there is -- at least there is some -- AP 8
13 stands, as far as you understand, Mr. Josse, for -- you must have an idea
14 on -- I see bazooka is a word I know. Winchester I can relate to a
15 rifle. Singapore is a capital in Asia for me. PAP and AP, apart
16 from "associated press," I take it that it's a reference to weapons?
17 MR. JOSSE: Firearms.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Firearms, yes. AP stands just for firearms?
19 MR. JOSSE: Automatic pistol -- rifle, sorry. I beg your pardon.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Rifle.
21 MR. JOSSE: Automatic rifle, I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And Singapore stands for?
23 MR. JOSSE: I don't know.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. But it seems all references to -- we'll
25 then ...
1 MR. JOSSE: Effectively, Your Honour, could I put it like this?
2 And perhaps I should have done this earlier.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. JOSSE: I'm inviting the court to have a voir dire as to what
5 the witness knows about the document, because I submit that's bound to
6 help in determining whether -- their admissibility. That's not always the
7 case, but here, I submit, it's bound to help.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but not before we have heard the objection by
9 Mr. Margetts, because then we know better what we are talking about.
10 Mr. Margetts.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this statement on its face has very
12 little to support an argument that it should be something admitted and
13 relied upon by this Trial Chamber. It seems to be note -- notes that,
14 without any further information, we assume were written in the same
15 circumstances as the statement of Mr. Ahmetovic. That would be notes
16 written during the course of an interrogation. And the date seems to
17 indicate that probably around about the same time as the interrogation of
18 Mr. Ahmetovic.
19 Now, Mr. Ahmetovic has explained, very well, the circumstances in
20 Vlasenica at the time that these interrogations were conducted. Other
21 witnesses before this Trial Chamber have also described the circumstances
22 in Vlasenica at the time that these notes were compiled. And on the basis
23 of that, we would say that those circumstances described would suggest
24 that this statement was given in the statement circumstances as the
25 statement given by Mr. Ahmetovic. Furthermore, the actual content of this
1 statement is such that it -- it seems to be more akin to a propaganda
2 bulletin of the Serbs than as to an honest statement from a Muslim. The
3 expressions "Green Berets" are used. There's a reference to a Muslim
4 going around wearing the chest-board symbol associated with Croats. Later
5 on we've got the reference to "green uniforms" --
6 JUDGE ORIE: This is comment on the content and the -- whether it
7 is -- I mean, who used the expression "Green Berets" we do not know.
8 Whether or not it's right that someone was going around wearing
9 chest-board. If you say this is propaganda, it could be facts as well,
10 Mr. Margetts, so there's no need to speculate on that.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm attempting to put to
12 Your Honour the fact of these inconsistencies in the statement itself
13 indicate that it is a statement that has been coerced from the deponent.
14 And I only had one further reference and that is that a chap by the name
15 of Damir Hadzic has a "U" tattooed on his left side which is the symbol of
16 the Ustasha. Again, that's a fairly unlikely scenario --
17 JUDGE ORIE: But this is really all speculation, Mr. Margetts.
18 Whether it's likely or not is -- I do understand you say the statement is
19 taken at approximately the same time in the circumstances the Prosecution
20 considers such that this document should have the same fate as number 2?
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. And I too say just in my defence
22 and in the defence of my submission, that the Court has heard substantial
23 evidence as to the type of propaganda statements that were made by the
24 Serbs and the types of things that when non-Serbs were detained they were
25 forced to say and forced to admit. And I'm only drawing the Court's
1 attention to the fact that this statement is consistent with that evidence
2 that the Trial Chamber has heard. And so I would that's the second link
3 of my submission, that it can be inferred from the evidence that the Trial
4 Chamber has heard.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Isn't it true, Mr. Margetts, that especially
6 the presentation of the Defence case is there to challenge, to undermine,
7 to dispute whatever evidence has been heard in the Prosecution's case. So
8 to say: We were first, we have presented evidence which -- which
9 demonstrates that these are false statements, you could say exactly the
10 other way around to say: See, here we have statements given at the time,
11 statements that demonstrate that all of the evidence that says that Serbs
12 were arming, that Serbs were forcing Muslims, is totally untrue and that
13 is demonstrated by this material we are presenting now.
14 Therefore, we could not, on the basis of the Prosecution case,
15 determine the matter.
16 Mr. Josse, any need to further respond to Mr. Margetts'
18 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will follow the suggestion made by
21 Mr. Josse. That means that before we decide whether or not tabs 2 and 8
22 will be admitted into evidence and before we decide whether or not the
23 statement presented by the Prosecution will be admitted into evidence,
24 that we'll hear from the witness a bit more about provenance of these
25 documents and also what he knows about it, what he could tell us about it.
1 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Savkic into the
3 I'm afraid, Mr. Josse, that the early break will be the normal
4 break. The handicap of the incompleteness of tab 2 is still there,
5 Mr. Josse.
6 MR. JOSSE: Well, we'd endorse that comment.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I even might put already a few questions
10 MR. JOSSE: I'm more than happy, with respect.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, could you please have a look at a
12 document which appears under tab 2. Let's just -- I do understand that
13 you may have an original or something like that, but let's just at this
14 moment keep it to what we have here. Have you seen this document before?
15 MR. JOSSE: He's getting his spectacles, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Oh, his spectacles.
17 No, Mr. Josse explains to me that you wanted to take your
18 spectacles out of your bag, which of course is allowed.
19 Have you seen this document before, a document which seems to be a
20 statement --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I saw this document at
22 the time when it was drafted, on the 23rd of April, 19 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to put very precise questions, and I want
24 you to answer those questions and those questions only. So my question
25 was: Have you seen this document before? I take it then that the answer
1 is: Yes?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: At what day did you for the first time see this
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Either on the 23rd or the 24th of
6 April. In any case, I saw it when it was the most topical.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Who gave it to you at that time, when you saw it for
8 the first time?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of the public security
10 station in Vlasenica showed it to us.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Were you present when the statement was taken?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any further knowledge about the
14 circumstances under which this statement was taken?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even before this date, the chief
16 informed us about Imam Ahmetovic case. Even before this date we had
17 information according to which he was amongst those that were engaged in
18 the activities described in this statement.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Have you ever seen any document which dates from --
20 well, let's say before the -- before the 20th of April, 1992, which
21 contains information about what you just said?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're referring to the contents
23 of this information, I can say that I don't remember having seen any other
24 statement, a signed statement, to that effect. If you're referring to the
25 process of armament, then I can say that I did see information about
1 people being armed. For example, the Muslim villages in Kladanj
2 municipality, and then my answer would be: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, if you have any knowledge you could
4 be asked about that by Mr. Josse, but that's not directly in relation to
5 this document from what I understand.
6 What could you add from your personal knowledge to this document
7 on the events described in it which we could not read from this document?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understand you well, I'd like
9 to say that I know that this unfortunate man, after this statement, had
10 certain problems posed by Muslims and Serbs alike. And I know that our
11 priest, together with the priest from Vlasenica --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you again because I asked you what
13 you could add from your personal knowledge to the events that are
14 described in this statement, not what happened to this person afterwards,
15 not what -- but just on the events that are described here.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that many people that he
17 mentions here in this statement will be mentioned by others as well. In
18 other words, what was already known will appear in other people's
19 statements, and these people will be mentioned as those who had
20 continuously been involved in the armament of Muslims in those
21 municipalities what I have mentioned. I'm referring to the Kavazbasic
22 brothers, I've already mentioned one of them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you here. May I -- I do understand that
24 you say: What I could add to it is that I know that statements pointing
25 at the same persons are taken and that comparison would teach that one
1 document would support the other. Is that a correct understanding?
2 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you to look at tab 8.
4 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. JOSSE: Could I invite the court to go into either closed or
7 private session?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I will do so. Mr. Josse, as I said, I wanted to
9 put a few questions first. I will give you an opportunity at a later
10 stage to add any questions you would like, but we will now turn into
11 private session.
12 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Pages 20516-20520 redacted. Private session.
3 --- On resuming at 11.24 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, before I give the ruling of the Chamber,
5 could you please assist us. We tried to check but P780 was not objected
6 to, was it? It was a contextual document, report, accompanied by a lot of
7 statements, to which reference was made in this report.
8 MR. JOSSE: I do not think it was objected to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. JOSSE: I haven't checked it specifically. I was here at the
11 time. I wasn't conducting the case at that particular juncture.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I remember that the P780 was introduced through
13 Ms. Edgerton and --
14 MR. JOSSE: No, Mr. Hannis.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, she was at least there when the Chamber said
16 that objections could be raised within one week.
17 MR. JOSSE: I see.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton at that moment was there. And I could
19 not find anywhere objections made against 780.
20 MR. JOSSE: I'm certainly prepared to concede and accept that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JOSSE: Well, how far that takes the Court is a matter for
23 Your Honour. The use of the word "contextual," might I mention in passing
24 is perhaps significant. Use of Your Honour's word "contextual," in regard
25 to the submissions the Court's heard from both parties.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll give the ruling.
2 The Chamber has considered that this witness apparently has
3 nothing to -- nothing which would have such a relevance that it would lead
4 us to another decision, has nothing to add to the two statements as such.
5 Given the -- and in view of the objections made, the Chamber also
6 considers that the witness has no first-hand knowledge. And I know that
7 first-hand knowledge is not always required, but under the specific
8 circumstances and in view of the objection, that the Chamber considers
9 that the witness has no first-hand knowledge on the circumstances under
10 which the statement was taken. The Chamber therefore considers that this
11 witness should not be the vehicle through which these statements would be
12 introduced into evidence. If the Defence would like to introduce the
13 statements into evidence, then Rule 92 bis might be the appropriate route
14 to take and the Chamber then expects that the Prosecution -- and the
15 Chamber already says that it would grant such a request, that the
16 Prosecution would insist, at least, on cross-examination of the witness
17 who gave that statement. And then of course the full 95 -- Rule 95
18 objection would then have to be thoroughly explored before a decision on
19 admission could be made. The Chamber also considers that Rule 95 doesn't
20 leave much room for the Chamber to say: We'll evaluate at a later stage
21 or we'll see what the value is, because Rule 95 clearly indicates that
22 evidence is not admissible if it's obtained under certain circumstances.
23 So the Chamber considers that it has not much margin of appreciation
25 Therefore, Mr. Josse, you'll not be allowed to introduce through
1 this witness the tabs 2 and 8, and the Chamber will also -- I -- the
2 Chamber has understood the statement presented by the Prosecution as
3 tendered only in case tabs 2 and 8 would be admitted into evidence.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So then the only matter that remains is to what
6 extent tabs 2 and 8 and the document presented by the Defence should be
7 made available if ever an appeal would be lodged against the judgement of
8 this Chamber, and therefore one of the solutions would be to mark them for
9 identification, but then all three of them.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
12 MR. JOSSE: I'm neutral about that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that that leaves to the Appeals Chamber. If
14 there would be any complaint on appeal that the Chamber took a wrong
15 decision in this respect, that at least the Appeals Chamber would know
16 what the documents were we are talking about.
17 Therefore, Mr. Registrar, could you please give numbers, MFI
18 numbers, for, first, tab 2.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 2, Your Honours, would be D134 MFI. Tab 8
20 would be D135 MFI.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I add the D and the P numbers for MFI or? I'll
22 talk about the numbering with -- with the representative of the registry.
23 For the time being we have these numbers, and then the statement presented
24 by the Prosecution, Mr. Registrar, would be?
25 THE REGISTRAR: P1053 MFI, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
2 Mr. Josse, you may proceed.
3 MR. JOSSE:
4 Q. Mr. Savkic, can you close the bundle that's in front of you,
6 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, we are still in private session. I should have
7 turned into open session, although I asked for --
8 MR. JOSSE: That clearly -- judgement clearly should have been
9 given in open session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There's no doubt about that.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session.
14 In open session, my first order will be to make public all that
15 has been said since we resumed after the break. That will be public
16 transcripts. The Chamber has put a question to Mr. Josse as to whether
17 P780 was objected, and after that the Chamber delivered its decision on
18 not allowing two documents to be shown to the witness and three documents
19 to be marked for identification.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
21 WITNESS: TOMISLAV SAVKIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examined by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
24 MR. JOSSE:
25 Q. You, Mr. Savkic, have produced for the Court two statements in
1 1991 relating to arms smuggling. After that time, that's middle-to-late
2 1991, did the illegal supply of arms cease in Vlasenica?
3 A. No, it continued throughout all this period and later on, i.e., in
4 1991, many of these findings were reported to us Serbs who participated in
5 subsequent negotiations but also to Muslims. And these are two statements
6 that we have in front of us amongst others, one of them being this
7 statement given by the imam.
8 Q. Now, who reported to you that illegal arms were being supplied?
9 Who did the reporting, in other words?
10 A. Reports were oral and given to us by the chief of the public
11 security station from Vlasenica, but there were other sources as well
12 through which some of us received the exact data as to how this armament
13 was carried out.
14 Q. Well, I'm going to break that down. The chief of public security
15 station in Vlasenica, can you tell us his name?
16 A. Yes, I can. His name was Radomir Bjelanovic.
17 Q. And he was someone you knew. Correct?
18 A. Yes. Before he was appointed chief, he worked in the same company
19 as I did. He was the head of the directorate for the development of the
20 entire company.
21 Q. I'll come back to him in one moment. Did you see with your own
22 eyes illegal arms supply?
23 A. No, not personally.
24 Q. What then did Mr. Bjelanovic tell you about what was going on in
25 this regard?
1 A. Well, he said a lot of things. He told us what the imam stated.
2 Then he also told us about some previous ones. He also told us about the
3 information that the Muslims were being armed on a large scale under the
4 patronage of the highest MUP officials, and this line went from Hungary,
5 via Croatia, Kladanj, all the way down to Sarajevo. He even mentioned
6 that the person behind all that was the person who was in charge of the
7 police in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was very soon after that replaced,
8 but he remained in the position of an advisor to the minister of the
9 interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina. His name was Avdo Hebib.
10 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I am in the Chamber's hands. Am I
11 allowed to ask the witness what the imam apparently said to the chief of
12 the public security station?
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Josse, the Chamber does not allow you to ask
15 the witness about what was said, in view of the not-resolved Rule 95
17 MR. JOSSE: My only observation, of course, is the Defence are
18 worse off having presented the document in the first place. Had we not
19 presented the document in the first place, no objection could have been
20 taken. The hearsay evidence would have been given and would have been
22 JUDGE ORIE: We would not have known if the Prosecution would have
23 presented their concerns about what the basis was about their information
24 of any statement given to a police officer by an imam in -- in Vlasenica.
25 So we do not know, as a matter of fact, you're worse off or whether you're
1 in the same position.
2 MR. JOSSE: All right. I'll move on.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. JOSSE:
5 Q. You are prevented, Mr. Savkic, for the avoidance of any doubt, of
6 telling the Court what the imam said to the chief of the public security
7 station. You're also prevented from telling the Court any information you
8 learned from the person named in tab 8. Do you understand that?
9 A. I understand I can't say this; however, all the citizens of
10 Vlasenica --
11 Q. No, no, no. It's important that you acknowledge you understand
12 that for the questions I'm now going to ask you. Did the chief of the
13 public security station tell you of anyone else, other than the person
14 named in tab 2 and in tab 8, who supplied information to him about the
15 smuggling of arms?
16 A. Yes. There were other individuals, particularly when it came to
17 the armament of Muslims in the area of Bratunac municipality. There was
18 an official line through the MUP when it came to this armament. There
19 were some other things relative to Zepa, but mostly those were sources
20 that spoke to him and provided him with all this information.
21 Q. Do you know the names of any of those sources of information?
22 A. It's very hard for me to remember any names. In any case, the
23 story would be the same. Those were either Serbs or Muslims who did not
24 want their identity to be revealed.
25 Q. In terms of military or paramilitary activity, when did it become
1 apparent to you, if at all, that the Muslims were armed in Vlasenica?
2 A. Well, I personally saw, when it comes to the uniformed
3 paramilitaries who were later on identified as the Patriotic League. I
4 personally saw them at the beginning of February and beginning of March --
5 the end of February and beginning of March 1992 as I was returning from a
6 meeting where we from the Boksit company spoke to the inhabitants of
7 Djilovici [phoen] a small place in the vicinity of the mine. As I was on
8 my way back to Milici I was travelling in a Jeep. I was there together
9 with the driver of Ibro Nuhanovic, and his name was Sretko Relic [phoen].
10 And there was another Muslim whose name I can't recall. In the place
11 called Sedric, at the crossroads I noticed from the direction of a village
12 called Basca, a red Lada vehicle was coming towards us. There were four
13 uniformed persons sitting in it with green berets and metal round badge.
14 Next to the driver there was an automatic rifle, and I also noticed that
15 the person sitting in the back also had weapons. One had a semi-automatic
16 rifle, and the other one was holding an automatic rifle in his lap.
17 Although the badge was rather big, its diameter must have been two or two
18 and a half centimetres, so I could see it well. And later on, in combat I
19 noticed the symbol of crescent and the star, and I don't know what the
20 inscription was on the badge. So, in other words, this was my first
21 sighting of the paramilitary formation called the Patriotic League. Every
22 year from the year 1996 onwards in September or in October in Tuzla there
23 is a celebration of the anniversary of the foundation of the Patriotic
24 League which took place in Tuzla in 1991. In this case, my first contact
25 with this military formation of the Muslim people, the paramilitary
1 formation, was when I have just said.
2 And let me just add one more thing. Before that, in September or
3 October, one of these extremists, Ibrahim Ademovic also known as Cakura,
4 who resided in Mocila village, he stopped our buses and he chased our
5 workers and forced them to return on foot. And he would appear with an
6 automatic rifle M-56. Interestingly enough, the police had to intervene.
7 The police was still mixed at the time in February and March 1993. He
8 would capture them, he would ill-treat them, and he would do whatever he
9 wanted to do with them.
10 Q. Could you turn, please, to tab 3.
11 MR. JOSSE: And could that have a number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 3 would be D136, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 MR. JOSSE:
15 Q. Looking at the B/C/S verse of this document, I suggest that
16 everyone does, this is the back and front of some form of identity card.
17 That's right, isn't it? Did you get my question, Mr. Savkic?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that you have the original of this with
20 you in this courtroom?
21 A. I do indeed. I have the original.
22 MR. JOSSE: I'm not particularly anxious that it be surrendered as
23 an exhibit, but the Court might wish to see it, Your Honour, because it's
24 much clearer than that depicted in the photograph [sic].
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would just like to have a look at it.
1 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I thought so.
2 Q. If you would just take that one document out of your bag, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
4 MR. JOSSE:
5 Q. We can see, Mr. Savkic, that this is a card indicating membership
6 by this particular individual of the 16th Muslim Brigade, Bratunac
7 Detachment. Were you aware in April of 1992, early April of 1992, that
8 there was a 16th Muslim Brigade?
9 A. Can you please explain. Are you referring to the entire month of
10 April or the beginning of April?
11 Q. Well --
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if at this stage we could object.
13 It's not clear to us from the translation we have that the document before
14 the Court and the witness establishes the proposition that's contained in
15 my learned friend's question. So I don't think it's appropriate for him
16 to lead on this matter.
17 MR. JOSSE: Okay. I'll deal with it differently, Your Honour.
18 Q. Let's have a look, if we may, at the card. We see -- you've got
19 the photocopy of it in front of you, Mr. Savkic. We look at the bottom
20 part. We see on the left-hand corner three words. The first one is --
21 begins S-l-u-z-b-a. Can you read those three words out, please. You're
22 not sure what I'm referring to?
23 A. No, no.
24 Q. There's a date. We see a date at number 1, bottom part of the
25 photocopy. What are the three words above the date. Read them out.
1 A. It says: "Service in war."
2 Q. And then what is the date that you read underneath that?
3 A. The date is 05/04/1992.
4 Q. So let's use that date, bearing in mind Mr. Margetts' objection.
5 At that time, 5th of April, 1992, did you know there was a 16th Muslim
7 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, my learned friend hasn't established
8 the existence of such a brigade, and we now ask --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, the document on the right, top,
10 says: "16th Muslimanska Brigada," which of course could be the title of a
11 book or whatever else. Let's move on. To the extent Mr. Josse is leading
12 in the respect, the Chamber whole-heartedly allows him to lead.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
14 MR. JOSSE:
15 Q. My question, Mr. Savkic, is: Did you know that a 16th Muslim
16 Brigade existed on the 5th of April, 1992?
17 A. I didn't know that that was its name; however, its members didn't
18 hide from anybody, absolutely not. Across the road from the assembly
19 point of this brigade -- actually, across the brook there are Serbian
20 villages of Glusac and Bisina, and from those positions one could easily
21 see members of this unit.
22 Q. Why did you understand that such a unit had been created?
23 A. Please, although at this moment from the Presidency of Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina, at least officially, it had been ordered that the
25 mobilisation of the TO should be carried out. It transpires very clearly
1 from this booklet that this would be later; however, it is very clear from
2 this booklet that this is not the Territorial Defence but the Army of the
3 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a document that is recognisable
4 as -- as a document associated with a war unit, a unit that is engaged in
6 Q. As of the 5th of April, 1992, were you aware of any public
7 pronouncement by any Bosnian politician that ethnically based brigades
8 should be set up?
9 A. As I said here, I cannot remember. However, there were all sorts
10 of threats from the leadership of the SDA and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Those of us who lived there heard that and saw those outpours and those
13 Q. You've given some evidence about arming on the Muslim side. Prior
14 to April 1992, shall we say the 1st of April, 1992, how did the Serbs
15 respond to what you understood the Muslims were doing?
16 A. Unfortunately, and I am saying "unfortunately" because of all that
17 would happen later on, the representatives of our people in Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina were saying at the time that despite the obvious threats and
19 indications from the ground, that in keeping with the institution of the
20 federal state, the JNA was the only armed force that was allowed to exist
21 in the territory of the federal state. They were also saying that the
22 Yugoslav People's Army would provide protection to the Serbian people and
23 all sorts of similar things. They were of the opinion that we should
24 abide by the constitution and the laws. That was their explanation.
25 This did provide a certain degree of guarantee and safety to the
1 Serbs in the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina; however, truth be
2 told, what had happened in Croatia already demonstrated that those
3 guarantees were very weak.
4 Q. Let's move on to a separate but related subject, and let's take a
5 look at tab 5. I think we can deal with this relatively shortly?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, can we perhaps ask a few questions on the
7 background of the document.
8 How did you obtain this document of which I have the original now
9 in my hands, Mr. Savkic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].
11 JUDGE ORIE: It seems --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received the original probably --
13 or rather most certainly from the citizens.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Who are the citizens?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about -- actually, the
16 villagers of Serbian ethnicity of these two villages, Glusac and Bisina,
17 or maybe this document was provided to me during that period of time when
18 the village guards had already been set up around the Serbian villages.
19 And those village guards were composed exclusively of the local villagers.
20 In one or another way, I received this document. I received so many such
21 documents during that period of time, and this is just one of them. So I
22 wouldn't really be able to tell you exactly the name of the person who
23 brought this document to me.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is the -- is the person depicted and whose name
25 is given, do you know whether he is still alive or ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't tell you that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
3 MR. JOSSE:
4 Q. Tab 5, please. That's already got a number; it's P258. This is a
5 protocol of an agreement between the representatives of the Serbian and
6 Muslim people. If we turn to the last page we see that it was signed by
7 six community leaders on each side, one of which, at number -- well,
8 number 4, you were one of the Serbian representatives. In essence, the
9 agreement provided the municipality should be divided into Serbian and
10 Muslim sectors, and a portion of it should be separated all together to
11 form a new Milici municipality under Serbian control on the basis the
12 population there was [indiscernible] Serbian. That's right, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And defines, with some detail, the areas such as towns and
15 villages, how they should be divided, as well as outstanding issues for a
16 future possible settlement. Why was this protocol agreed upon?
17 A. Well, it happened because reality forced us to get together and to
18 try to find a reasonable way out of that situation that was genuinely
20 I would appreciate it if the gentleman presiding over this court
21 would allow me to say in a few words what the situation was like in the
22 moment we made this agreement. In that period, there were many columns of
23 vehicles passing through Vlasenica and Milici. Some came from Central
24 Bosnia and Sarajevo, and the vehicles carried both Serbs and Muslims.
25 Sometimes these motorcades were several kilometres long, and all of them
1 were going to Serbia. From all the other direction such as Bratunac and,
2 to a lesser extent, Srebrenica, and from Muslim villages in the
3 municipality of Vlasenica, convoys of Muslims were going towards Sarajevo
4 and the central part of Bosnia. From Croatia JNA units were coming back.
5 To put it briefly, it was complete chaos.
6 We had some insight into the weaponry situation, the weapons in
7 the possession of private citizens. But especially relevant to Vlasenica
8 in particular was the order of the SDA. I can't say whether it originated
9 in the Municipal Board of the SDA or from the headquarters, but the order
10 stipulated that women and elderly should be evacuated from all villages,
11 but especially from Vlasenica itself. It was at that time that we reached
12 an agreement among the parties, and prior to that this board for
13 inter-ethnic cooperation in Vlasenica was set-up. And we agreed to find
14 some practical solutions for our everyday problems. That's why we got
15 together. I believe we sat down to talk two times, once, the first time,
16 we made a draft; and the second time we fine-tuned the agreement.
17 This agreement in the latter part contains the very messages that
18 were the main purpose, namely, we said that since nothing, absolutely
19 nothing, was functioning on the state level in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we
20 were looking for a way to observe the principle of proportionate ethnic
21 representation, because we all felt better being represented by members of
22 our own ethnicity. So although the idea was based on this ethnic
23 division, expect for Vlasenica where we left open the possibility, since
24 it was a township after all, we left open the possibility for Serbs to
25 live in Muslim neighbourhoods and Muslims to live in Serb neighbourhoods,
1 this could work except in Nova Kasaba where, for instance, ten families of
2 Serbs left -- were left living in a Muslim neighbourhood, neighbourhoods
3 that belonged, in terms of population, to Muslims, but since they had a
4 particular geographic position, this population was given to choose which
5 area to exercise their rights.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the Chamber wonders whether the witness is
7 reading something?
8 MR. JOSSE: Yes, the document. He's referring to the document at
9 tab 5. That's what he's got in front of him.
10 Q. Is that right, Mr. Savkic, you have the protocol in front of you?
11 A. Yes, yes. I have the protocol in front of me, and I only wanted
12 to explain in greater detail how earnestly this was prepared, what
13 possibilities were given to the citizens. What is important is that all
14 important facilities remained intact. There were no divisions of
15 pharmacies, the cultural hall, the schools, or the police. Everything was
16 regulated. We even said on page 7 that newly established municipalities
17 would ensure unhindered passage to JNA units, but due to fear from
18 paramilitary formations it was desirable to give prior notification to the
19 competent authorities of municipalities. We also appealed to the citizens
20 to return to -- their weapons to the closest JNA unit because it was a
21 fact of life that they had weapons.
22 So if we look at this agreement, you have the introductory part -
23 and this is important for the Judges to hear - at the proposal of
24 parliamentary parties, citizens, alliances, the board for inter-ethnic
25 cooperation. Some persons who had never been members of any political
1 party, the SDA or the SDS, were also involved. And if you look at the
2 body of our presentation, they are represented. It's important. The
3 people involved were people who enjoyed the greatest respect among the
4 people, high school and university professors, directors of enterprises,
5 et cetera.
6 Q. It's been suggested to this Chamber, Mr. Savkic, that the Serbs
7 forced this protocol upon the Muslims. What do you say to that
9 A. Well, most of them, except for number 1, who is a Muslim -- the
10 best would be to ask them. I have to stress again that those talks
11 proceeded in a very correct, very decent manner. And I told you a bit
12 yesterday about how everybody was affected by the history and the fate of
13 this region. For instance, person on number 5, Saracevic Sejfo, who was
14 then president of the court, it would be a good idea to invite him so he
15 can tell you, or person number 3, Saban Avdic, he used to be my teacher,
16 the person under number 1 or number 3, director of the school in Vlasenica
17 and professor of philosophy. Any one of them, Mihajlo Bajagic, a very
18 moderate, quiet man, could be a good witness to that. They all know what
19 we did; we did our job honourably. On the 14th of April, the Assembly in
20 its full composition adopted this protocol without any modifications, and
21 that is also recorded in an official document. I have to say that not all
22 deputies were present, not all Muslim deputies were present, but out of
23 those present a large number also voted in favour of this agreement.
24 As to those who did not attend, I can tell you later why they
25 didn't. In that period while we were looking for this agreed solution,
1 they were busy setting up Crisis Staffs in Muslim enclaves and preparing
2 for armed conflict.
3 Q. I'll come back to that in one moment in time. It was, as I think
4 you know, the individual at number 1 in the Muslim list of signatories who
5 made the allegation that he was an unwilling signatory to this document.
6 What do you say about that?
7 A. I believe that every person has the right to say whatever they
8 like, but I have to say what I know about this particular man. I've known
9 him since the first year of high school. We enrolled in high school
10 together. He was already a failure then. He dropped out and went to a
11 locksmith's vocational school; at that time, it was a popular trade. Our
12 president then was Josip Broz Tito, who was also a locksmith by trade.
13 And at that moment he rose only because he had a firm support of the SDA.
14 He was a man who caused a lot of disagreement, a man about whom many of
15 those signatories had nothing good to say. I don't want to tell you what
16 the intellectuals called him.
17 Across the table from him among the SDS, there was a nominee from
18 the -- for the president of the Municipal Assembly, and this nominee was a
19 highly qualified economist. This person, on the other hand, suffered from
20 any psychological complexes, maybe because he was a short man, whatever.
21 But he belonged to the radical wing of the SDA, and he was elected that
22 moment rather than this other man, who was much better qualified. Ivo
23 Andric, our famous writer and Nobel laureate said that in difficult times
24 some people rise to the surface who would otherwise never come close.
25 This man - that's the last thing I want to say about him - played
1 a very important role in the break-up of the Yugoslav People's Army, but
2 also in breaking up the Territorial Defence in the area of Vlasenica
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I think this -- that this signatory to
5 this agreement was not on high esteem; it's clear from this answer. I
6 wonder whether we needed so much details as the --
7 MR. JOSSE: I think we did, Your Honour, and the reason is -- and
8 I've got the page references, that particular witness said some very
9 uncomplimentary things about Mr. Savkic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
11 MR. JOSSE: And I'm about to put to Mr. Savkic now. And in those
12 circumstances, Mr. Savkic --
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, I just wondered whether the reference to authors
14 and being a locksmith -- okay, but I better understand. Please proceed.
15 MR. JOSSE:
16 Q. Let's deal with that now, Mr. Savkic --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, could you give us the date perhaps at
18 least so that --
19 MR. JOSSE: Yes, 30th of August of the year 2004, and according to
20 the note I've been given about 5.046 of the transcript.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
22 MR. JOSSE:
23 Q. Specifically the allegations Mr. Redzic made to this Court about
24 you is that you said in terms that the Serbs had tanks ready - and I
25 quote - "to shed blood and to start moving on from Han Pijesak and
1 Milici," if the Muslims didn't agree to the protocol.
2 What do you say to that proposition?
3 A. It's an obvious nonsense. At that moment in Han Pijesak there was
4 not a single tank unit in the Yugoslav People's Army, not even in the
5 reserve forces or in the rear where the infantry battalion was stationed.
6 As for this attack from Milici or Zvornik, it's also a fact that neither
7 place had a tank unit at that time, and not only at that time.
8 Q. He said that your view was that the Serbs were entitled to have
9 their own army in addition to the JNA; in other words, he accuses you of
10 what you are suggesting the Muslims were doing. What do you say to that?
11 A. That's pure nonsense. In the training, reserve training, centre
12 752, which had a mixed contingent, my file probably survived to this day.
13 And at that time the commander of that centre was a remarkable man from
14 Sarajevo, a Croat. I know that he had a Bachelor of Sciences degree in
15 architect. And there was another Croat, Tomislav Zlatanovic, they could
16 be the right people to talk about the position I held then, my style and
17 method of work. You can also ask any of my students, regardless of their
18 ethnicity. You can ask them and they will tell you what I used to lecture
19 them about.
20 Q. I'm going to stop you, Mr. Savkic, because the specific question
21 was the allegation by Mr. Redzic that you were, in effect, saying that the
22 Serbs were arming and were entitled to arm. Any truth in that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Finally -- well, he alleges that you were very difficult to talk
25 to and that you were an intolerant man. I think the long answer you were
1 giving a moment ago where I stopped you was to some extent an answer to
2 that. Perhaps an unfair question, but bearing in mind the allegations
3 being made publicly in this court, do you regard yourself as intolerant at
4 that time?
5 A. Absolutely not. People who are really competent to talk about me
6 are people I worked with, my students from high school, but certainly not
7 a person like this. I don't think this deserves any comment in fact. I'm
8 known as a quiet man generally, but of course he's entitled to his own
9 opinion and he can say what he likes.
10 Q. I'll move on, if I may. You had said a few minutes ago that at
11 the time this protocol was being agreed upon - and in particular you were
12 referring to the meeting of the Municipal Assembly a few days later - that
13 the Muslims were busy setting up Crisis Staffs in Muslim enclaves. Can
14 you provide any details in relation to that, please?
15 A. Distinguished gentlemen, yes, I can give you a lot of information.
16 While we were sitting there looking for solutions, certain extremists,
17 both from the leadership of the party and from the - what was it called? -
18 the Municipal Assembly or Territorial Defence were busy doing something
19 quite different. They were replacing this moderate president of the
20 Municipal Board, and those people whom I cannot name at the moment, but
21 they were very high up in this joint, mixed, Municipal Staff of
22 Territorial Defence, one of them was actually Becir Mekanic. I think he
23 was head of that staff. He left during that period for Muslim villages
24 near the bauxite mine, Djile, Vrsinje villages and others in the vicinity,
25 to establish a staff in which he would be the main man. Most of those
1 villages set up Crisis Staffs in those initial days and he would be their
3 I have to mention in one village he was caught in a car with a
4 slow-burning detonator and explosive devices number 8, that is official.
5 And in those villages he started conscripting Muslim people by force into
6 this newly established Territorial Defence. He even applied torture so
7 that from those villages, over 50 families came to Derventa, including
8 over 200 men, women, and children. One of their leaders was Selman
9 Becirovic with his two brothers. They told us literally that Becir
10 Mekanic and a group of radicals were forcing them to become soldiers and
11 to set-up ambushes between the bauxite mine and the Milici road, and they
12 didn't want any part in it.
13 At that point, we in the management of the bauxite mine and the
14 municipal authorities were doing quite different work. Another
15 representative, Ferid Hodzic - I cannot say exactly what position he
16 occupied, but he was also one of the leaders of that Territorial Defence
17 staff in Vlasenica - he went to a large enclave of Muslim villages made up
18 of local communes of Cerska, Skugrici, Rasevo, Nova Kasaba, and there,
19 again, they formed a Crisis Staff using the same procedures. To make
20 matters worse, as early as on the 18th, most of the SDA leadership in the
21 Municipal Assembly of Vlasenica, after the departure en masse of Muslims
22 who left on trailers and trucks, it was ordered from the security centre
23 in Tuzla that Muslims should leave the public security station, and they
24 did. So one thing happened on the 18th and the other on the 19th. Those
25 were the events.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break.
2 Witness, may I invite you to follow the usher to leave the
3 courtroom. We'll have a break of approximately 20, 25 minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the witness tells us a lot of things on
6 what happened everywhere and who was involved, and they formed a Crisis
7 Staff according to the usual procedures. I've got no idea what the usual
8 procedures are. I've got no idea who "they" are. I've got no idea how
9 many Crisis Staffs were set up. Could you in one way or the other
10 structure the evidence in such a way that it assists the Chamber and --
11 and at least now and then give us some glimpse of what his source of
12 knowledge would have been, they were working in a meeting when everyone
13 else was arming, I take it when the decision was taken in the Municipal
14 Assembly -- of course, the Chamber would very much like to know how many
15 Muslim representatives were there, what the result of the vote was,
16 instead of being more or less lost in an overwhelming, unclear description
17 of facts of which we have got no idea what the source of knowledge of the
18 witness is.
19 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I accept that totally. My only
20 observation is I'm going to be a long time with this witness if I go
21 through each of these pieces of information, knowledge --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if you select the most important ones. It
23 will be very quickly, but of course I don't know if you come any closer to
24 your objectives when you call this witness.
25 MR. JOSSE: But how can I know what's in your mind, with respect?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can be -- you may assume that if a witness
2 gives a long story with, in our language one would say "without hands and
3 feet," without that -- let's put it the following way: If I have got no
4 clue about the real facts of this testimony, I assume that you would have
5 no clue either, respecting you at least as an intelligent person. So
6 therefore, I wonder how you could accept that -- unless you say: Well,
7 no, it's perfectly clear to me, then if you say the usual ways of setting
8 up Crisis Staffs, if you could tell me: Of course, that's what the
9 witness said before or that's what we find in this and this document, then
10 of course I would have to admit that it's my lack of understanding. So if
11 you could give answers to just a couple of the questions I just raised,
12 that it's entirely clear to you, please assist me because I would be glad
13 to better understand and to be better in a position to evaluate the
14 testimony of this witness. And I just give an example of the last couple
15 of minutes of his testimony. Help me out if --
16 MR. JOSSE: I'll try my best.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 We stand adjourned until 1.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd just briefly like to address
23 the Defence. There's no problem with the witness being present.
24 I would like to address the Defence regarding the issue of
25 identifying expert witnesses. The Defence will recall that the Trial
1 Chamber, in its 18th of November 2005 amendment to the scheduling order,
2 instructed the Defence to announce whether it intended to call any expert
3 witnesses, and if so, who those experts would be by no later than the 13th
4 of January 2006.
5 On the 13th of January, the Defence announced that it indeed
6 intended to call one media expert and one military expert, but it failed
7 to further identify these experts. After hearing the Defence submissions
8 last week on the 17th and the 19th of January, the Trial Chamber now
9 decides to grant the Defence additional time until the 10th of February to
10 identify their proposed expert witnesses. The deadline for the filing of
11 any expert report remains the 28th of February.
12 The Trial Chamber orders the Prosecution to file a notice
13 according to Rule 94 bis (B) within 15 days after the 28th of February,
14 which is not the usual time given. This concludes the Trial Chamber's
15 decision on expert witnesses to be called by the Defence.
16 Mr. Josse, please proceed.
17 WITNESS: TOMISLAV SAVKIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examined by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
20 MR. JOSSE:
21 Q. Mr. Savkic, before the break you gave a long answer in relation to
22 a question that I asked about the formation of a Muslim Crisis Staff. I
23 want to try and break that answer down a little bit, please. You talked
24 about a Mr. Mekanic being caught in a car - that's right, isn't it? With
25 a slow-burning detonator?
1 A. Not just one, with several slow-burning detonators.
2 Q. When was that?
3 A. It was precisely in this period, end March/beginning of April.
4 Q. How did you know about that incident?
5 A. Everybody knew about this incident because the police stopped this
6 person in a small village called Derventa, which is on the road from
7 Milici to the mine. The policeman confiscated those things, and when he
8 insisted that he wanted to go to his family which resided in Vesici, a
9 village above Derventa, unfortunately the policeman allowed him to go. He
10 promised he would be back, but he never returned; everybody knows why he
12 Q. And you said a little later on that - and I quote - "they told us
13 literally that Becir Mekanic and a group of radicals were forcing them to
14 become soldiers."
15 When you talked about "they," who were you referring to?
16 A. Becir Mekanic and the group surrounding him. In that group - and
17 they told us which only confirmed what I saw at the beginning of February,
18 towards the end of February and at the beginning of March there were some
19 people wearing uniforms of the Patriotic League. In addition to those
20 persons, they told us, and we saw that, there were also Muslims wearing
21 ZNG uniforms, ZNG stands for the National Guard of Croatia. Those were
22 volunteers who went to Croatia and participated in the fighting in
23 Croatia. Those were all Muslims.
24 Q. In the answer that you have just given you used the
25 expression"they" and "us" a lot. I want to ask you a few questions about
1 that. First of all, who exactly is "they"? Just name whom you have in
2 mind as people who said this.
3 A. They were the most radical Muslims from the Party of Democratic --
4 Q. Can you give the Chamber any names?
5 A. Becir Mekanic, Ferid Hodzic, Fadil Turkovic, people from the
6 municipality of Vlasenica and some neighbouring municipalities.
7 Q. You also used the expression "us," presumably meaning the Serbs.
8 But who, literally, was "us"? Yourself, Tomislav Savkic? Who else?
9 A. I was referring to the Serbs in general. We didn't see enmity in
10 all Muslims at that moment. At that moment we only saw those people that
11 I've just mentioned, their paramilitary and other organisations - let me
12 not call them "sabotage organisations." We watched those that armed them
13 and that instigated them to engage in war.
14 Q. Where did the intercourse between they and us take place?
15 A. I'm afraid I did not understand the interpretation properly.
16 Q. I'll completely rephrase the question. You said that they - and
17 you've told us who they were, a group of radical Muslims - gave you, a
18 group of Serbs, some information. And you've told us what that
19 information was. But where did this exchange take place physically?
20 Where were you for them to be able to tell you what they were up to?
21 A. If you're referring to these people, the good people that I
22 contacted and spoke with, for example, at meetings in the local commune
23 called Djile, we from the management of the mine and the representatives
24 of the village of Djile very often they spoke to workers, for example,
25 Selman Becirovic. I can mention a dozen other names of the people who
1 asked for our help, for our opinion, for some decisions. So when I'm
2 talking about that, I'm -- and when I'm talking on my own behalf, I'm
3 mostly referring to the employees of the bauxite, if I have understood
4 your question well.
5 Q. I don't think you have; perhaps I've misunderstood you and this
6 needs clarification. Was there any meeting of any sort at this time
7 between you and Mr. Mekanic where he told you what he was up to?
8 A. No.
9 Q. So am I right in saying your source of information was other
10 Muslims, not the radical Muslims that you've mentioned?
11 A. Yes. I'm talking about those Muslims who did not think in the
12 same way as Becir Mekanic and the likes of him. And I've also told you
13 that at one point there came a time when people came to us and asked for
14 our help. They were led by Selman Becirovic with his two brothers, and
15 there were over 50 families, to be more precise, more than 200 people who
16 came and they didn't want to go back to their places of birth. When I say
17 they came to us, what I have in mind is the management of the bauxite mine
18 and the authorities of the village, and I told you why they didn't want to
19 go back.
20 Q. You also, before the break, said - and I paraphrase - that a Ferid
21 Hodzic went to a large enclave of Muslim villages made up of local
22 communes, and you then named the communes. And you said: There again
23 they formed a Crisis Staff using the same procedures. What did you mean
24 when you said "the same procedures"?
25 A. They behaved in the exact same way. The Crisis Staff was formed,
1 and immediately after this they started mobilising Muslim population into
2 some units. At that time those units were paramilitary units. Only, at
3 that time they did not refer to themselves as the Patriotic League but the
4 armed forces of the municipality of Vlasenica.
5 Q. How do you know that - dealing specifically with this incident
6 with Ferid Hodzic - that a Crisis Staff was formed? If you're going to
7 look at something, you need to tell the Chamber that you're going to refer
8 to a document or something else. You can do, but you need to tell the
9 Court what you're going to refer to and why.
10 A. Again, we're talking about the person who's already been mentioned
11 here, and his name was protected. There are also some other names that I
12 can mention of the people who came and told us what was going on.
13 Q. What is it you're looking at? What is it you're looking at there?
14 Are those notes that you've made?
15 A. These are my notes. I just need them to remind myself of the name
16 of that person who came and asked for the establishment towards the end of
17 April and the beginning of May, for the establishment of the same
18 authorities that were in place in the municipality of Milici.
19 MR. JOSSE: I would have thought, Your Honour, that that's
20 completely unobjectionable. I mean, this isn't some sort of a guessing
21 exercise. If a witness needs to refer to a note to try and remember a
22 name, that would be sensible.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have no problem with that.
24 Mr. Margetts seems not to be on his feet, so --
25 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, for this purpose we have no objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 If you would like to consult your notes, you have free to do so.
3 MR. JOSSE:
4 Q. Just give us the name, Mr. Savkic, from the notes.
5 A. I would kindly ask for this name not to be given --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session for a second.
7 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
19 MR. JOSSE:
20 Q. Are you able to assist the Chamber at all as to what form these
21 Crisis Staff took? In other words, in as much detail as you can, to tell
22 the Court about their operational structure, if you know. If you don't
23 know, so say.
24 A. Yes, I do know and I obtained certain information on the basis of
25 my own analysis, my subsequent analysis. Those staffs were of a purely
1 military nature. Initially they were exclusively dealing with the supply
2 of those units that were conceived in their heads, supplying those Muslim
3 units with arms and storing war reserves. To be more precise, when it
4 comes to the Vlasenica enclave, there is a document. And as one was
5 passing through Zivinice, one was absolutely clear during that period of
6 time that there was a depot there. I can't remember its name; I have it
7 in some of the documents in my brief-case. One depot was used to store a
8 large number of weapons, sanitary materials, and food. In the second
9 stage, those Crisis Staffs were placed under the command of various
10 units -- or rather, the command which existed in the territory of that
12 Q. And the information that you've just given came from what source
13 or sources? If it's the same name as before, just say it's the same name
14 as before.
15 A. One of the sources, yes, from people, one of whom I have mentioned
16 who is protected -- not the last one but the imam who explained it best.
17 But the second document which is a paper document which speaks about the
18 war reserves in the territory of the municipality of Zivinice for the
19 enclave of Cerska and the command of Ferid Hodzic, this is a document that
20 I obtained towards the end of 1993.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the reference in -- following after: "Not
22 the last one but" a person who explained best, that seems to be reference
23 to something which is not in evidence and which perhaps should be struck
24 from the record. Before doing so, I'll give you an opportunity to -- or
25 we say it's without any substance because it refers to nothing known to
1 the Chamber.
2 MR. JOSSE: What does Your Honour mean by "struck from the
3 record"? Is it physically removed? I wasn't aware that procedure was
4 used here.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we could do that, but I just wanted to -- I
6 just wanted to explore whether this reference to something which is
7 clearly denied to be admitted, that at least it's clear that it's -- has
8 no -- perhaps it's not even needed --
9 MR. JOSSE: I would have thought for a Tribunal like this there
10 would be no difficulty separating what's clearly inadmissible from the
11 admissible --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
13 MR. JOSSE: If Your Honour is asking me whether I'm going to argue
14 that that particular assertion is admissible, I'm not in the light of the
15 earlier ruling.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But if we're not clear about something, it should be
17 clear to the parties that --
18 MR. JOSSE: I understand.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
20 MR. JOSSE:
21 Q. It's my fault, perhaps, Mr. Savkic, but you've just been referring
22 to a document. Do you have that document with you? You've just said: A
23 document which best explains the structure of the Crisis Staff.
24 A. No, it's not about a document -- yes, yes, I have both. But I was
25 talking about the war reserves that were piled up for this enclave in a
1 different territory with a majority Muslim population. I also have a
2 document which speaks about the establishment of the complete staff in
3 that region -- actually, bringing that staff up to its full strength, and
4 that document is in my brief-case.
5 Q. I'm not going to ask you to produce it now, but could you have it
6 available for the parties to look at at 9.00 tomorrow morning, please,
7 when you come back into this court?
8 JUDGE ORIE: If it's in the witness's brief-case -- do you have
9 your brief-case with you at this moment? Perhaps given an opportunity to
10 read it overnight because, if it's relevant, then you could look at it
11 even before tomorrow.
12 MR. JOSSE: Well, that's an idea, Your Honour, I suppose --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll ask the witness at the end of this
14 hearing to give the document to Mr. Registrar, who will then copy it.
15 We'll return the original to you, Mr. Savkic. Nevertheless, you're
16 invited to bring again tomorrow, the original, but so that copies can be
17 distributed among the parties.
18 MR. JOSSE: Very helpful. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. The meeting of the Municipal Assembly that adopted the protocol,
20 did you attend that meeting?
21 A. Yes. I believe that all of who drew-up that agreement were
22 present there.
23 Q. So when you say "all," six on the Serb side and the six on the
24 Muslim side; all 12 of you were there?
25 A. I think so. I was there.
1 Q. Were -- you mentioned earlier that certain Muslims were not there.
2 Can you recall how many of the Serb deputies were there and how many of
3 the Muslim deputies were there?
4 A. I think the Serb representatives were all in attendance. I may be
5 mistaken, but not by a large number. As for Muslim representatives, I
6 believe there were at least five of them but not more than 15 because I
7 didn't know all of them and there was a large number of people. But
8 that's about it.
9 Q. And there were approximately - I could look it up in the notes -
10 26 Muslim deputies at that time, weren't there?
11 A. No, no. There were more. There were 26 from the SDA, and maybe
12 three from the reform party of Ante Markovic. And another party, I can't
13 recall its name, but it was led by this Durakovic person, the former
15 Q. My fault entirely. I was only counting the SDA representatives.
16 So a significant number of Muslim deputies to the Municipal Assembly were
17 absent. That's right? It follows from what you just said.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know why that was the case?
20 A. There were honest and honourable people among them, and they must
21 have been scared, scared not of that agreement but scared because of the
22 overall situation in Vlasenica. And already in February, March, and early
23 April they left for Tuzla. However, the radicals, they were already
24 together with Ferid Hodzic and they had crossed over into that enclave I
25 talked about. Some of them including that notorious Piljar, that
1 notorious Gros [phoen] or Atif [phoen], whatever his name, they were
2 already involved in arms supplies. And you will find references to him in
3 all statements as a man who was purchasing automatic and other guns. So
4 for that set of people, that agreement already had no validity, apart from
5 that Izet Redzic, who later stated that he was against it anyway.
6 Q. I appreciate the question I'm going to ask is a broad one, and we
7 may need to break it down in a few moments' time. But why, in your
8 estimation, did the protocol not work?
9 A. I have already said something about it. It was not working
10 because the radical wing of the SDA didn't wish to comply. They didn't
11 want to honour it, and they demonstrated it on the 18th when for unknown
12 reasons some of them left for Tuzla, whereas others left to those two
13 enclaves I spoke about. And a third fatal thing was this order from the
14 public security centre in Tuzla that said that Muslim policemen should
15 report for service in Tuzla; that happened on the 19th of March as far as
16 I remember.
17 Q. And taking it slowly, again, in your -- based on your experiences,
18 tell the Chamber how the protocol broke down.
19 A. Protocol broke down when the people who were supposed to implement
20 it changed tack. Some of them left and sided with the militarists, others
21 went to Tuzla, and the Muslim policemen were ordered to leave the area.
22 In other words, all the important leaders in Vlasenica gave up on it, and
23 then chaos and fear came to reign in Vlasenica. Nobody knew what was
24 going to happen next. And the crucial moment was the 19th when the Muslim
25 policemen were ordered to withdraw. And stories circulated, speculations,
1 and rumours, rumours that Muslim units were ready to take over in
2 Vlasenica. I can't remember, but I think it was meant to happen either on
3 the 20th or the 21st. And then people from Vlasenica on the 20th or the
4 21st, I believe -- in fact, the public security station in Vlasenica, with
5 only its Serb personnel remaining, announced that it -- and I'm saying
6 again, I can't remember whether it was on the 20th or the 21st. There was
7 a complete take-over in both parts of the town of Vlasenica.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, would I ask the witness -- several times
9 said that the Muslim policemen were ordered to withdraw or to report in
11 Could you tell us, Witness, who ordered them to withdraw or to
12 report in Tuzla?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information that we received --
14 or rather, I received from the chief who suspended the work of the police
15 station at that moment - and that decision [as interpreted] was the only
16 person who reported to work that day, that was Commander Fadil Turkovic,
17 and when he signed that document announcing that the police station was
18 not going to work any longer, he left the same day for Zepa and became a
19 commander in the army in Zepa. That document exists. The order was given
20 by the then-chief of the security services centre in Tuzla. I think the
21 last name is Sabic, but it doesn't matter. It was the chief of the
22 security services centre in Tuzla who ordered all Muslim policemen to
23 report to Tuzla for new assignments.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said: Fadil Turkovic was the only one who
25 reported to work. Were there no Serb policemen who reported for work that
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I meant he was the only
3 Muslim policeman who reported to work.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And how many Muslim policemen would -- under normal
5 circumstances would have to report for work on an average day?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know the exact
7 number. I wouldn't like to guess, no.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Was it 10 or 50 or? I've got no idea what the
9 strength --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More than 10, less than 40.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
13 MR. JOSSE:
14 Q. What was the effect of the Muslim departures that you have
16 A. The departure of Muslims instilled fear into everyone, Serbs and
17 Muslims alike. It was quite obvious that something was going to happen.
18 There was uncertainty and fear in the air because everybody knew that
19 nothing good was likely to happen. This feeling that something bad was
20 going to happen was based on rumours, on information from various sources,
21 part of which was propaganda maybe. But I cannot tell you more about it
22 because already on the 14th I was in Milici; I was not in Vlasenica. But
23 I know from what I heard from other people what was going on. Something
24 was in the offing, and people knew that on the basis of one fact alone,
25 namely, that only Muslim policemen were ordered to go somewhere else. It
1 was quite clear. Why wasn't a single Croat policeman re-assigned? Was
2 not a single Serb? Why all of the Muslims? Everyone knew that something
3 was in the offing, that it was bad, and probably with far-reaching
5 Q. Just before we finish, it might be worth your -- briefly if you
6 can, telling the Chamber about your being in Milici, these events being in
7 Vlasenica, whether you went to Vlasenica at all, how far apart the two
8 places are.
9 A. The distance is, if you travel by road, 14 kilometres. Since we
10 had firmly decided that my company should continue its production of ore
11 despite all the problems, because we had a binding contract with a Slovak
12 company, I had my hands full. I had a thousand problems to deal with,
13 especially linked to that road that led from the mine to Milici. And
14 Milici, as I told you, was a very small place. In that period there were
15 endless columns and convoys passing through Milici, the army retreating
16 from Croatia. The situation was very, very difficult. It's not that I
17 didn't want to; I simply was unable to. I didn't have time to go to
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, it's quarter to 2.00.
20 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first ask the witness to give the document
22 mentioned before to the registrar, who will then take care of copying it.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is one document, and this is
24 another. Please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, would you need these documents this
1 afternoon, or would it be timely enough if they returned to you tomorrow
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tomorrow morning is all right,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to return to you the original of this
6 military pass. Mr. Savkic, I would like again to instruct you not to
7 speak with anyone about your testimony already given or still to be given,
8 and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this same
10 We stand adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day of
13 January, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.