1 Friday, 9
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.23 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
6 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the technical
7 booth and the interpreters; good morning to the registry staff and the
8 Prosecution and Defence counsels. Let us take up our work where we left
9 off, and I think it was Mr. Jovanovic's turn.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Jovanovic.
11 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you and good morning, Your
12 Honours. The Defence of the accused Mladjo Radic calls Witness Nebojsa
13 Jokic to the stand.
14 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers.
16 MS. SOMERS: The order of witnesses which we were given indicates
17 that today's witness would -- the first one, actually, would have been
18 yesterday's witness, Drazenko -- or I'm sorry, Ranko Radic, and today's
19 witness is supposed to be the son of Mladjo Radic, Drazenko Radic. So we
20 have -- this is completely askew in terms of the order of witnesses that
21 we've been presented and for which we have prepared. I mean, we can go
22 forward, but I'd like the Court to understand that this is a complete
23 deviation from the third set of witness schedules that we've been provided
24 by the Radic Defence team. Yesterday's witness was to have been Drazenko
25 Radic, followed by Ranko Radic. I did raise this with the Court,
1 indicating we were prepared to go ahead. We had done, certainly, our
2 work, but this is simply an impossible situation for us. We don't know
3 which schedule they intend to follow even when new ones are provided.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, your response.
5 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for today we have
6 two remaining witnesses, so the only change was that yesterday we heard
7 Ranko Radic, and Drazenko Radic will be there today. But Mr. Jokic is the
8 only one -- only remaining witness for this week, according to the
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, you have the two
11 witnesses here with you today, ready and waiting?
12 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, which witness
14 would you like to testify first?
15 MS. SOMERS: According to the schedule, the first witness should
16 be - excuse me, Your Honour - Drazenko Radic.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You want Drazenko Radic.
18 Can you have that witness brought in today, Mr. Jovanovic?
19 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It is a pity that, Ms. Susan
21 Somers, that you weren't here from the beginning, but anyway, let us
22 proceed. It is a little complicated. If there are two witnesses for
23 today, Ms. Susan Somers, I don't think there ought to be a problem, but
24 anyway, let us comply with your wishes. We shall comply with your wishes,
25 Ms. Somers.
1 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You will now read the solemn
6 declaration handed to you by the usher, please.
7 WITNESS: DRAZENKO RADIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
10 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You will now be answering
14 questions put to you by Mr. Fila.
15 Mr. Fila, your witness.
16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I shall begin my
17 examination in chief.
18 Examined by Mr. Fila:
19 Q. Witness, would you tell the court your name and surname to start
20 off with?
21 A. My name is Drazenko Radic.
22 Q. And your father's name?
23 A. Mladjo Bosiljka. I was --
24 Q. When were you born?
25 A. The 25th of June, 1975.
1 Q. Where?
2 A. In Prijedor.
3 Q. What are you by ethnicity?
4 A. I'm a Serb.
5 Q. Your religion?
6 A. Orthodox.
7 Q. Let us try and make pauses between question and answer. Thank
8 you. What are you by profession?
9 A. I am a food technologist, but I work as a policeman and have
10 completed all the training courses necessary to become a policeman.
11 Q. I should now like to ask the usher to show the witness Defence
12 Exhibit D93 and D93A.
13 Witness Drazenko, take a look at that piece of paper, please, and
14 I shall be asking you some questions about it later on.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I think it is Exhibit
16 D9/3, is it not?
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes. That is the number we received
18 from the Registrar.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But it is for purposes of the
20 record, so it is not Exhibit D93, it is in fact D9/3.
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I don't know, Your Honour. Yes, it
22 seems to be correct.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, just to clear up
24 matters for the record.
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Drazenko, have you had a look at that diagram?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. Could you explain to the court everything you know about that
4 document, but slowly and approach the microphone, please.
5 A. This is a list for the Police Department of Omarska for the May,
6 June, July, August period, 1992, from which we can see on what day and at
7 what time my father was on duty. It is the duty roster, in fact.
8 Q. Who gave you this document?
9 A. The books, the registration books, roster, was to be found in the
10 present Omarska Police Department, and I got it in Prijedor talking to the
11 chief of the centre there. One of the employees took this to be
12 photocopied so I don't know what comes before and what comes after, but he
13 photocopied just the section referring to my father. On the other side is
14 the stamp of the Central Security Station and the chief made an addendum,
15 an additional document, explaining what this particular document was
17 Q. Do you know where that log or roster or register was taken -- is
18 located, where you took this from?
19 A. Now, I don't know.
20 Q. Who did you give this document to, the document that you obtained?
21 A. I handed over the document to the former Defence counsel. It was
22 sometime in May, 1998. That is, the counsel's name was Veljko Guberina.
23 Q. When you received this document, was anybody else present when
24 Dzenadija handed you the document?
25 A. I had a conversation with him in his office in the morning and on
1 that same day, I think it was the 12th of May, 1998, in my police station,
2 a working meeting was held for him to come, who had taken over the
3 function of chief, and for him to -- and he handed over this envelope with
4 the document in the Prijedor 2 Police Station in the presence of the
6 Q. As you yourself are a policeman can you see from that piece of
7 paper the duty roster and when your father was on duty, in fact, when he
8 performed his duties, according to that roster?
9 A. Yes, it is the duty roster that every police station must have,
10 and this is the way that data is kept.
11 Q. And from the document, you can see his shifts, is that correct,
12 when he was on duty?
13 A. On the screen, I don't know what month it was, but I see that he
14 worked for three or four days, eight hours, and then as I recall in June,
15 they worked 12 hours one day and then were off for 24 hours. So that the
16 rhythm there was 12, 24, 12 hours, 24.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
18 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I would like to address a matter to the
19 Chamber. The document that we have labelled D9/3 is handwritten not
20 typed. It looks nothing like the document which is on the screen. And I
21 am not clear at all what document is being referred to.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila, your response?
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot see. All I can see is
24 what is on the screen. It is the document that I handed in to the
25 Prosecution and that the Prosecution examined when Mr. Niemann was in your
1 place. If you will recall, Mr. Niemann took the document, examined it and
2 returned it. And that is the same document which I myself obtained from
3 the former Defence counsel so that my knowledge is equal to that of Ms.
4 Somers' knowledge about this particular document.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, what document
6 is document D9/3, in fact? What document is that? Have you got it?
7 THE REGISTRAR: It's on the ELMO. I will get it.
8 MS. SOMERS: Ah, the lower one.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] If I may add something --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Fila, one
11 moment, please.
12 Mr. Fila.
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] The original document was handed over,
14 and the original is handwritten. What Ms. Somers can see on the screen is
15 the translation, and of course the translation is typed out on a
16 typewriter. Now, I am going to ask the witness to have a look at the
17 original. So that is the difference. The typewritten copy is the
18 translation and the original is the one below. It is handwritten. Now
19 you have them both, both documents on the screen. The top one is the
20 translation, the bottom one is the handwritten original.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. And what is the number of
22 the original document, please?
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] It is the same document, D9/3.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, the
25 manuscript, what is the number of that?
1 MS. SOMERS: The document which I have which reflects --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Ms. Somers.
3 MS. SOMERS: I'm terribly sorry. The document in my possession
4 that is handwritten, Your Honours, is D9/3, and there is a typed edition
5 that is 3A. My understanding was they were looking at 3 and they didn't
6 have 3A on the ELMO to us. So I just need to know what we're looking at.
7 It's terribly confusing.
8 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] D9/3 is the original document.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What I myself saw was that we
10 had a document number D9/3, and there was another document D9/3A, and that
11 is the translation, and that is where the difference lies, the only
12 difference. Therefore, the original is the handwritten document and the
13 other is the translation. So where is the problem, Ms. Somers?
14 MS. SOMERS: The reference to 3, Your Honour, is -- we were
15 following 3, which is handwritten, and it was not appearing on the ELMO at
16 all, a typed one, and we weren't sure what the story was, so -- they were
17 reading from. It's okay. It's clear now. I appreciate your clearing it
18 up. Thank you for helping us.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but the version that is on
20 the ELMO is the translation of the original version, Ms. Somers.
21 MS. SOMERS: The original is what we were trying to get at, and
22 that was hidden on the bottom of the ELMO, and we were looking at that
23 document, Your Honour. Thank you very much. You've cleared it up for us.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Please proceed,
25 Mr. Fila.
1 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, please take a look at the original that you received in
3 the envelope from Dzenadija and tell us what you see on the original
5 A. The copy is not a very good one.
6 Q. I am asking you about the original.
7 A. I can't quite see it very well, but in the first part, after the
8 line, is the first 15 days of the month, and the second part is the last
9 15 days of the month. And the date is to be found at the top of the book,
10 top of the log or roster, and we go downwards. Now, I can't see the
11 month, but he worked on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th and was off on the
12 7th. Or if we look at the second column, we can see, next to the dark
13 line, the 16th, 17th, and 18th my father was on duty. I can't see the
14 time. The 19th he was off and he worked again on the 20th.
15 Q. What I wish to learn from you is the following: Does that mean
16 that on the day this was done, the book, the roster, the register, the
17 log, existed?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How can you explain the fact that the Prosecution looked for that
20 roster but couldn't find it? Can you explain that?
21 A. Well, I can't explain that. Perhaps it would be up to the centre,
22 our centre, to explain that, because they provided me with the original
24 Q. Thank you. Take a look at the upper section, and it says
25 something there. It says policajac, does it not, policeman? What does
1 that mean?
2 A. Policeman, an ordinary policeman on the beat, a foot policeman,
3 somebody doing the classical type of police work.
4 Q. So that is the duty roster of an ordinary policeman on the beat?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. You can return the document now. We don't need it any
8 Finally, Mr. Radic, you are the son of Mladjo Radic. Could you,
9 in a few words, explain to us who are your family members now? Who do you
10 have living in your family now?
11 A. In Prijedor there is my mother and three sons. My mother and
12 three sons now live in Prijedor. I am the eldest son.
13 Q. Do any of you work?
14 A. I am the only person that is employed. My mother is employed too
15 but has not been working since the war began, nor does she receive any
17 Q. How high is your salary, if I may ask an industry question?
18 A. My salary is 320 German marks and I have 80 marks' worth of hot
20 Q. So that means that the four of you live on the basis of those 400
21 German marks?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Tell us, please: What kind of father was your father, Mladjo
24 Radic? What was your upbringing? How did he bring you up? What were the
25 relationships in your family?
1 A. Our family was an average worker's family. He grew up in a large
2 family. His mother came from a large family. And we children grew up in
3 a family where our parents worked. We went to school, we were a modest
4 family, we did what -- we worked at school. They went about their own
5 business. We helped them do the agricultural work, because we have a
6 small plot of land. But generally he brought us up to be good people,
7 never to do any ill to others, and I hope we have succeeded in that, but
8 it is up to others to judge this, of course. It is not up to me to talk
9 about myself. But as far as I am able to say, we have always upheld the
10 family dignity and have always saved face, if I can say that.
11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Fila.
13 Would any of the other Defence counsel like to ask any questions?
14 I see Mr. Simic -- Mr. Nikolic -- Mr. Simic would not. Mr. Nikolic is on
15 his feet.
16 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have just
17 one question for this witness.
18 Examined by Mr. Nikolic.
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radic. You said, in answer to a question from
20 Mr. Fila, that you are a policeman today.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I quote your words. You said that you completed all the
23 courses, training courses; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Had you not completed those courses, would you be able to become a
1 policeman, had you not graduated from those courses?
2 A. I said all courses, and today --
3 Q. No. I'm just asking you: Had you not completed those training
4 courses, the courses that you did complete, could you become a policeman
5 without those policemen [as interpreted]?
6 A. Maybe I could be a reserve policeman.
7 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
8 further questions.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No questions from any of the
10 other Defence counsel? No. Thank you.
11 Ms. Susan Somers, your witness for the cross-examination.
12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
14 Q. Mr. Radic, the document which you just were asked about that was
15 on the ELMO, D9/3, the original, I would ask you to take a look at that
16 again for a moment, please, in the original. The original, please. Thank
17 you very much. You were asked by Mr. Fila to take a look at the upper
18 section, and you gave a term in Serbo-Croat that was policajac; correct?
19 You said policajac.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, tell me: Where is that shown? I don't see that word on here
22 at all. I see a different word. I see milicioner. Where did you come up
23 with the term policajac, and is there a difference in your mind?
24 A. No. In the former Yugoslavia, we used to say milicioner for
25 policeman. Today we use the word policajac for policeman. That's the
1 only difference. But it's the same person, the same job, the same thing,
2 which used to be known as milicioner as policeman, and now policeman is
4 Q. And you're absolutely sure about that, a hundred per cent?
5 A. Absolutely 100 per cent.
6 Q. Thank you. When did you become a police officer, exactly?
7 A. I began working on the 1st of April, 1997. That was my first
8 working day in the police force.
9 Q. Have you always worked in the Prijedor police department? Where
10 do you work? Which department are you working in?
11 A. Since the beginning, that is to say, the 1st of April, 1997, I
12 worked in the police station Prijedor 2, and sometime around the new year
13 I was transferred to the security centre and the intervention team.
14 Q. In 1997 who was the chief of Prijedor 2 Police Station, please?
15 A. Then and now, Mr. Ranko Jakovljevic.
16 Q. Your father was working under Simo Drljaca. Do you know from when
17 to when he was working under Simo Drljaca?
18 A. Mr. Simo Drljaca is the chief of the centre. As far as I
19 remember, he was there in the first years of the war. I was 16 or 17 at
20 the time so I can't give you that information. I don't know. But when I
21 came to the police force, that man was no longer there. That is to say he
22 did not have a position of leadership there.
23 Q. You entered the police force at a time when your father was
24 already under indictment. You knew that, did you not?
25 A. Only from the media.
1 Q. The rest of the police department knew your father was under
2 indictment as well, did it not?
3 A. They probably knew only from the media. You couldn't learn
4 anything concrete. It wasn't accessible, any concrete information.
5 Q. Did your father tell you that Simo Drljaca helped him falsify
6 documents to allow him to stay as a police officer after he was indicted?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you know that your father was not permitted to be a police
9 officer after he was indicted?
10 A. Maybe I know that now because I have graduated from all the
11 international courses.
12 Q. In 1997, you were working as a police officer because, as you just
13 told us, you had been trained as a police officer. Were you not told that
14 if you are charged with a crime, you cannot be, during that period of
15 time, a police officer, or is that missing from Yugoslav law?
16 A. I began working on the 1st of April, 1997. And the course for the
17 police force organised by the MUP of Republika Srpska I graduated from,
18 from the 20th of June to the 20th of October, 1998, so perhaps on the 30th
19 of February or 28th or 9th of February, whether it was a leap year or not,
20 or March, I was a civilian, and on the 1st of April I put on the uniform.
21 I completed the course only in 1998.
22 Q. Your father was arrested in February, is that correct, of 1998?
23 A. April.
24 Q. You were a police officer at the time of his arrest, or you had
25 completed your training and were on the road to becoming a police officer?
1 A. No. In 1998, October, I finished the police course and he was
2 arrested on the 8th of April, 1998.
3 Q. Explain, please, what you began working on on the 1st of April,
5 A. I remember my first working day, as anybody else would. I
6 reported to the police station, to the commander there. He looked at the
7 duty roster and told me to go to the Bijelo Dugme restaurant where a
8 patrol of two policemen waited for me, and I spent the whole day on patrol
9 with those two policemen. And so the next few days, I would change
10 patrols but that's the work I did. So I was on the beat with the patrol.
11 Q. So you were acting in capacity of, at the very least, a police
12 officer in training; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you were effectively working as a police officer in training
15 in the same department or region that your father was working in as a
16 police officer without a right to be a police officer. Would you agree
17 with that?
18 A. On the territory of the same Security Service Centre but they are
19 different police stations.
20 Q. If you had been charged with violations of the laws of war, among
21 other crimes against -- international humanitarian law crimes, would you
22 have been allowed to retain your police-officer-in-training status and
23 become certified by IPTF? They would ask you, wouldn't they?
24 A. I would just like to explain one thing. A formal indictment was
25 never received by my father, so all the stories came from the media.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 Under normal circumstances, we know that nobody can work if he is a
2 suspect in a crime of some kind. But there was -- he never received an
3 official request to report to the court or anything like that. And I
4 should like to mention that they were the post-war years and there was a
5 lot of problems on the -- of security and that he -- if he gave himself
6 up, we as a family would have had problems in those post-war years.
7 Q. You are a police officer. What is your understanding of your
8 obligations to uphold the law? Please explain that.
9 A. Every policeman must be honourable -- work honourably and perform
10 his duties professionally and uphold the law, and adhere to the law and
11 the constitution.
12 Q. Do you as a police officer believe that your personal interest
13 takes precedence over the law?
14 A. No. Every policeman who is an honourable policeman has the law
15 first and the constitution, and afterwards -- that is to say, there are no
16 personal interests in that service.
17 Q. Were you on duty the day your father was arrested?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'd like to ask you about these documents which you were
20 explaining something about. There was a reference made during your
21 examination in chief to the Prosecutor seeking documents. Tell me,
22 please, were you able, just to walk in to the Prijedor police department
23 and say, "I want these documents about a person's record, not my own,
24 another person's record," and receive them? Was that all it took?
25 A. No. Like any other citizen, I went -- I asked for an interview
1 with the chief, and I asked -- I asked for a meeting with him in the next
2 day or two, and that person received me. We talked, and I asked him for
3 the document and we saw whether this was -- we discussed whether this was
4 possible -- I asked whether that was possible.
5 Q. Are you telling us that it is in the exclusive discretion of the
6 chief as to whether or not a document is given out or copied? Is that
7 what you're telling us the law is?
8 A. The gentleman who had given me certain documents gave me the
9 documents which are allowed to be presented. And all the documents which
10 came through were requested by the lawyers' office. If that document
11 should not have been available to me because there was another interested
12 party or another vested interest, then I certainly did not receive it at
14 Q. Are you telling me that if the Office of the Prosecutor
15 representative walks in to Marko Dzenadija and says, "I want a copy of the
16 record of Drazenko Radic for a certain day," we can just get it? Is that
17 your position? Just walk in and get it?
18 A. Well, he -- you would probably get it. I followed a certain
19 procedure. I requested a certain document and received what I could. I
20 certainly did not receive all that I requested. I don't know whether
21 those documents which I did not receive and have requested exist at all
22 but all I know is that I did not receive them all.
23 Q. When did you give this document to Mr. Fila?
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila?
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] He never gave that document to Mr. Fila
1 but to Mr. Veljko Guberina, and I received them from Mr. Guberina.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Fila, you will
3 have the opportunity to ask your additional questions. You cannot contest
4 the witness's answers, past or future.
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] He has answered. You can look at the
6 transcript, and he said that the document -- that he gave the documents to
7 Mr. Veljko Guberina.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I know, Mr. Fila, but his
9 answers have to be coherent. Ms. Somers, please mind the time.
10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. When did you give the documents to whatever Defence lawyer asked
12 you to get them?
13 A. I said I got it on the 12th of May, 1998, and on the same day I
14 handed it to a lawyer from the office of Mr. Veljko Guberina, lawyer Nenad
15 Vukasovic who was in the service of Mr. Guberina, who worked for him.
16 Q. Did you tell Mr. Fila when he became your father's lawyer that you
17 had given documents over to this individual, and that particular document
18 among them?
19 A. Yes. I reviewed all the documents which the previous team had
20 given to the then Defence counsel and I don't think that anything was
22 Q. Did your father himself ask you to get that document?
23 A. No. The only thing that my father requested from me personally
24 was when the previous lawyer was visiting him, was a list of people whom
25 he had helped, but my father didn't insist even on that. All that was in
1 question was a list of people who -- whom he had helped. And I needed it
2 for my future work anyway and I succeeded in procuring it.
3 Q. Why did you need it for your future work?
4 A. Mr. -- the Defence counsel from the previous office requested it.
5 Q. You said your future work. Are you acting as an investigator for
6 your father's Defence case?
7 A. No. It is -- I derive a moral satisfaction from attempting to
8 help my father, who is a suspect here, and I'm trying to help as much as I
9 can. It is my own personal wish.
10 Q. Are you using your position as a police officer to get information
11 that you are not entitled to get?
12 A. No. All that I have done I did in my free time. I never
13 mentioned that I was a police officer. If I interviewed any witnesses,
14 potential or otherwise, I never mentioned that in my conversations with
15 them. I never mentioned that I was a police officer.
16 Q. What witnesses did you --
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, how much time do you
18 think you need to finish?
19 MS. SOMERS: May I have three more minutes, if I may? Is it
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] One minute only.
22 MS. SOMERS: One minute.
23 Q. Tell us, please, the names of the witnesses you've interviewed.
24 A. I was hoping you would ask that. Last night, out of my memory, I
25 wrote a list, and if you allow it, it's in my jacket. I could read it out
1 in a closed session because most of those people thanked my father for
2 helping them but for the sake of their own personal safety, they do not
3 dare come here and testify. I have this list with me but I wouldn't like
4 to read it in public.
5 Q. And over what period of time did you interview these witnesses,
7 A. Since his arrest until a little while ago.
8 Q. Does Mr. Fila have a copy of these documents, the lists?
9 A. No. It's a list I wrote for myself last night. I have statements
10 from some of those people. Mr. Fila, I believe, has their statements, the
11 statements of several of them, but those people told me openly that they
12 dare not come here and testify, for reasons of their own safety.
13 Q. Your parents --
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, please finish.
15 Please finish.
16 MS. SOMERS:
17 Q. I just wanted to confirm. The record reflects the fact that your
18 parents are Mladjo and Bosiljka. You have how many brothers, please?
19 A. Two brothers, Marko [as interpreted] and Milos.
20 Q. Last question. When you were at home, were you living at home
21 while your dad was serving in Omarska? Were you living at home with your
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, finish; otherwise I
25 will take the floor away from you.
1 MS. SOMERS: I appreciate that.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. You are abusing your time.
3 MS. SOMERS: My apologies.
4 Thank you very much, Mr. Radic.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, redirect.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] First of all, the name which is on the
7 transcript is Marko, and it's actually Darko. It should be corrected.
8 As for additional questions, I don't have any, but if the Trial
9 Chamber requires it, the list that was mentioned can be brought and
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Nikolic, do you have any
12 additional questions?
13 Mr. Judge Riad? Judge Wald?
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Radic, this is just about the document D9/3.
16 What was on the ELMO -- and the only thing that I was able to see was the
17 handwritten version of the roster for some month, and I think you said you
18 couldn't tell by looking at that which month that was; is that right? The
19 one that was shown, that you couldn't tell what month that was. Did I
20 hear you right or ... Yes. All I'm trying to understand now is the
21 document that you got originally from the Public Security Centre says in
22 the statement that it's the duty rosters for May, June, July, and August.
23 So were there other rosters? And maybe they're in the exhibit that I
24 don't have before me. I'm just trying to clarify now what it is that we
25 have before us. Are there other documents like the one we saw on the ELMO
1 for other months, or do you know? If you don't ...
2 A. I wish to clarify the principles along which these duty rosters
3 are drafted. The worker who comes to work in the morning receives a list
4 from yesterday, and he writes in hand who was on duty, where, the previous
5 day. And the log goes from January, a list of all the workers is made for
6 one month, then one sheet is left empty and another month -- the log for
7 another month is started.
8 JUDGE WALD: It's a very simple question that I just want to get
9 straight. Is what we saw on the ELMO, D9/3, is that the only duty roster
10 that you got from Mr. Dzenadija and handed over to the counsel, or are
11 there other ones for other months, if you know?
12 A. Well, when they were doing the photocopying for May, June, July,
13 and August, that was in the middle of this log, and earlier on in that log
14 and after that there are probably other months.
15 JUDGE WALD: And you think or you -- if it's true that you think
16 that there were other months' rosters that were handed over by you to the
17 counsel, or do you know? I'm just trying to figure out if that's the only
18 piece of paper we have on rosters or whether, to your knowledge, there
19 were other pieces of paper, rosters for other months, such as is suggested
20 by the statement, though not conclusively, that you handed over to the
21 Defence counsel, if you know. Was that the only piece of paper you know
22 about or were there others like that that you think or know you handed
23 over to Defence counsel?
24 A. You mean as far as duty rosters are concerned?
25 JUDGE WALD: Yes. Yes. That's all I'm talking about.
1 A. There are duty rosters for the months that I have mentioned, and
2 there is a cover letter written by Mr. Dzenadija, registered under number
3 14198, where it says: "For purposes of defence of Mladjo Radic," and so
4 on and so forth, "we hereby submit an extract from the duty roster, a log
5 book." That's all I have seen, all I know.
6 JUDGE WALD: And that's what you handed over to the old Defence
7 counsel, the one that preceded Mr. Fila; right? You handed all that that
8 you just talked about over to the prior Defence counsel; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE WALD: That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Wald.
12 Mr. Radic, I myself have a question for you. Do you remember the
13 exact words you have used when talking to the director of the centre when
14 you were asking for this document? What exactly did you tell him?
15 A. I don't remember the exact words, but I said that I need any
16 document that could help me. He told me that I have to check in the local
17 police department in Omarska. That document was there. I reported to the
18 commander. I think his deputy was on duty then. He showed me that
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You said any document that could
21 help you. You said that was what you told the director. Did you say,
22 "Give me any document which could be helpful to me," or did you have in
23 mind, already then, that document, this particular one?
24 A. I was talking primarily about duty rosters. That was my primary
25 interest because that was what the Defence counsel had requested.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Why duty rosters?
2 A. That was what the Defence counsel requested. He was with me in
3 the office that day. And when the chief got the copies, he handed them to
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] All right. And when the chief
6 was giving you the documents, the Defence counsel was present?
7 A. No. As I said, I was at a meeting in my own police station. The
8 Defence counsel had come to -- sorry. The chief had come to meet the
9 people, because he took over that duty just a month or so before. He
10 wanted to meet everyone.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Radic.
12 Thank you for having come. I think it was a pleasure. We wish you a safe
13 journey home.
14 I see Mr. Fila is on his feet. Shall I give you the floor?
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I only wished, in connection with Judge
16 Wald's question --
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I wish to wait for the
18 interpretation to finish. Mr. Fila, proceed.
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] If Your Honours would look at document
20 D9/3, on the back of the original you would find the answer to the
21 question put by Judge Wald. There is the original stamp and the signature
22 of Mr. Dzenadija. It was not shown on our computer screens. It's on the
23 back of the document.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you very
25 much. I would like the usher to see this witness out.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, I believe we no
3 longer have a problem with the sequence of witnesses. In any case, let me
4 just make a remark.
5 Ms. Somers, Mr. Waidyaratne is on your side. He can tell you all
6 the problems we've had in this trial with changes of sequences, changes of
7 lists on both -- on the part of both sides. Perhaps before you make
8 another objection you should ask Mr. Waidyaratne for advice. You have not
9 been here since the beginning. I understand that. As I told you
10 yesterday, I am trying and the Trial Chamber is trying to maintain a
11 balance between the parties. I don't know if ultimately I should make a
12 report so that both parties understand the reaction of this Trial Chamber,
13 because there have been many incidents indeed. And I understand that we
14 are here almost at the end of the trial. We have seen Mr. Niemann,
15 Ms. Hollis, Mr. Keegan, then again Ms. Hollis, and now you as the
16 Prosecutor in charge of this trial. But we have to bring this trial to an
17 end. We have great difficulties in doing so.
18 And I want to tell you another thing. This Chamber knows well the
19 state of the affairs where the Prosecutor cannot continue the case because
20 they want to change the team. The Prosecution team is constantly
21 changing, without any consideration. I must say this also in public,
22 because you also have to understand the difficulties we are encountering
23 in conducting this trial. Please bear in mind these issues. Today we
24 have only two witnesses. That means that you have been prepared for both
25 of them, so it makes no sense to object; at least, that is my opinion.
1 I would like to ask Mr. Simic [sic] for some more patience. I am
2 reacting pedagogically, so to speak, to try to make you see that it's
3 useless to make such objections. We must bear in mind that we have to
4 facilitate the work of others. It's always a good idea.
5 We will now continue. I see that you wish to respond. Yes,
6 Ms. Somers.
7 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour, and I want to thank you. I'll
8 only take one minute. I do not want to cut into counsel's time but I want
9 to make it clear to the Chamber that I am painfully aware of the
10 difficulties that this Chamber has had in effectively having a steady
11 staff, and as I indicated when I was assigned to this case, that barring
12 my death, I hope to finish this case timely and very expeditiously in
13 terms of procedure.
14 My concern, so the Chamber knows, is that the order is important
15 for us. I need to release a member of my staff but more importantly, as
16 we have spent, perhaps with -- more than any other Defence team, we have
17 spent a lot of time, including meetings just recently, with the Radic
18 Defence team and we were handed these documents. We had face-to-face
19 meetings which I think the Chamber has encouraged us to do. We are trying
20 to puts issues that don't need to waste the time of the Chamber to bed
21 outside of the courtroom. And my concern is that having had a number of
22 meetings, phone calls and letters - and I'm sure that my learned opponents
23 would agree with this - the change was worked on us really with surprise
24 and the disappointment I think is perhaps what the Chamber needs to know.
25 I want to see things finish as well. We all have next cases to move on to
1 and other things to do. And should there have been any inconvenience or
2 misunderstanding, we apologise. The Prosecution is committed to seeing
3 this case through fairly and effectively and efficiently.
4 Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you, Ms.
7 Mr. Jovanovic, you have the floor.
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. In
9 response to what my learned colleague said, I wish to say there has been
10 only one minor change on the whole, instead of Drazenko Radic who was
11 supposed to testify yesterday, Radko Radic came yesterday. That was the
12 only change. And I would now like to invite in witness Nebojsa Jokic.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You will now read the solemn
15 declaration handed to you by the usher.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: NEBOJSA JOKIC
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may sit down, please.
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for coming.
23 You are going to be answering questions posed to you by Mr. Jovanovic
24 first. Your witness, Mr. Jovanovic.
25 Examined by Mr. Jovanovic:
1 Q. Sir, could you please tell us your name?
2 A. Nebojsa Jokic.
3 Q. When were you born?
4 A. The 8th of June, 1955.
5 Q. Where?
6 A. In Omarska.
7 Q. Where do you live now?
8 A. In Omarska.
9 Q. What is your profession?
10 A. I'm a driver and a car mechanic.
11 Q. Where did you work, in which company?
12 A. At the moment, I'm working in the Ljubija mine at Omarska.
13 Q. Did you work in a different company before that?
14 A. Before that, I worked in AutoTransport Prijedor for about nine or
15 ten years.
16 Q. Mr. Jokic, could you please pause after my question in order for
17 the interpretation to be done?
20 A. (redacted)
21 Q. What was your job at that company?
22 A. I drove a bus at AutoTransport.
23 Q. (redacted)
24 A. (redacted)
25 Q. What do you remember about that person, during the time that you
1 worked together?
2 A. (redacted)
3 specific. Her conduct was like that. It didn't really inspire confidence
4 in her as a colleague. That was how she behaved.
5 Q. You came to that conclusion based on what? Did something happen
6 or is that just your opinion?
7 A. Well, things did happen at AutoTransport. There was disciplinary
8 proceedings that was conducted (redacted)
15 I left AutoTransport to go to Rudnik, to the mine, to go to the
16 mine. Then afterwards I met with colleagues that I used to work with -
17 and I still meet with them today - and we talked, and at some point, I
18 mentioned certain colleagues, to see where they were. They told me this
19 person drives for Germany, this persons drives there, the conductors are
20 doing this or that and so on. I started to work at the mine. I worked as
21 a mechanic for a while there, and then after that, I worked there as a
23 Q. I apologise. In those conversations that you just mentioned, did
24 you ask your colleagues from your former company (redacted)?
25 A. Yes, I did. And later they would mention that she had to appear
2 Q. Thank you. What is your attitude towards that colleague that we
3 were talking about? Did you like to work with her?
4 A. No, not really. Because at some point, somebody said, "If she's
5 taking money, then you would be sharing it." And I never shared money
6 like that with any conductor, if any conductor did such a thing. So I
7 didn't want to work with her any more.
8 Q. Did you say anything to that effect to anybody?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jokic. I have something else to ask you. In 1992,
11 the investigation centre Omarska was established, the Omarska camp. Did
12 you ever in any capacity spend any time in the investigation centre at the
13 Omarska camp?
14 A. No, I did not. I didn't have any need to do so. I didn't have
15 any need to go there. So that is why I don't know.
16 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. That will suffice. After the
17 AutoTransport company where you worked as a driver, you moved to the mine
18 to work?
19 A. Yes. This was in 1985.
20 Q. While you were working in the Omarska mine, could you please tell
21 us what water did you and your colleagues drink at work?
22 A. The water that we used, it was in taps, came from a tap in the
23 bathrooms, in the toilet. We also had outside taps so that we could wash
24 our footwear, and that water, it was possible to drink it.
25 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 Honours. I have no more questions.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Any questions from the other
3 Defence counsel? No? There don't seem to be. Mr. Nikolic? Mr. Jovan
4 Simic, would you like to ask anything? No? Very well. Mr. Waidyaratne,
5 then, your witness.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
7 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Jokic, when did you leave the AutoTransport? Was that in
10 A. In 1985. I think it was in the month of June.
11 Q. After that, you worked in the Omarska mine, am I correct?
12 A. Yes. After that, I worked in the Omarska mine, that's right.
13 Q. So you were not in contact with the person whom you referred to as
15 A. Not as a colleague at work, but we would meet on the street.
16 Sometimes we would sit down, have a drink maybe, because we hadn't seen
17 each other for a while.
18 Q. Can you tell us as to why you left AutoTransport in 1985?
19 A. I went to the mine because it was closer to my house and the pay
20 was better.
21 Q. And at the mine, you were a heavy-vehicle driver; is that correct?
22 A. First I worked as a car mechanic and then I drove heavy vehicles.
23 Q. You have a great knowledge with regard to vehicles and maintenance
24 of vehicles?
25 A. Yes, since I'm a mechanic. I can also drive all types of
1 vehicles, from a regular passenger vehicle to heavy vehicles, and also I
2 am a mechanic.
3 Q. Mr. Jokic, can you tell us as to what a firefighters' IMV is, what
4 does that vehicle mean?
5 A. An IMV firefighters' vehicle was used in case of a fire. It was
6 1.600 cc.'s, and it's a fire engine. It had water hoses in the back,
7 fire-fighting equipment, which the firefighters used in their work.
8 Q. What is a vehicle which is a referred to as a Niva PD?
9 A. And it's a Lada Niva. It's a heavy-terrain vehicle, and it was
10 used to go to the actual mine, to the mouth of the mine where it was
12 Q. Have you driven any of these vehicles?
13 A. Yes, I have, occasionally.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Jokic, you said that in 1992 -- could you tell us in
15 1992, in May, as to where you were?
16 A. In May, 1992, I was in Lamovita.
17 Q. Was it -- were you attached, were you mobilised?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. Was it the 343 Motorised Brigade?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. Was it a special unit under the command of Cigo, also known as
22 Momcilo Radanovic?
23 A. No.
24 Q. What was your unit?
25 A. I was a regular soldier of the 343rd Brigade.
1 Q. Who was your commander?
2 A. I really couldn't say right now who the commander of the battalion
3 was. I really don't know his name any more.
4 Q. Who was your immediate commander? Who was in charge of you when
5 you were in Lamovita, according to you?
6 A. We were there on guard duty. For a while, I think it was Nenad
7 Panic but I don't remember exactly. I don't know that guy.
8 Q. Mr. Jokic, in the month of June, what were you assigned to do?
9 A. We were conducting village watch, watches.
10 Q. Did you drive a Firefighter IMV on the 7th of June, 1992?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Ostoja Trebovac, who was
13 attached to the mine, Omarska mine?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Was he the person who issued petrol and gasoline to the vehicles?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. How do you know Mr. Ostoja? What was he in the Omarska camp?
18 A. He worked on the loader before.
19 Q. Did you accept petrol or gasoline for a vehicle number Niva
20 PD716-62 on the 9th of June in 1992 from the Omarska mine?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What did you do on that day, on the 9th of June, 1992? Where were
24 A. I was in Lamovita.
25 Q. To take the gasoline or petrol, did you go to the Omarska mine?
1 A. I did. I took a roundabout road.
2 Q. Mr. Jokic, have you been to the Omarska mine during the month of
3 June and July?
4 A. No. Just once I did go there, when we all went to get petrol.
5 After that I didn't go. So I went because of the petrol.
6 Q. So that means you have -- in your direct examination you said that
7 you had not been to the Omarska mine; now you say that you have been
8 once. Is that correct?
9 A. No. No. You come to the petrol station from the other side, and
10 it's a completely roundabout road to get there.
11 Q. Mr. Jokic, have you been to the Omarska mine where the people were
12 detained; yes or no?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You said that when you served in the 343rd Motorised Brigade your
15 function was to -- was at Lamovita. What did you do in Lamovita?
16 A. There were lines there from Lamovita to Kozara.
17 Q. Were you involved in the action just taken in Kozarac?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What was your function exactly? Could you explain it or describe
21 A. To be a guard in the trenches, on the lines.
22 Q. Mr. Jokic, just one matter before I conclude. You spoke about a
23 disciplinary action taken against (redacted) in your direct examination;
24 am I correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you know in which year it was or when it was?
2 A. I think it was maybe in 1979 or 1980.
3 Q. Before you left the AutoTransport?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you complain? You said that she worked as a conductor in the
6 bus that you drove. Did you complain or did you know specifically of any
7 acts committed (redacted); yes or no?
8 A. I know about that particular disciplinary measure.
9 Q. Which was in 1979, you say?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Please bear with me, Your Honour.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour. That concludes my
14 cross. Thank you.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovanovic, any additional
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
18 just one question.
19 Re-examined by Mr. Jovanovic:
20 Q. Mr. Jokic, you worked in the Omarska mine. I assume that you know
21 where all the different buildings are, where the administration building
22 is, the hangar. Do you know?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Can you please explain to us where the petrol station is in
25 relation to those buildings, and how do you get to it?
1 A. The petrol station, looking from the direction of Omarska towards
2 the mine, is about 150 to 200 metres away from those buildings, and you
3 can reach it from the direction of Gradina, also from the direction of
4 Maricka and from the direction of the main gate.
5 Q. Which way did you use to get to it?
6 A. From the direction of Gradina.
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no more
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
10 Judge Fouad Riad has the floor. No questions.
11 Madam Judge Wald.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE WALD: I just have one that I wanted to clarify. After you
14 left AutoTransport - I don't have it in front of me and maybe I don't
15 remember it correctly - I thought I heard you testify that you would
16 occasionally maybe see (redacted) and sit down and have a cup of coffee
17 or something. Was that right or not?
18 A. Yes. Yes. But it was very brief, perhaps five minutes, because I
19 was in a hurry.
20 JUDGE WALD: Okay. In your earlier statement that we got you had
21 said: [As read] "I saw -- after I left Transport, I saw her twice at
22 most, and that in passing on the street. We exchanged greetings and
23 didn't stop to speak." But my basic question is: You told us that you
24 didn't like working with her because you didn't have -- there was no
25 confidence there, and that you told your superiors you didn't want to work
1 with her. And I'm just trying to reconcile that with the fact that if you
2 felt that way about her, that afterwards when you saw her, you would want
3 to sit down and have a cup of coffee with her. Do you want to comment on
5 A. Yes, of course. Why not? We don't have long memories, so at that
6 moment it didn't matter enough for me not to sit down and have coffee with
7 her. But we didn't discuss work or any problems.
8 JUDGE WALD: No, I understand that. But you, if I'm citing you
9 correctly, after you were both gone -- or after you were gone from
10 AutoTransport, you were -- you thought it tolerable enough so that you
11 were willing to sit down and just chat with her about -- for a couple of
12 minutes if you saw her, occasionally, very occasionally; right?
13 A. Why not?
14 JUDGE WALD: All right. It's a good answer. Thank you.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jokic, I have a couple of
16 questions for you myself. When you first saw (redacted) and your first
17 impressions, you said she was specific, and then you talked about
18 confidence, that you lacked confidence in her. Now, what did you want to
19 say that she had this specific type of appearance?
20 A. Yes. She would wear jeans, sometimes she would smoke, so that she
21 looked sort of specific. She never wore dresses or anything like that.
22 She would wear sneakers, she had short hair, she had a sort of man's
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And why? What do you mean about
25 the smoking business? Why was that unusual?
1 A. Cigarettes.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But do you think that smoking is
3 only for men? Is that what you want to say?
4 A. No.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another question. You had
6 coffee with (redacted), you said five minutes. How many times was that?
7 A. Once.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just once?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And five minutes?
11 A. Maybe it wasn't even five minutes, because I was in a hurry.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Mr. Jokic, we
13 have no further questions for you. We thank you very much for coming to
14 the Tribunal and we wish you a safe journey back to your place of
15 residence. The usher will now accompany you out of the courtroom.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too for having received me
17 and hearing my testimony here.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us now take a break, after
21 which we shall give the rulings, a 45-minute break.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.53 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.06 p.m.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
25 Before the Chamber communicates its decisions, I think that there
1 are two aspects that need to be discussed. The first question is to see
2 how we stand with respect to the reports of Mr. Beatovic -- the report of
3 Mr. Beatovic. Once -- (redacted) said yesterday that there were
4 some negotiations underway between the parties, and I think we ought to be
5 informed of the results of those negotiations. The second question that
6 needs to be discussed beforehand is the situation with respect to the
7 Zigic defence and the appearance of four witnesses who have already been
8 presented by the Prosecution. The Prosecution has not responded to the
9 request and we should like to know what the position is before we render a
11 I am now going to give the floor to Ms. Susan Somers to bring us
12 up to date with respect to the report of Mr. Beatovic because yesterday,
13 during the hearing, Ms. Susan Somers announced that the parties would be
14 meeting to discuss this issue. So may we have an update and if necessary
15 I can hear Mr. Fila after that. Ms. Somers, you have the floor.
16 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour. Just before we
17 resumed, I spoke again to both Mr. Jovanovic and Mr. Fila, having
18 discussed this initially with Mr. Jovanovic a week ago Thursday. Our
19 suggestion as we relayed - and I don't know whether or not counsel will
20 agree to it - is on the issues which the court in Kunarac felt had
21 relevance pursuant to Rule 101 about sentencing, I think that would be --
22 I think the Chamber should have that in front of it. A good portion of
23 the report -- and I'm not sure if the Chamber has had a chance -- it's a
24 bit lengthy and a bit wordy but it talks about elements and the criticism
25 leading to a finding of effective irrelevance was that it dealt with a
1 situation of peacetime analysis of crimes, perhaps more one-on-one or in a
2 civilian structure not dealing with rape as a crime in war, which was what
3 the discussion centred around principally in the Beatovic report. That
4 would be -- and I had indicated in our initial response under Rule 94 bis
5 that we thought its relevance as to the crimes alleged under the
6 circumstances of a camp was very -- was at best limited and probably not
7 there at all.
8 If in fact, though, the very nature of the crime had certain
9 sentencing consequences in the former Yugoslavia and because of the
10 requirements of what may be considered -- not mandatorily but what may be
11 considered in sentencing, should that become an issue, I think the Chamber
12 has to have something before it and we cannot produce anything better,
13 frankly, at this point. And therefore, if counsel agrees, on the aspects
14 of sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating, then that which was
15 either testified to or which is contained in the incident report, I think
16 would be appropriate. Again, I don't know how much time the Chamber has
17 had to actually review it but it seems that there is a sufficient amount
18 there that if part of the report were stricken, by agreement, and just the
19 sentencing aspects went in, we would really have no problem with that.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, do you wish to respond
21 and add anything?
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with all due respect and
23 sympathies towards Ms. Somers, I really don't see how you can adopt a
24 finding only half, half of it, and not adopt the other half, without the
25 Chamber deciding. Now, if Ms. Somers agrees, could I put it in the
1 following way? I have boundless confidence in this Trial Chamber, and you
2 yourselves will be able to decide what you're going to accept from that
3 report and what not, and I say in advance that I will not object to
4 anything you decide to do.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.
6 As to the other matter in hand: As you know, among the four witnesses who
7 would be called, the Defence -- just one moment, please. I was saying the
8 Zigic Defence will be naming Witness R, and that will be the subject of a
9 separate decision. The Defence counsels of Zigic do not precisely define
10 the reasons for which they wish the three witnesses to -- who have already
11 testified -- and I'm trying to see whether they were protected witnesses
12 or not, but you have the request yourself. And as I was saying, the
13 Prosecutor has not stated his views with regard to that subject, so I
14 should like to hear the Prosecution on that subject.
15 Ms. Susan Somers, please.
16 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. In fact, if I understand,
17 because there has been no separate motion that we have received, but if I
18 understand, it would be from the revised list of witnesses for the accused
19 Zigic which was filed on the 15th of February. There are four names,
20 listed as 20 to 23. None of these witnesses, I am told by my colleagues
21 who were present during the earlier part of the trial, testified. None of
22 them testified for the Prosecution. If the Chamber would like me to go
23 into closed session for just -- a private session for a moment just to
24 make sure that we're citing the same names, because I have no other
25 documents before me, only this revised list. Would it be possible, just
1 for a moment, to make sure we're talking about the same people, literally
2 for a second?
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, perhaps we can
4 do something else, and that is to give the floor to the Zigic Defence
5 counsel first. Which of you will be taking the floor? It is Mr. --
6 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I feel the
7 need to introduce myself first of all. My name is Miodrag Deretic, a
8 lawyer from Prijedor, and I am on the Defence team of the accused
9 Mr. Zoran Zigic.
10 As far as the question you raised is concerned, we previously
11 requested, while I was not on the team myself, that we adopt the
12 transcript for Witness R, who testified in the Tadic case, in the Tadic
13 trial, with respect to Counts 6 and 7, paragraph 37(C). As to the other
14 three individuals, other three witnesses, we consider, and that is why we
15 put the motion forward, that they can tell this Trial Chamber a great deal
16 with respect to the facts, the facts concerning the accusation of Zoran
17 Zigic and related to the events that took place in the Omarska
18 investigation centre or camp and in Keraterm as well. And in that sense,
19 as my learned colleague of the Prosecution has just said -- that is to
20 say, we submitted a list, a revised list of witnesses - I think this was
21 done on the 16th of February, if I'm not mistaken - and so far we have not
22 heard the Trial Chamber's opinion on that.
23 Unfortunately, I also have to state here and now that on Monday we
24 could submit a third version of these witnesses, and this in view of the
25 fact that everything -- all the things that happened with respect to the
1 Zigic Defence case. I should like to beg the Court's indulgence that our
2 request will be met by the Trial Chamber, the request with respect to the
3 revised list of witnesses that we shall be presenting on Monday, as I say.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, are matters
5 clearer now? I hope you're looking at the right document.
6 MS. SOMERS: I am looking at the one from -- it looks like a
7 filing of -- it says the 15th of February, Your Honour. And we responded
8 to the last witness list of the 21st. I think this one may have -- I'm
9 not sure if there was a gap in our response, and if so, we apologise, both
10 to the Chamber and to counsel.
11 Witness R's issue we did address in a motion, a response to their
12 motion, and that was that we would not oppose the introduction of the
13 transcript. We thought that was reasonable. That was combined with a
14 motion, a joint motion with the accused Kos.
15 The other named persons - again, I hope they're the same
16 persons - did not testify for the Prosecution but may testify in
17 another -- in a sister case and may have protected status in that case.
18 However, they have not come in for the Prosecution in its case in chief.
19 There are other names listed that cause us very grave concern, and
20 the Chamber had not addressed them, and they concern accused in other
21 cases. And I think that poses a very great problem in the absence of
22 knowing whether or not counsel for the accused in other cases is aware
23 that these individuals have been listed. And those two names appear,
24 number 18 and 19 on the list that was filed the 15th of February, accused
25 in the Keraterm case.
1 Given the direction in which cross-examination can go, I think
2 there would be very serious ethical considerations if counsel were not
3 aware of it, and I would certainly hope -- I would ask the Chamber for an
4 order giving an assurance that this matter is covered. It would put us in
5 an untenable position and I think it would also cause the Chamber some
6 serious problems.
7 Because of the fact that we did not call the other four civilian
8 witnesses, I think if the Chamber is minded to dispose of the Witness R
9 issue on the transcript, we do not oppose that. And as to the other
10 three, there may be a need for protective measures, and I can only ask if
11 we can check with the Keraterm team and see if this has become an issue,
12 lest there be a conflict in status. But as to us, we did not call them at
13 any point in time.
14 JUDGE WALD: Can I just clarify something?
15 MS. SOMERS: Yes.
16 JUDGE WALD: Does that mean that if the Defence wish to call them
17 and the witnesses wish to appear and the protective business is taken care
18 of, then you don't have any objection? I mean, it's not clear to me what
19 your position is. Just those three. I've got R and never mind the
20 accused. Just those three.
21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I am not sure that the witnesses know
22 they are listed. If in fact they are willing to come in and so represent,
23 then I think it's out of our hands because the measures were brought on
24 their behalf based on what they would have asked for at the time.
25 JUDGE WALD: So your position basically is you don't have any
1 responsibility except to warn us that somebody should make sure any
2 protective measures are taken care of, but if they -- you don't have any
3 responsibility for producing them for the defence, and if they want to
4 come in on their own and their counsel are all apprised of all of the
5 problems and they come in, you're not making any objection; is that
7 MS. SOMERS: This is as to the accused or as to the --
8 JUDGE WALD: No, just the three.
9 MS. SOMERS: The three? The three, Your Honour, I think that is
10 the witnesses' call absolutely.
11 JUDGE WALD: All right.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that what we can decide
13 here and now with respect to this question of list of witnesses for the
14 accused Zigic is to say that we will wait. If I understand Mr. Deretic
15 correctly, he said that perhaps next Monday he's going to consider another
16 list. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Deretic, to say that?
17 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that you have
18 understood me absolutely correctly, but if I may, may I add a sentence
19 here? And that is that my learned colleague, Mr. Slobodan Stojanovic, has
20 already talked to the Prosecution with respect to the testimonies of these
21 three witnesses, and that she was against it, and that is why we raised
22 the question. And we would like to have the Trial Chamber make a
23 decision, in view of the fact that our learned colleague of the
24 Prosecution was opposed to it. Thank you.
25 MS. SOMERS: May I take a moment? Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 Witness R, if this is about Witness R -- oh, okay. Any other witnesses?
2 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] No.
3 MS. SOMERS: No. No issues. I do want to make sure that the
4 Chamber is clear that when we filed a response it was because new
5 witnesses were added to 65 ter without the consent of the Chamber, which
6 is required under the rules. Individual objections, I think, are the
7 subject now, but just so the Chamber knows, we did respond with an
8 objection then. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] At all events, I think that it
10 would be better not to make a decision with respect to the witness list
11 for the accused Zigic as we have already heard that next Monday we are
12 going to be faced with a different list. So let us wait and see. And
13 that is the point that Ms. Somers has been making. Authorisation by the
14 Trial Chamber will be needed to change the list that has been fixed with
15 respect to Rule 95 ter. We will have to show discipline in our work. So
16 if a list has been admitted, and if it is known by the parties, disclosed
17 to both parties, the modification of such a list can only take place with
18 the authorisation of the Trial Chamber. So we are not going to take a
19 decision in that matter now but we are going to wait until Monday.
20 The decisions that we can take here and now are the following:
21 The decisions with respect to the motions, the motions by the defence
22 counsels of Zigic and Kos, with respect to the testimony of Witness R; and
23 the admission into evidence of the testimony of Witness R. And it is upon
24 this subject that the Chamber renders its decision.
25 On the 19th of February, 2001, the Defence of the accused Zigic
1 filed a motion for the issuance of a restraining order with respect to the
2 testimony of Witness R, who testified on the 17th of July, 1996, in the
3 Tadic trial, and that he will testify again before this Trial Chamber.
4 Similarly, the Defence of the accused Mr. Zigic has requested that the
5 transcript of the hearing of Witness R be admitted into evidence.
6 On the same day, the Defence of the accused Kos filed a motion for
7 the admission of -- into evidence of the audience of Witness R. On the
8 2nd of March, 2001, the Prosecution responded and said that he was not in
9 opposition to the admission of the transcript of the hearing and this was
10 reiterated by them today, and that if the Chamber was to call Witness R,
11 the address of that witness must not be communicated to anybody but the
12 Trial Chamber, only to the Trial Chamber.
13 The Chamber notes that the accusation and the Defence of the
14 accused Kos, as well as the Defence counsel of the accused Zigic, at least
15 as a subsidiary, are in agreement with respect to the admission of the
16 transcript of Witness R into evidence.
17 In light of this agreement, which is not manifestly contrary to an
18 equitable trial or the interests of justice, the Chamber considers that it
19 is not necessary to render any coercive measures with respect to Witness
20 R. Therefore, the Trial Chamber decides to accept the transcript of the
21 testimony of Witness R, with the caveat that it does not -- it will not at
22 this time state what the -- what weight it will give to that evidence.
23 That is the decision.
24 Second, the second decision is with respect to the adoption of the
25 expert witnesses in Mr. Radic's defence, and therefore we are rendering
1 the following decision.
2 On the 31th of January, 2001, the defence of Mr. Radic proposed
3 the admission into evidence of the reports of the following expert
4 witnesses: Madam Ana Najman, Mr. Bernard van den Bussche, Mr. Nenad
5 Kecmanovic, and Mr. Stanko Beatovic.
6 The reports of the psychiatric and psychological experts, of
7 Mr. Bernard van den Bussche and Madam Ana Najman are part of the file
8 already, as ordered by the Trial Chamber, and therefore they will have the
9 reference numbers accorded them by the Registry. The parties can simply
10 formulate their observations and the Chamber will then attach weight to
12 After the observations made by the Prosecution with respect to
13 Ms. Najman's report, the Trial Chamber has authorised the
14 cross-examination of this, so that on the 6th of March, 2001, the
15 Prosecution did have the possibility of expressing its viewpoint, that is
16 to say its reasons, stipulating its reasons.
17 The Chamber also notes that the observations made by the
18 Prosecution with respect to the report of Mr. van den Bussche, according
19 to which the report was not compiled in conformity with the norms of his
20 profession, the Chamber decides that the Prosecution will have at its
21 disposal 20 minutes for cross-examination of this same expert witness with
22 respect to those points, in other words, the report -- in other words, in
23 conformity with the norms of the profession.
24 The report of Mr. Beatovic with respect to legislation on rape in
25 the ex-Yugoslavia, the Chamber notes that this report has to do with the
1 question of applicable law in ex-Yugoslavia in the matter of rape in view
2 of the fact that the accused Radic has been charged with that crime. The
3 Defence of the accused Radic -- the Defence has stated that the report by
4 Mr. Beatovic is not relevant and, yesterday, during the proceedings, Ms.
5 Somers announced that the two parties would be meeting to discuss the
6 report once again. Ms. Somers has just told us -- has just briefed us of
7 the situation and brought us up to date.
8 Therefore, faced with a situation of this kind, the Trial Chamber
9 cannot deny all probative value to this report and adopts into evidence it
10 without speaking of the weight that it will ascribe to that document. The
11 accusation will have at its disposal 20 minutes to present its own views
12 with respect to this report.
13 The decision on the motion -- on the report by Mr. Kecmanovic with
14 respect to an analysis of the armed conflict in Yugoslavia, the Chamber
15 notes that this report deals with the political and historical aspects of
16 the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia. The Prosecution objected to the adoption
17 of the report by Mr. Kecmanovic because, in their opinion, the report is
18 irrelevant. The accusation -- the Prosecution wishes to hold a
19 cross-examination of that expert witness, if the report adopts -- if the
20 Chamber adopts the report, and has also said that it intends to make a
21 written response. The Defence has therefore decided not to call
22 Mr. Kecmanovic to testify.
23 The Chamber adopts the report of Mr. Kecmanovic, together with the
24 written response from the Prosecution, without attaching weight to the
25 evidence in -- at this stage of the trial.
1 Those are the oral decisions which the Chamber has made, and we
2 should also like to tell you that next week there will be three written
3 decisions, three written rulings. That is as much as I can tell you at
4 this point in time.
5 Ms. Susan Somers.
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I ask just for a clarification. On
7 the 20 minutes as to van den Bussche and Beatovic, is that 20 minutes of
8 live cross-examination the Chamber is giving us? I wasn't clear when it
9 said "observations." Is it live cross-examination we will be able to have
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Deretic on his feet.
14 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Just a second,
16 Mr. Deretic. I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Fila.
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] If I understood correctly, next week
18 both experts are to appear before the Trial Chamber, Beatovic and
19 van den Bussche. All right. Because I don't know this latter gentleman,
20 the registry will inform me when he's able to appear and I will make my
21 own arrangements. And as far as Mr. Beatovic is concerned, I will contact
22 him myself and we'll bring him in somehow.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask for the good
24 offices of the registry to assist us in this matter, and I count on their
25 cooperation. Isn't that so, Madam Registar?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. We can count
3 on the registry, then.
4 You have the floor, Mr. Deretic.
5 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I have
6 two more questions to raise and I would appreciate your assistance and
7 opinion on them. The first one relates to the date. In fact, I would
8 like to ask whether there are any changes in the schedule of presentation
9 of Prosecution witnesses concerning the accused Zigic. Is it the 26th of
10 March and is it still true that we will have three weeks running?
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I can already answer. We have
12 not made any changes in the schedule. We still have a very tight schedule
13 and we are trying to keep to it as much as we can. So we will stand by
14 the dates that we have determined and which have been notified to you.
15 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] My other question is the following:
16 My colleague Mitrovic is our legal advisor on our team, and we would like
17 to ask the Chamber's permission that Ms. Ljiljana Mitrovic be allowed to
18 question the witnesses presented by the Defence. And we have already
19 addressed this question to the accused, who is in agreement, and we have
20 also addressed this question to the registry, which informed us that we
21 should ask the Trial Chamber. In case the Trial Chamber agrees, the
22 status of my colleague, Ms. Mitrovic would not change; she would remain on
23 the team as in the capacity of a legal advisor. Thank you very much.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, I would only like
1 to make one observation. Your request would have been more appropriate
2 yesterday, but we are going to consider it anyway. I'm not sure if you
3 understand why I'm saying this. Because we are treating parties equitably
4 here and we have already treated the same case with respect to Jelena
5 Nikolic. So yesterday would have been a more appropriate time to address
6 this, but thank you very much for this suggestion.
7 I think we have no more issues to address now, which means that we
8 shall resume our work on Monday, 9.20, and we have finished for today.
9 Thank you.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.41 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th day of March,
12 2001, at 9.20 a.m.