1 Tuesday, 8 May 2001
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.23 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, please be seated.
6 Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth,
7 the interpreters, the Registry staff, the counsel for the Prosecution and
8 for the Defence.
9 We will resume our case today and it is Mr. Fila's turn to finish
10 his re-examination of the witness.
11 Mr. Jovan Simic, yes.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise for this brief
13 interruption. We would seek permission from the Trial Chamber that our
14 legal assistant, Mr. -- Professor Zivanovic attend the proceedings this
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, from the
17 standpoint of the Registry, is everything in order as regards
18 Mr. Zivanovic?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. President, this is the first that I've learned
20 that he was going to be present.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.
22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we spoke to the
23 Registrar. Mr. Rohde is not present but we spoke to his assistants and
24 they said that there would be no problems if the Trial Chamber agrees. As
25 far as the paperwork is concerned, everything is in order. It is just up
1 to the Trial Chamber to allow him to be present in the courtroom.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We just wish to check if
3 everything is in order out of precaution, we have to make sure that the
4 rules are fully respected. So very well.
5 Can Mr. Radic go to the witness box, please.
6 [The accused Radic takes the stand]
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] In the meantime, may I take advantage
8 of the time to convey to you, Mr. President, that Mr. Saxon and myself
9 discussed the possibility of tendering this document that I referred to.
10 What was disputed was whether I wanted the statement to be admitted into
11 evidence as evidence. All I am requesting is that to show that this is a
12 manipulation. That his statement was incorrectly translated, and that the
13 witness was the victim of manipulation, and that is all that I am trying
14 to show through this document.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Radic, you may be seated.
16 Mr. Fila, do you have any questions?
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: May I simply make a comment that the record, at least
20 the English translation, shows what appears to be a comment by Mr. Fila
21 regarding this witness and whether he was a victim of manipulation or not,
22 and that is something that I know Mr. Fila, I believe, is going to try to
23 show through this document, but obviously it hasn't been shown yet and
24 that will be for the Trial Chamber to determine upon viewing the evidence
25 of this witness. Thank you.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, do you have any
2 comment to make?
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No. On the contrary, I fully agree
4 with what Mr. Saxon has said. I just wanted to explain the purpose of
5 this statement.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm sorry for
8 interrupting you, but yesterday during the cross-examination by Mr. Saxon,
9 something has been wrongly translated in the documents of the Prosecution,
10 and the whole line of questions followed that mistranslation. So I would
11 like to clarify it before Your Honours start with the questioning of
12 Mr. Radic.
13 I informed the Prosecution. I delivered it to the interpreters
14 booths, and I gave it to Madam Registrar who gave the translation, the
15 original, to you. So I hope we'll clarify the matter.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON: Mr. Lukic brought to the Prosecution's attention that
18 there appears to be an error in the translation, the English translation
19 of the -- in the record of interview of the accused Kvocka that has
20 already been admitted into evidence, I believe it is Exhibit 3/203.
21 Mr. Lukic pointed out to the Prosecution that on the bottom of
22 page 174 in the B/C/S version and at the bottom which would be the bottom
23 of page 175 in the English version, there appears to be an error in the
24 English translation and it is true that I did question Mr. Radic yesterday
25 on this section of the record of interview.
1 I apologise, Your Honour, I have misspoken this is not from
2 Mr. Kvocka's record of interview this is from Mr. Radic's record of
3 interview I apologise. This was submitted yesterday as Prosecution
5 I did question Mr. Radic about this section, and the important
6 sentence that I believe Mr. Lukic is concerned about is where Mr. Inayat
7 asked the accused Radic:
8 MI: Can you tell us on how many occasions you received
9 such calls on telephone from the main gate?
10 And in the English translation, page 175, the response, as written, is:
11 MR: Twice. Once it was Kvocka who went to intervene
12 and the second time it was Meakic. I received the
13 call and I informed them.
14 And it's true I did ask Mr. Radic a series of questions about this
15 portion of his interview. Mr. Lukic has pointed out to the Prosecution
16 that there does appear to be an error -- there may be an error in the
17 English translation where apparently it's possible that what Mr. Radic
18 actually said was something to the effect of: "Once it was Meakic who
19 went to intervene and the second time Kvocka." In other words, the names
20 are reversed. However, both names clearly were named in the response that
21 Mr. Radic gave in his native language.
22 I'm simply making this rather long-winded explanation to point out
23 to the Trial Chamber that if there is a need to submit this page or pages
24 for a revised translation, the Prosecution is certainly willing to do
25 that. However, it does not change. Even if there was an error in the
1 translation, simply the shifting of two names, it would have had no
2 effect, in reality, on the nature of my questions along these lines, nor
3 on the nature of Mr. Radic's responses.
4 So we don't believe that there's any need for any kind of
5 re-examination on this point. Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Your
6 Honour. --
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Lukic, the differences that
8 you noted, do they justify a revision of the translation as suggested by
9 Mr. Saxon or not?
10 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honours. Mr. Saxon, again, mistranslated the
11 whole thing. The main issue -- there are actually two main issues.
12 First, they adjusted the appearance according to their indictment, showing
13 that first Kvocka appeared and then Meakic, and it's not the main point of
14 our objection. Sorry.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Lukic, I'm sorry for
16 interrupting you. Your conclusion is that it is necessary to have a
17 revision of the translation? Because we're not going to do it now. So
18 your conclusion is that we need to request a revised translation; is that
20 MR. LUKIC: We can shorten the whole thing if I read it in our
21 language and then translators can translate it correctly, because the main
22 point is that Meakic happened to be there, not -- he didn't want to
23 intervene. He happened to be in there, and then second time, the same
24 thing with Kvocka. They happened to be in there and that's why they
25 intervened. And you have it in our language. I can read it in our
1 language and you can receive the translation from the interpreters'
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Saxon his feet. Yes,
4 Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: I appreciate that Mr. Lukic has clarified the finer
6 points of the problem in the translation if there is one, but that still
7 does not change the Prosecution's position. Whether Mr. Meakic happened
8 to be somewhere or Mr. Kvocka happened to be there, that did not change
9 the nature -- may I please finish the -- it simply did not, would not have
10 changed the nature of the questions that I put to this witness or his
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We are able to conclude
13 that. I think we are all agreed as far as that is concerned.
14 Mr. Lukic, my question to you is: Would you read the B/C/S
15 version and the interpreters will translate what you read. Read it
16 slowly, please.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honours. It says: [Interpretation]
18 MR: Twice. Once Meakic happened to be down there by
19 chance, the other time it was Kvocka.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Well --
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we now have the translation
23 and Chamber will evaluate the whole thing later on. We can go on with the
24 testimony of Mr. Radic; otherwise, we'll never finish. So thank you
25 anyway, Mr. Lukic.
1 WITNESS: MLADJO RADIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Fouad Riad, do you have
4 any questions, please?
5 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Radic, good morning.
8 A. -- good morning --
9 JUDGE RIAD: I would just like to see some things more clearly in
10 your testimony. You stressed the fact that you gave assistance to the
11 detainees openly, not a secrete assistance, and you said you acted as a
12 human being, at your own detriment, to help people overcome their
13 difficult times.
14 Now, this was not the policy, apparently, of the camp. Were you
15 there performing, executing the policy of the camp, as you said, to help
16 people overcome their difficult times and to give assistance or was it
17 your own policy?
18 A. -- well, you see, we were not even allowed to have any contact
19 with those people and whatever I did, I did on my own initiative. Some
20 things I did in public, such as bringing some clothes and things, but
21 other things I brought secretly, covertly. So it was on my own personal
23 JUDGE RIAD: It was very commendable, of course, but you said also
24 that there was only one leader of the camp and that was Mr. Meakic. Were
25 you accountable to Mr. Meakic for what you did or were you free to do what
1 you like?
2 A. Meakic was not the Commander. He was the Commander of the
3 security service. I didn't submit any reports to him, but I was
4 accountable to him.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Good. And nobody held you accountable for these kind
6 things which, as you said, were not in harmony with the policy of the
7 camp? It was almost a violation, wasn't it?
8 A. Yes, but the law did not prohibit anyone from helping others, but
9 it depended on the person. Some people were indignant about the way I
10 acted and others were not.
11 JUDGE RIAD: And nobody reported you to the upper authorities?
12 You were not punished for it or anything or, let's say, asked to leave the
14 A. No one asked me to leave but I did ask to leave, and I explained
15 that here. But I was not allowed to go, so I stayed on. And my
16 conscience required that I assist the people as much as I could, and I
17 did. I didn't do it on the basis of any orders but simply out of my own
18 feelings as a human being. I helped as much as I could to those I did. I
19 was not held responsible. Nobody formally criticised me for this. There
20 were some comments that I shouldn't do that, but I went on doing it.
21 JUDGE RIAD: Who, in the camp, in the guards, in your opinion, did
22 the same thing as you?
23 A. Well, you see quite a number of guards, perhaps not to the extent
24 that I did and Kvocka did, but each person had a friend or an
25 acquaintance. There was a mixed population there. Somebody played ball
1 with somebody else. Somebody went to school with somebody. There were
2 teachers there and their students. So there were interpersonal
3 relationships so that everyone tried to help someone or most of the people
5 JUDGE RIAD: Could anybody, for instance, the way you did, I
6 think, when you let Radomir Andzic come to see Jadranka in her room with
7 your permission. Was it possible for any guard to do that?
8 A. Yes. It depended on his own free will and on the way he felt
9 about it. But I let the man come in. He didn't come there to kill
10 anyone, he came to bring aid. I know that he was on good terms with her
11 family so he would bring some things, and he asked me to let him in. And
12 as I was an active-duty policeman, he probably trusted me more and that is
13 how it came about.
14 JUDGE RIAD: But I am -- I was never in the police or the
15 military, but wasn't there a real discipline, a police discipline where
16 everybody should know what he can do and what he cannot do and be
17 accountable for what he does, or was it a free camp?
18 A. Under normal conditions, there would necessarily have been
19 discipline, but in this particular case, people did what they wanted.
20 People could bring in food, then others could snatch it away from him,
21 throw it away and not to be held responsible. There were all sorts of
22 behaviour. It depended on the individual and his attitude towards
24 JUDGE RIAD: Now, was there some people who were more respected
25 than the others, had more regard for someone like you? You have been in
1 the police a long time. Were you more respected by the others, that is
2 why they would let you do that; your personality, your prestige as a
3 senior or what?
4 A. Well, you see, I wasn't really respected because the situation was
5 euphoric. I told you yesterday that when these young men came from these
6 new parties and when we said that was not right, they said, "You are old
7 Tito's fools. Look what has happened to us. What are you talking
8 about?" That was their reaction, but there were others who respected me.
9 There was a witness here who said that over night, he lost friends
10 he had grown up with. However, that he trusted me when he came to the
11 camp, that I hadn't forgotten our former friendship. So it all depended
12 on the individual.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
14 A. Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
16 Riad. Madam Judge Wald.
17 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Radic, I just have a few questions. One of the
18 them is: On the shift that you were on, on the shift that you served on,
19 were the same people usually on that shift? Was it the same group of
20 guards who would be serving at the same time that you were when you were
21 on your shift?
22 A. Yes, roughly more or less there was always the same group of
24 JUDGE WALD: And did you know the names of most of those people
25 who were serving on the same shift as you or some of them at least?
1 A. Out of the 30 or so of them, I knew 10 or so. I knew the others
2 by their nicknames, you know, Pingo, Mingo and things like that.
3 JUDGE WALD: Did you ever hear, while you were working in Omarska,
4 did you ever hear from anybody any reports or stories about any of those
5 people who were on your shift abusing prisoners?
6 A. Well, you see, being present here for four years, and through the
7 testimony of the witnesses here, I hear four names being mentioned
8 repeatedly, Paspalj, Predojevic, and so on. I had no control over those
9 men. If I was on guard duty in the tower --
10 JUDGE WALD: I understand. I'm not asking you about your
11 responsibility. I'm only asking you about whether or not people who were
12 serving, guards who were serving at the same time as you, whether or not
13 you had occasion to hear any reports, rumours, stories, that any of them
14 were abusing prisoners. That's all. Not when you came here, but at the
15 time that you were in Omarska.
16 A. No, I didn't see anything, and people acted covertly. They would
17 conceal their behaviour. They wouldn't boast about kicking somebody or
18 beating someone up.
19 JUDGE WALD: But did you ever hear through any channels that that
20 sort of thing was going on during the same shift you were on? I'm not
21 talking about your responsibility or your role on the shift, just during
22 the time that you were serving on that shift.
23 A. To be quite honest, I didn't. People didn't talk about it. They
24 concealed it. Nobody wanted to reveal their shame. If they did something
25 wrong, they covered it up.
1 JUDGE WALD: But some of your testimony seemed to convey the
2 impression that during the time you were at Omarska, you didn't feel good
3 about what was happening there. That you, yourself, brought in extra food
4 or you conveyed parcels from people in the town to the people so that you
5 had some discomfort about the situation of the detainees. Is that correct
6 or is that not correct?
7 A. Yes, that is correct.
8 JUDGE WALD: What were some of the things that bothered you about
9 the general situation there?
10 A. Everything bothered me, to be quite honest. I hated seeing 500
11 men sitting in the heat on the concrete, and there's nothing I can do to
12 assist them. Of course I was bothered by the whole situation. There was
13 no way I could find shelter for them. You know, to watch those people in
14 the blazing sun for hours, and it's not easy even if you have an animal
15 tied in the sunshine all day it's awful, never mind a human being.
16 JUDGE WALD: I understand. Did you ever talk to anybody about
17 that to -- did you ever talk to Meakic or any of the other people in the
18 camp about your feeling that maybe the detainees were not being treated
19 the way they should be or did you keep that to yourself?
20 A. Well, you see, if there were any comments, they had no effect.
21 Zeljko Meakic couldn't give orders to anyone except to people like me and
22 reserve policemen. We had no communication with the inspectors at all,
23 because each one of those inspectors could have given orders to Zeljko
24 Meakic whereas he could not have ordered anything to them and they had
25 their own superiors.
1 JUDGE WALD: When you were on duty, did you have much contact with
2 Meakic, I mean, did you see him regularly when you were on duty, or
3 sometimes, or hardly ever?
4 A. I said here, and I am repeating, I don't know whether it was a
5 coincidence, I don't know how to put it myself. 98 per cent of my time in
6 the investigation centre coincided with Meakic's time, maybe even 100 per
7 cent of the time.
8 JUDGE WALD: So he was there, but when you were there a lot or
9 most of the time, did you ever -- did you have many conversations with
10 him? Did you talk to him very much?
11 A. Not really. Even the little conversations we had were simply what
12 we were doing, how we should do it. He didn't have any powers, any
13 authority. He said when we arrived there that it would take about 10
14 days, that people would be interrogated and released. Why it went on for
15 two months, I really don't know, and he doesn't know. And that's probably
16 why he slept there most of the time.
17 JUDGE WALD: But -- so just to finish this part up, did you, at
18 any time, have any conversation that you remember with Mr. Meakic, in
19 which you expressed, just some of the same general sentiments that you've
20 expressed here that it wasn't a good thing to have so many men penned up
21 like that or sitting for long hours on the pista or treated like that.
22 Did you ever have such a conversation in which you simply told him even if
23 he couldn't do anything about it, you just told him that, "I don't like
24 this. This isn't a good thing."
25 A. I did. At the beginning of my interview, I said that, but the
1 Prosecutor didn't ask me about it. I resisted, and I didn't want to go
2 there. I asked Meakic to send me to the Kupres front line so as not to be
3 with those men that I went to school with, that I kept company with.
4 He said that he didn't have the power to send me to the front
5 line, that he would talk to Mr. Drljaca. And one occasion, Drljaca came
6 to the Omarska investigation camp. There were two typists, and he said
7 that he had something to talk to me about. They left, and the three of us
9 He was a rather of sort of arrogant man. He asked me what I
10 wanted, why I didn't want to work there and so on. And I said, "You see,
11 Simo, I grew up with these people. I have friends here. I have my
12 sister's friends married to Muslims, and I feel very uncomfortable working
13 here. Could I go somewhere else?" Then he raised his voice and said,
14 "And who is in command here?" And I said, "My superior is Meakic and you
15 are probably superior to all of us."
16 And then he said, "You're going to do as you are told." And to
17 that, I had to say "I understand," and that was it.
18 JUDGE WALD: You told us yesterday that sometimes the guards
19 didn't always stay on duty when they were supposed to and you gave us an
20 example of the butcher who went home on several occasions or went back to
21 his shop to tend his shop.
22 We've heard similar testimony from some other witnesses that the
23 guards sometimes just packed it up and went home when they felt like it or
24 didn't show up. Did anything, to your knowledge, ever happen to those
25 guards? I mean if they went home early and left their post or they didn't
1 come on a certain day, was there any follow-up? Were they disciplined?
2 Were they sent to the front? Did anything happen to them, to your
4 A. Well, you see, there was wartime euphoria at the time. Nothing
5 happened to them. But people would go home to dig the maize fields, to
6 collect wood. No one was tied up there. People would abandon their
7 posts. I even heard that some went swimming, but there was nothing I
8 could do about it.
9 JUDGE WALD: No, I understand. I'm just asking.
10 A. It depended on the individual and how conscientious he was.
11 JUDGE WALD: Right. Now, you also said in some of your answers to
12 Mr. Saxon that you did on many occasions try to protect people. Not just
13 the Ljubija people but people generally. I'm just interested. How would
14 you describe what you thought you were protecting them from? Who or what
15 were you protecting them from?
16 A. Well, I consider it to be protection if I brought them pills, for
17 instance, for stomach problems, that that was a kind of protection. If I
18 gave him a piece of bread and I knew he was hungry, I thought I helped
19 them. Some witnesses said I brought in larger quantities, and I did, but
20 I did it secretly, in my little bag with my reserve tools, in my pockets.
21 Medicines I gave publicly, because after all, that was a humane thing to
22 do, and nobody could prevent it.
23 But there were comments to the effect that I was not acting
24 properly and that I might have problems and that I may be swallowed up by
25 the darkness, as Mr. Saxon mentioned. In those days, I had four brothers
1 and five sons of those brothers. It was a large family. And if something
2 were to happen, then maybe the whole family would have reacted and maybe
3 this helped.
4 JUDGE WALD: Did you, during the months you were working in
5 Omarska, ever hear about darkness swallowing up anybody who worked at
6 Omarska for whatever reason? I mean did you ever hear of people who were
7 working there who something bad happened to?
8 A. All kinds of things happened to people. Now, whether it was
9 because they worked in Omarska or because they left the camp and went
10 elsewhere, but people did disappear. That's for certain.
11 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Did you -- along the protection line, did you
12 ever talk to -- just talk to other guards, even if you had no
13 responsibility over them or any power to order them, but just talk to
14 other guards about not being abusive to the prisoners or laying off of
15 particular prisoners or just say -- did you ever talk to other guards and
16 say leave somebody alone or, "Let that one be," or that kind of thing?
17 Even if you didn't -- I know you say you had no power to order
18 them, but just as one guard to another, layoff somebody or, "Leave those
19 people alone, please," or that kind of thing? Did you ever do any of that
20 to try to protect them?
21 A. Yes, I did. There was a young boy, Markovic, who lived in the
22 same building as I did and he was a guard in the corridor next to the
23 women. He was a year older than my son. And I told him, "It's not your
24 job to hit someone or kick someone. Let a man go to the toilet, get a
25 drink of water, sit down, talk to his colleague. Be a normal human
1 being. That is not your job to act in that way."
2 So some people took my advice, others did not. They thought they
3 were cleverer than I was.
4 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Did you, during the -- I think you said, you
5 know, there were just -- every couple of days you would have the duty,
6 this shift duty. Did you work, would you say, more times on the
7 night-shift than on the day-shift or was it evenly divided between the
8 time you were in Omarska or more on the day than the night? In other
9 words, were you more likely to be at the camp at the night than in the day
10 or was it even?
11 A. Well, I think it was more or less even.
12 JUDGE WALD: But you were there some nights? Sometimes you had
13 the night-shift; is that right? Sometimes you had the night-shift?
14 A. Yes. Yes, that's right. Yes.
15 JUDGE WALD: Did you ever hear, did you ever hear -- I'm not
16 talking about you now, I'm just talking about did you ever hear any
17 stories, rumours, or tales that the women were being abused by some of the
19 A. Well, to be quite frank, I didn't hear that. And people probably
20 kept it secret. I can't say that nothing ever happened to anybody, but
21 everything that I read about, the women being taken out and raped, I read
22 this through the indictment and what I heard here in the courtroom. I
23 really didn't know there that anything like that was happening or could
25 JUDGE WALD: So during the period you were there, including
1 whatever number of nights you were serving on duty, you never heard any
2 stories, rumours, anything that the women might be being harassed or
4 A. No. Please believe me. I say that as a man and a human.
7 [redacted] I knew her from the Ribo
8 Product Company, a company, and I asked them to take in the food if there
9 were -- I would call them. If there was any food left over, I would call
10 them to come and take the food and distribute that. So my contact was
11 through those two women. And they never told me that anything bad
12 happened to the other women. So I really don't know that anybody said
13 that they were there and they can say.
14 JUDGE WALD: My last question: In the second statement -- we
15 talked about the statements, and you told us the first statement was one
16 that was taken under bad conditions for you and you thought it had been
17 torn up. But then the second statement, which I don't have in front of me
18 because we had to return it at the end of the day, but I noted down that
19 at some point in that second statement, you talked about reporting or
20 talking to people who were your superiors. You used that word
21 "superiors," because I noted it down. Who were you talking about? And
22 this is the second statement, the one that you talked about, not the first
23 one. Who were you talking about when you talked about your superiors?
24 A. Commander Zeljko Meakic. Commander Zeljko Meakic.
25 JUDGE WALD: You did put it in the plural. You did say
1 "superiors," more than one. Was there anyone else besides Meakic when
2 you talked about your superiors?
3 A. I know that Meakic was my superior and Dule Jankovic was his
4 superior and Simo Drljaca was the other one and Cadjo and was the top one,
5 and I considered them all to be responsible, but Meakic was the one above
6 me, my Commander.
7 JUDGE WALD: So you did consider Meakic to be your superior in the
8 camp, in the camp?
9 A. Yes, my first immediate superior.
10 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Wald.
12 Mr. Radic, I, too, have several questions for you, and to ask them
13 I would like to go into private session.
14 [Private session]
13 Pages 11302-11307 redacted private session.
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, please proceed.
21 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. At this time, the Prosecution
22 would like to offer for admission a series of exhibits that were shown to
23 the Trial Chamber and the accused yesterday.
24 The first would be Exhibit 3/215A, B, and C which was the record
25 of interview between the Office of the Prosecutor and Mr. Radic in
1 English, B/C/S, and I believe C is a declaration from Mr. Inayat regarding
2 that interview.
3 The next exhibit would be a photograph, 3/218, which was the
4 photograph of the circular window above the pista.
5 The next exhibit, 3/219 was the short video excerpt that was shown
6 yesterday. 3/219 was the excerpt. 3/219A I believe is the full tape.
7 3/219C, D, and E, are the English, B/C/S, and French transcripts. I may
8 have gotten those letters out of order, but I believe the substance of it
9 was correct, I hope. There was also a declaration submitted by one of our
10 investigators which was 3/219E.
11 Exhibit 3/220 is a photograph taken from the inside of the
12 circular window that was overlooking the pista area and the hangar
13 building at the Omarska mine.
14 Exhibit 3/222 is another photograph from inside that circular
15 window, this time looking towards the right side.
16 Exhibit 3/232 was a photograph of a man standing in line inside
17 the restaurant building at the Omarska camp. This was a still photograph
18 that was made from the video excerpt that we showed yesterday.
19 3/233 is another still photograph made of that video, another
20 prisoner standing in the restaurant at -- in Omarska.
21 3/235 is also a still photograph made from that video also of a
22 man standing in the restaurant building at Omarska.
23 3/236 is a photograph taken in January of this year of the
24 interior of the restaurant showing also that the "white house" was visible
25 through the glass windows of the restaurant.
1 So if there are no objections, we would offer those exhibits into
2 evidence at this time.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with respect to the
5 videotape, the two-hour videotape, if I understood correctly, and there
6 wasn't a problem with the interpretation, if all that is requested is two
7 minutes of that tape and if it is correct that the Prosecution would have
8 problems with regard to copyright for those two minutes, then there's no
9 need to incur these costs for us to be able to receive the tape.
10 What I want to say is that I don't want to make problems for the
11 Prosecution nor for the Court to have to pay copyright for me to have the
12 two minutes of a tape that I have otherwise seen and to have the tape in
13 my possession. So if it's just those two minutes, then I have nothing
14 against it. I don't want them to have to pay royalties, but I don't -- I
15 am objecting to having two hours of tape admitted into evidence because it
16 was not actually shown in the courtroom.
17 So if it is just the two minutes, I agree. I wasn't quite sure I
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila. Perhaps we can
20 hear your opinion on the other exhibits first.
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] As far as the photographs are
22 concerned, what can be seen from the tower, the angle of vision from the
23 tower, I have nothing against having these admitted into evidence. The
24 only thing that I don't like on them is what is the truck doing there?
25 What is the truck doing on the photographs? What is the purpose of the
1 truck that can be seen in the photograph? I'm not quite clear on that.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that when the photo was
3 taken, there just happened to be a truck there.
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Well, if that is so, then that is all
5 right. But if there is some other purpose to that truck, then I would be
6 interested in knowing what it is. Because we took the same photographs
7 without that truck being there, and they were taken at the same time. So
8 I was just wary and wanted to see whether there was another purpose. So
9 if the truck just happened to be there by chance and if they are not going
10 to use the truck for any purpose, then I agree to having the document
11 tendered into evidence.
12 My only objection is with respect to the entire tape. I accept
13 the two minutes, but not the entire tape. Otherwise, I don't object to
14 any of the other documents. So for the third time, in fact, I am agreeing
15 with Mr. Saxon today.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon. Do you have a
17 clarification to make, a response?
18 MR. SAXON: Yes, I'll try to respond in order. The Prosecution
19 would agree to the simple admission of the short, two-minute excerpt that
20 we showed to the Court yesterday and retract, then, the full videotape in
21 order to simplify matters. That is perfectly agreeable with the
23 I also need to point out, and this is something that Ms. Somers is
24 going to elaborate on. The still photographs that were taken from the
25 videotape, those are also subject to legal copyright issues so we are
1 going to ask, perhaps, the Trial Chamber to take that in mind if and when
2 they do admit those photographs.
3 With regard to Mr. Fila's question about the truck that is visible
4 in the photographs, in a couple of the photographs that were taken through
5 that circular window, I can answer his question why that truck was there.
6 I was the person who took those photographs. The truck happened to be
7 passing by at the moment when I took the photograph. That's why that
8 truck, the yellow truck, happened to be there. There's no other reason
9 why that truck was there. Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I am satisfied with that explanation.
12 Let me just mention that some of the witnesses mentioned a small yellow
13 TAM truck that was carrying whatever. So that was the purpose of my
15 As for the photograph, Mr. Saxon, I have a proposal to make. If
16 they come under copyrights, we can return them to you and therefore solve
17 the problem, and then the photographs would remain in the Tribunal.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam Susan Somers.
19 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I appreciate the
20 cooperative spirit that we have just heard.
21 What I wanted to fully inform the Court about was the nature of
22 the request by ITN, and I think it's reasonable in the sense that they
23 just wanted to have some accountability as to where their product was
24 going. And if, in fact, any of the items -- if after the Court chooses to
25 admit these items, if there may lie with the item in the Registry some
1 indication that this is a product that belongs to ITN and any copying
2 would have to be cleared through them, I can leave the address, the phone
3 number, and the contact names of ITN personnel. Or in the alternative, if
4 what this Chamber is minded to do, as some other Chambers do, that rather
5 than seal it -- well, either sealing, subject to an unsealing order if
6 there is an attempt to copy, although I think that looking at it it's not
7 a problem, it's just the copying. And because it lies in the Registry as
8 a public document, our rules within the Registry might permit copying.
9 Therefore, to keep things so in the spirit with which ITN provided
10 them, if I simply may be permitted to leave contact numbers and inform ITN
11 that I have done this, if the Chamber would agree, then I don't think
12 there would be a problem. Any of the documents that are left in the
13 possession of Defence counsel, I am obligated to notify ITN of their names
14 and their whereabouts so that ITN is also able to have some
15 accountability, because at the end of proceedings, they've requested that
16 things be returned. This information, when ITN provided us with other
17 footage in other cases, was submitted to the Chambers as well and it
18 seemed to cause no particular concern or wrinkle.
19 If I can explain any further I'm happy to, and we will make sure
20 the Chamber is not unduly burdened by this, but because media companies
21 have played such an important part in assisting not just the Office of the
22 Prosecutor but the Tribunal in seeing what happened at the time of the
23 conflict, we want to make sure that we honour their request. Thank you.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Ms. Susan
1 Madam Registrar, may the photographs be registered with a note
2 saying -- with a note saying that if anybody wishes to copy them, they
3 have to contact ITN, with that proviso.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President, that is possible.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] One moment, please.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The exhibits mentioned by the
8 Prosecutor, therefore, will be admitted into evidence with the fact that
9 Exhibit 3/219A, that is to say, the integral text of the video was
10 withdrawn and that photographs of the stills of the two-minute video, we
11 will make a note of that and state that if anybody wishes to copy them,
12 they must contact ITN. So that is the decision.
13 Now -- Mr. Fila, you're on your feet. I do apologise, but we must
14 put an end to that practice. Otherwise, we shall be going round and round
15 in circles.
16 Mr. Fila.
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think we have
18 concluded. It is only my proposal that we tender into evidence not the
19 contents of the statement, the possibility of Mr. Radic being
20 manipulated. It is Exhibit D34/3, and it was given to us by the
21 Prosecution. They are the differences in the translations.
22 It is the object of this exhibit not to see the contents of the
23 statement, because that is protected, but that the man was manipulated by
24 the former lawyers, because he stated one thing and another thing exists
25 in the translated version. The original says one thing, the translation
1 says another. So that is my proposal.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But, Mr. Fila, are you
3 tendering it into evidence?
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes. But the problem is that we have
5 the Chamber's ruling that statements are not taken as evidence, and
6 Mr. Saxon is quite right there. But I'm not asking for it -- the contents
7 of the statement to be taken as evidence but the fact that the statement
8 has been translated erroneously, that a paragraph was added and signed as
9 if he had added it in and signed it, which indicates manipulation with
10 Mr. Radic, that Mr. Radic was manipulated. So that is the purpose of that
11 particular piece of evidence, that exhibit.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have you finished, Mr. Fila?
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
15 MR. SAXON: It is the Prosecution's submission, Your Honour, that
16 what Mr. Fila is proposing to do would go completely against what has been
17 the practice of this Trial Chamber for the duration of this trial, that
18 is, that prior statements of witnesses are not admissible. They can be
19 used for impeachment purposes or to address issues of credibility.
20 In this case, during his redirect examination, Mr. Fila had ample
21 opportunity and used that opportunity to clarify the record regarding this
22 use -- regarding this statement that was signed by Mr. Radic. So we feel
23 that it would be extremely improper and would fly in the face of the rules
24 of the Chamber, would violate the equality of the arms of the parties for
25 this prior statement written by this accused now to be admitted into
2 If the Trial Chamber disagrees with the Prosecution and agrees to
3 admit this handwritten statement submitted -- that was written by
4 Mr. Radic, then the Prosecution would ask the Trial Chamber that the other
5 two handwritten statements that were the subject of examination yesterday
6 also be admitted in fairness and in the principle of equality of arms.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, when you're talking
9 about statements by the accused, you're talking about the documents that
10 we have analysed; is that right.
11 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour, the documents that were shown to the
12 accused Radic yesterday.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.
14 MR. SAXON: The handwritten documents that were shown to the
15 accused yesterday.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, I think that you
18 hadn't finished.
19 MR. SAXON: No, I had finished.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then.
21 So Mr. Fila, perhaps.
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I wish to repeat, Mr. President, that I
23 am not asking the statement to be admitted for its content - I'm not
24 interested in it - but simply the printed version. The statement has been
25 retyped in B/C/S incorrectly.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that you put that
2 question to the witness, didn't you?
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore, we still are not in a
5 position to make allegations. The time for those allegations will come.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I've thought the document be admitted
7 for the limited purpose of you seeing physically what has been done,
8 visually, not through my questions. Then you would see the difference
9 quite clearly, that on the handwritten version there's one signature and
10 on the typed one two.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, we examined the
12 document and on the basis of the documents, questions were put to the
13 witness. So we have seen the documents.
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] If that is so, I withdraw my
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's not necessary, as you see,
17 Mr. Fila.
18 Fine. So now we are in a position -- yes. I see Mr. O'Sullivan.
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In my notes, there is some confusion on what has
20 and what has not been admitted in regards to these statements, and I don't
21 want to talk about -- we should be in private session when talking about
22 three of them. So maybe we --
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The statements have not been
24 admitted, nor was there a request to admit them.
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: All right. Well, then the fourth statement is
1 the Radic interview. On the same basis on your ruling that it is not
2 admitted as well is my question.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The interview? The interview of
4 Mr. Radic is Exhibit 3/215, I think, A, B, and C, and it has been admitted
5 into evidence.
6 Mr. Saxon can assist me perhaps. Yes or no?
7 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Mr. So Sullivan, any other
9 questions? Has the point been cleared up?
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you too.
12 I think that it is now time to have a break before we begin with
13 the Defence case for the accused Mr. Prcac. So you will have a chance to
14 have a short rest and Mr. Prcac as well and all of us. So we're going to
15 have a half-hour break.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
19 Mr. Jovan Simic, you have the floor for your opening statement,
21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Your Honours, the Defence for Dragoljub Prcac, in our opening
23 statement, will refer to the following aspects of this case. First, the
24 biography and character of the accused, his role in the Investigation
25 Centre Omarska, and analysis of his possible criminal responsibility in
1 the light of the relevant provisions of the Statute as well as his alleged
2 command responsibility pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute, the mens
3 rea of the accused, and the Defence will also refer in broad lines to the
4 actual concept of the Defence case.
5 In the consolidated indictment of the 27th of September 2000, in
6 the chapter general allegations of the indictment, Dragoljub Prcac is
7 charged of being individually responsible for the crimes he's accused of
8 in the indictment pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute of the
9 International Tribunal and that he is criminally responsible for the
10 abilities of his subordinates on the basis of his superior position
11 pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute.
12 The indictment alleges that the accused was a police officer in
13 Croatia, and then for a few years until the outbreak of the conflict, a
14 crime technician in the public security service of Prijedor. That in June
15 1992, he replaced Miroslav Kvocka as Deputy Commander of the camp. From
16 these allegations in the indictment, it follows that he was superior to
17 all personnel in the camp with the exception of the camp commander so that
18 he is responsible for the following counts.
19 Under Counts 1 to 3 that he participated in the persecution of
20 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs in Prijedor
21 municipality in the period from the 24th of May 1992 until the 30th of
22 August 1992 by instigating, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting
23 in the persecution, and that he had the authority as a police officer, an
24 active-duty police officer, to change the conditions in the camp to
25 control the conduct of the guards, to prevent or control the conduct of
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 any visitors to the camp.
2 Under Counts 4 and 5, that he instigated, committed, or otherwise
3 aided and abetted the murder of non-Serbs in the Omarska camp, and that he
4 knew, or must have known, that persons subordinate to him were preparing
5 the murder of non-Serbs in the period from the 24th of May until the 30th
6 of August 1992.
7 Under Counts 8 and 10, that he instigated, committed, or otherwise
8 aided and abetted the torture and beating of non-Serbs in the Omarska camp
9 and that he knew, or must have known, that persons subordinate to him were
10 preparing and participating in the torture of non-Serbs in the Omarska
12 My learned friend, Prosecutor Keegan in his opening statement on
13 the 2nd of May 2000, LiveNote page 1.115 to 1.128, claimed that the
14 accused consciously participated in a brutal campaign of persecution of
15 non-Serb population.
16 The Prosecutor alleges that the accused, as a member of the
17 Omarska staff, must have been aware of the criminal aim of the camp
18 system. The Prosecution continues to allege that the accused, as an
19 active-duty policeman, completely loyal to the policies of the SDS party,
20 holding the position of deputy camp commander and being constantly present
21 in the camp consciously participated in the crimes by giving orders,
22 committing or otherwise aiding and abetting the commission of criminal
23 acts by his approval, encouragement, or acquiescence.
24 The Defence will contest all the above-mentioned counts of the
25 indictment, explaining from a different point in detail and endeavouring
1 conscientiously to lend its assistance in establishing the truth of the
3 Standing before you, Your Honours, is Mr. Dragoljub Prcac, a man
4 who is 63 years old and who, at the end of his years of service, went into
5 well-earned retirement.
6 He was not fortunate to be born to a wealthy family and that is
7 why he completed only five grades of primary school. The situation into
8 which he was born and his patriarchal upbringing made him into a modest,
9 quiet, composed, and patient man. It was his lot in life to struggle
10 throughout his life to overcome deprivation and poverty he was born into.
11 He never committed any offence, he has no criminal record, nor was he ever
12 found -- punished for any minor misdemeanour.
13 He spent his childhood in the fields where he lent every
14 assistance to his father to feed a large family. Family values have been
15 and remain to him of the utmost importance, his primary family and the
16 family he himself formed as an adult.
17 His upbringing and respect for his father and mother prompted him,
18 upon the completion of his military service, to look for a job and so
19 assist his parents. He found employment as a manual worker and then he
20 applied and was admitted to the police force.
21 A job as a civil servant provided him a certain amount of security
22 and hope, because a regular income made it possible for him to help his
23 parents. He realised that in order to go up the ladder, he had to undergo
24 additional training. So he attended courses that provided that training.
25 He studied part time on the job and he succeeded in becoming a crime
1 technician when he was already 31 years old.
2 His professional obligations took him far from home, but he
3 returned to Prijedor when his aging parents needed one of the children to
4 assist them. While taking care of them, he continued to work as a crime
5 technician in Prijedor.
6 He got married in 1974, and the following year his first son was
7 born. He lived in the village of Omarska in a rented apartment, as his
8 wife and mother did not get on very well. It was not until 1980 that he
9 was given an apartment by the police, and from then on, things appeared to
11 His second son was born in 1982. Unfortunately, the delivery was
12 complicated and the child was born with a paralysed right arm. This
13 entailed permanent disability, but the parents would not reconcile
14 themselves to this and they sought in every way to find a doctor to assist
15 their child. Considerable resources were required for treatment, and they
16 went from one medical institution to another all over the former
17 Yugoslavia. They lived off their salaries and for additional resources
18 they tilled the family estate of the Prcac family.
19 Dragoljub Prcac retired in December 1984. His mother was living
20 in Omarska, on the farm, and his own family in Prijedor. Living
21 conditions in the former Yugoslavia were deteriorating steadily and the
22 value of his pension, therefore, shrank. In actual fact, he moved to live
23 on the farm to take care of his aging mother, to till the land to feed the
24 family, and occasionally he would visit his family in Prijedor.
25 He had no interest in typically male pastimes, in bars or at
1 football matches. He was not involved in politics or trade-union
2 activities. The meaning of life he found in his family, for whom he
3 provided a minimum, as he could not afford to buy a bicycle, never mind a
4 car. If it had not been for the tragedy that occurred in the territory of
5 Prijedor municipality, he would still be in the fields digging the maize.
6 What proved to be fatal for him was to have lived in a particular
7 period of time in the territory of Prijedor municipality, which found
8 itself in the midst of inter-ethnic conflict and irrational hatred fanned
9 among yesterday's neighbours, friends, and colleagues.
10 A mobilisation was proclaimed in Prijedor, and he responded to the
11 call-up. He was mobilised and assigned to the position of a crime
12 technician in the Prijedor Police Station. He asked Simo Drljaca to
13 transfer him to the Omarska Police Station Department so as to be close to
14 his old mother and to be able to till the land.
15 In the course of its case, the Defence will seek to explain what a
16 crime technician actually is, that is, what his duties are and
17 responsibilities within the police structure. An expert witness will be
18 called to testify about this, and to explain that a crime technician is
19 actually a member of a team that investigates the scene of the crime after
20 it has been committed. A crime technician is not involved in security
21 affairs, patrols, or watch duty. A crime technician cannot even be the
22 leader of the investigative team.
23 The accused worked as a crime technician in the Omarska Police
24 Station Department and farmed the land throughout his period of
25 mobilisation from the 29th of April 1992 until the 31st of December 1995.
1 Only in the period from the 15th of July 1992 to the 6th of August 1992
2 was the accused, upon orders of Simo Drljaca, assigned to work in the
3 Omarska Investigation Centre.
4 During that time period, Dragoljub Prcac, in actual fact, worked
5 about 10 shifts of 12 hours each which means that the accused spent a
6 total of about 120 hours in the already established centre. Dragoljub
7 Prcac was never appointed to any kind of command position.
8 On the 2nd of August 1992, pursuant to the decision of the chief
9 of the public security service, Simo Drljaca, a police battalion was
10 formed consisting of seven companies and the command structure of that
11 battalion was established. The seventh company was designated as a police
12 station for traffic safety Prijedor, the crime service, and the
13 communications service. This unit consisted of three platoons, and not
14 even then was the accused Prcac appointed to any position of command.
15 Can it be logical that the deputy commander of one of the most
16 infamous camps established by the Serbs as alleged by the Prosecution
17 should not be appointed to any position of command? The accused Prcac was
18 not even appointed to be leader of a platoon, the lowest possible unit in
19 a police organisation, a unit which does not consist of more than two or
20 three men.
21 The Defence will seek to prove that Dragoljub Prcac was
22 transferred to the Omarska Investigation Centre under a threat. Actually,
23 Simo Drljaca, in the presence of witnesses, threatened to set fire to his
24 house and to kill his children if he failed to obey orders and go to the
25 investigation centre. How serious this threat was is evidenced by the
1 following: Simo Drljaca never forgot that Dragoljub Prcac had opposed
2 him. Dragoljub's older son, who had only just turned 18, only six days
3 after graduation from secondary school, was sent to the front line. He
4 was wounded there. A trip mine blew off his leg and he will remain an
5 invalid for life. Destiny, Your Honours, again played a cruel trick on
6 Dragoljub Prcac, the father of two sons both disabled.
7 The Prosecution wishes to convince us that the 120 or so hours
8 that the accused spent as a whole in the Omarska Investigation Centre,
9 with a terrible threat hovering over him, was that the accused was part of
10 a common plan and that he took part in the persecution of non-Serbs in the
11 territory of Prijedor municipality.
12 Dragoljub Prcac was transferred to the Omarska Investigation
13 Centre, a system that had been functioning for some time already, and in
14 which the rules of conduct and procedure had already been established. A
15 system had already been run in, and the relations between the security of
16 the investigation centre, the investigators, the military, the special
17 units from Banja Luka, and the technical personnel had long since been
18 established and the accused played no part in all of that.
19 The Defence will seek to prove that the accused Prcac had no
20 powers and he found the situation as it was, and he had no possibilities
21 to change that situation in any way whatsoever. The system of provision
22 of food, water, and medical aid had long been established when the accused
23 arrived in the investigation centre so that the accused, though he was in
24 absolute disagreement with many of the facts that he found when he
25 arrived, could not change anything.
1 The prisoners, the employed, and the guards drank the same water.
2 Food was prepared outside the centre and the accused, risking his own
3 safety, would smuggle some food for his friends. Medical aid was not
4 within the jurisdiction of the investigation centre. There was a general
5 shortage of medicines throughout the region and this was necessarily
6 reflected on the investigation centre as well.
7 The investigation centre existed for a period of about 80 days.
8 For two time periods, that is, from the end of June until the 15th of July
9 and from the 6th of August until the 20th of August, the investigation
10 centre operated without a deputy commander, which means that for about
11 35 days, which is almost half of the total duration of the centre, the
12 investigation centre functioned without a deputy. It functioned because
13 Zeljko Meakic, which the Prosecution alleges was the Camp Commander, was
14 constantly present in the investigation centre and because he was the
15 security commander and not the commander of the whole camp.
16 The Prosecution alleges that Dragoljub Prcac replaced Miroslav
17 Kvocka as Deputy Commander. However, there was a time gap of over 20 days
18 between the departure of one and the arrival of the other accused. The
19 accused Kvocka never carried out the hand-over of duty to the accused
20 Prcac and the Defence underlines that there is not a single document or
21 any other piece of evidence to prove otherwise. In support of this, the
22 Defence will show that there is no evidence that the accused had the same
23 working hours, that they worked in the same shifts, nor were they similar
24 in appearance. They wore different uniforms and carried different
25 weapons. According to the evidence presented so far, the accused
1 performed different types of jobs and had different responsibilities.
2 The Defence will seek to prove that the accused arrived at the
3 investigation centre to help out and not to replace Miroslav Kvocka.
4 There are numerous documents, mostly signed by Simo Drljaca, showing that
5 it was the military that was to have taken over responsibility for the
6 detainees. Those documents indicate that the security was short of men
7 trained to work in the police and as security guards. The reserve
8 component consisted of guards recruited from among the ranks of cooks,
9 waiters, mechanics, and manual workers. In other words, individuals who
10 never underwent any kind of police training.
11 In view of this situation, it was unavoidable for the accused
12 Prcac, as a retired crime technician, to be assigned to security work, as
13 he had spent his entire working life in the police.
14 The accused Dragoljub Prcac worked as a duty officer in the
15 Omarska Investigation Centre and as an administrative worker. Working as
16 a duty policeman, the accused had done this same kind of work for years in
17 his own police station. As for the job of an administrative worker, this
18 was something that he had never done in his life, but in a well-organised
19 structure of the Prijedor Police Station, he saw how this was done, and
20 having acquired this experience in peacetime, he just implemented that
21 experience later.
22 In the Omarska Investigation Centre, Dragoljub Prcac worked in
23 shifts, 12 hours on duty, 12 hours on call, and 24 hours off. His job
24 consisted of keeping radio and telephone contact and receiving and
25 conveying messages which the Defence will present evidence to prove.
1 In addition to his primary tasks, upon orders from Zeljko Meakic
2 or the investigators, the accused carried out some other duties. He
3 checked the location of the detainees. Occasionally he was present when
4 new detainees arrived, to take down their particulars. He read the lists
5 of names of persons who were to be transferred somewhere else or to be
6 exchanged. Everything else he did, he always did upon someone's express
8 The Defence will present evidence to prove that his role in the
9 Omarska Investigation Centre was always subordinated to a superior and
10 that he always acted upon somebody's explicit orders.
11 Article 7(1) of the Statute reads, "A person who planned,
12 instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted in the
13 planning, preparation, or execution of a crime referred to in Articles 2
14 to 5 of the present Statute shall be individually responsible for the
15 crime." Individual criminal responsibility of the accused Dragoljub Prcac
16 does not exist.
17 The Defence will present evidence to that effect since he did not
18 commit, plan, instigate, issue orders, or aid and abet or otherwise
19 participate in the planning, preparation, or commission of the crimes he
20 is charged with pursuant to Articles 3 and 5 of the Tribunal's Statute.
21 The Defence will also seek to prove, bearing in mind the role that
22 the accused Prcac had within the Omarska Investigation Centre, that he was
23 not in a position to take part in the events listed in the indictment in a
24 way that would make him accountable pursuant to the provisions of Article
25 7(1) of the Statute. The accused was not a part of the repressive system,
1 nor was he in a position to encourage, instigate, aid or abet in the
2 commission of any such repression. The Defence wishes to underline, in
3 particular, that there is no evidence to prove that the accused was ever
4 present when persons came to the centre who were not employed in the
5 investigation centre.
6 The accused Dragoljub Prcac entered the investigation centre of
7 Omarska about 10 times. His statement given to investigators of the
8 Prosecution describe the following incidents that he witnessed: On his
9 first day in the Omarska Investigation Centre, the accused saw on the
10 grass area next to the "white house" two deformed corpses. The accused
11 Prcac plucked up the courage to ask Meakic about it, that is, why the
12 corpses were not being removed, and the answer he received was that Simo
13 Drljaca had ordered the corpses not to be removed and that the issue was
14 not debatable.
15 Shortly after that, the accused saw the guards beating up his
16 former colleague, Reuf Travancic. Though he felt indignant and deeply
17 upset by this, out of understandable fear, he didn't dare react.
18 On a third occasion, one of the investigators sent him to take
19 down the particulars of the newly-arrived detainees. When he went
20 downstairs, he saw guards, in the presence of Meakic, beating the
21 prisoners who were standing against the wall of the administrative
22 building. He spotted among the detainees two sons of a good friend of his
23 from Tukovi. This time, his indication was stronger than his fear. He
24 thought of his own sons and lost control and started yelling at the guards
25 telling them to stop beating the men. As no one paid any attention to his
1 cries, in a spasm of fury, he pulled his gun at the guards. Of course
2 such an outburst could not have gone without consequences, and the Defence
3 will provide evidence to show how many of his compatriots viewed this
4 outburst of his.
5 Under Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment, the accused Dragoljub
6 Prcac stands accused of having, in the period from the 24th of May to the
7 30th of August 1992, as Deputy Commander of the camp, participated in the
8 murders in Omarska camp as set out in schedule E, or of having instigated
9 or otherwise aided and abetted camp guards and other Serbs who were
10 allowed access to the Omarska camp and who were persons subordinate to
12 Schedule E, itemises the murders with which the accused Dragoljub
13 Prcac is charged. The Defence claims that none of these murders took
14 place at a time when the accused worked in the Omarska Investigation
15 Centre. Schedule E stipulates the names of the victims, and the Defence
16 will conduct an analysis of these listed murders with the help of the
17 evidence that has been presented so far.
18 The Prosecution alleges that Husein Senkic was killed on the 1st
19 of July 1992. Durat Durakovic, there was not a single witness to the
20 circumstances of this event, nor was the date ever established when this
21 man was murdered or whether he was in the Omarska Investigation Centre at
23 The Prosecution, in schedule E, alleges that the murder of Suljo
24 Ganic took place in June 1992.
25 Riza Hadzalic was killed in the investigation centre of Omarska.
1 According to statements by witness Azedin Oklopcic and many others, this
2 murder took place at approximately the 12th of July, 1992.
3 The murder of Emir Ramic Hankin, according to the allegations of
4 the Prosecution and the evidence presented here, is claimed to have
5 occurred between the 10th and 14th of June, 1992. Sefik Sivac was killed
6 on the 8th of July, 1992.
7 The accused Dragoljub Prcac cannot be guilty for any of these
8 murders. The Defence will seek to prove that Dragoljub Prcac arrived in
9 the investigation centre of Omarska on the 15th of July, 1992, which is to
10 say, after these crimes were committed. The Defence shall also seek to
11 prove that the accused was not physically present at the time when these
12 killings occurred.
13 The Prosecution, furthermore, alleges in Counts 8 to 10 of the
14 indictment that the accused Dragoljub Prcac stands accused of having, in
15 the period between the 24th of May to the 30th of August, as deputy
16 commander of the camp, of taking -- taking part in, instigating, or
17 otherwise aiding and abetting the torture and beating of Bosnian Muslims
18 and Bosnian Croats and that he knew or had reason to know that persons
19 subordinate to him were participating in the torture or beatings and that
20 he did not take the necessary reasonable steps in order to prevent acts of
21 this kind or in order to punish the perpetrators.
22 Schedule E itemises examples of beatings and torture for which the
23 accused Dragoljub Prcac stands charged. The Defence will seek to prove
24 when the accused arrived in the investigation centre and in that way will
25 prove that not a single beating or act of torture took place during the
1 time when the accused Prcac was himself in the Omarska Investigation
3 Schedule E stipulates the names of victims, and the Defence will
4 analyse the incidents described in the light of the evidence brought to
5 light so far.
6 The arrest, interrogation of Witness A occurred before the accused
7 arrived in the investigation centre. The exact dates and possible sexual
8 abuse has not been ascertained.
9 Emir Beganovic was beaten and tortured on two occasions in the
10 time period between the 7th and 12th of June, 1992, and subsequently on
11 the 18th of June 1992. Suad Besic was beaten upon his arrival in the
12 camp. He was beaten at the entrance to the canteen, to the restaurant,
13 and in the course of the interrogations. All these incidents took place
14 before the arrival of the accused to the camp.
15 Abdulah Brkic was beaten and tortured on the 11th and 12th of
16 July, 1992. Muhamed Cehajic was beaten on the 23rd of June, 1992. Riza
17 Hadzalic was beaten to his death at about the 12th of July, 1992. Hase
18 Icic was tortured in the hanger on the 23rd of June, 1992. Mario Josic,
19 for whom the Prosecution alleges was tortured and beaten up in the
20 investigation centre of Omarska, but there is no evidence to show, nor did
21 any of the witnesses testify to an incident linked to this victim.
22 Asif Kapetanovic was beaten and tortured in the "white house" in
23 the period between the 7th and 12th of June, 1992. Anes Medunjanin was
24 beaten upon his arrival in the camp, during the interrogation, and later
25 on in the "white house" in the time period between the 10th and 14th of
1 June, 1992. Senad Muslimovic was beaten together with Hase Icic in the
2 hanger on the 18th of June, 1992. Emir Ramic Hankin was beaten upon his
3 arrival in the camp, during his interrogation, and later on in the "white
4 house." He was killed between the 10th and 16th of June, 1992.
5 Your Honours, the Defence will seek to prove the time that the
6 accused arrived in the investigation centre and that from the evidence put
7 forward by the Prosecution, not a single one of these incidents occurred
8 during the time he was in the investigation centre.
9 The dates of many of the incidents, murders, beatings, or torture
10 have not even been approximately established, and the Defence considers
11 that therefore the accused Prcac cannot be charged with having
12 participated in these events according to the principle of collective
14 The sole physical presence of the accused during the time these
15 crimes were committed and his position and role in the investigation
16 centre of Omarska can be the sole criteria for ascertaining his possible
18 In this part of my opening statement, I, as the Defence, will
19 refer to the theory of command responsibility and the elements which
20 comprise it.
21 For us to be able to discuss command responsibility, the following
22 elements must be proved: That a time has been committed pursuant to
23 Articles 2 to 5 of the Statute; that the crime was committed by a
24 subordinate person; that a -- his superior either knew that the
25 subordinate would commit the crime or that he had reason to know this;
1 that the person in superior authority did not take -- undertake the
2 necessary and reasonable measures to prevent a crime from being committed
3 or, rather, that the person knew that the subordinate had already
4 committed the crimes or had reason to know about this and that the
5 individual did not take the necessary and reasonable steps to punish the
6 perpetrator. All these elements, in our understanding, are cumulative.
7 With regard to the first element, the Defence would like to submit
8 that there is no valid evidence to show that in the interval between the
9 15th of July and the 16th of August, crimes were committed under Articles
10 3 and 5 of the Tribunal's Statute.
11 The Defence shall nonetheless seek to prove and present evidence
12 that there is absolutely no link between the accused and the execution of
13 the alleged crimes because the -- this Trial Chamber could arrive at the
14 conclusion that the crimes had, in fact, taken place in this particular
15 period of time.
16 The Defence of Dragoljub Prcac wishes to indicate the fact that in
17 its understanding, conditions for the application of Article 5 of the
18 Statute have not been met in keeping with the decision based on the
19 interlocutory appeal in the Tadic case, the condition of the systematic
20 character and widespread character of the crime as stipulated in this
21 decision was not fulfilled in this case either objectively or
23 In order to ascertain the accountability of the accused and his
24 alleged command responsibility, it is necessary to establish what the
25 hierarchial relationship of superior and subordinate entails, what the
1 elements in that relationship are on the basis of which one can ascertain
2 that such a relationship actually existed. This relationship implies the
3 existence of a hierarchy and of subordination. That is to say a
4 relationship between superior and subordinate.
5 According to standard practice, this is a condition without which
6 there can be no command responsibility. Therefore, it is not a question
7 of how this is officially stipulated and in Prcac's case, there is no
8 evidence to prove that it existed. The Defence considers that it is
9 important to determine the de facto power and authority which one person
10 has over another not through formal authorisation but on the basis of
11 authority, the authority to issue orders and to punish.
12 Article 7(3) of the Statute provides for the fact that a superior
13 knew or had reason to know, that is to say, that he knew about the crimes
14 and that this made it incumbent upon the superior to undertake necessary
15 steps and reasonable measures to punish the perpetrator if that
16 perpetrator is known. Under reasonable and necessary measures, we
17 consider sanctions and corresponding proceedings to be undertaken.
18 If the perpetrator is unknown, then when reasonable and necessary
19 measures are stipulated, this means that those which are indispensable to
20 uncover the perpetrator and to punish him. The Prosecution has not
21 provided a single piece of evidence on the basis of which any -- we would
22 be able to conclude that the accused Prcac had any actual power of
23 authority in the Omarska Investigation Centre.
24 The Prosecution relied upon witness statements, witnesses who
25 thought that the accused was a Deputy Commander in the camp or had heard
1 that he was a Deputy Commander. The Defence will seek to prove that all
2 these statements and testimonies remain in the realm of assumption.
3 The Prosecution attempted to show that the accused was a
4 responsible person in the Omarska Investigation Centre with the task of
5 drawing up lists of detainees. From that, the Prosecution deduces and
6 reaches the conclusion that the accused Prcac was informed of the further
7 fate of the detainees who were then tortured or who disappeared.
8 The Defence will seek to prove that the Prosecution did not
9 present a scrap of evidence to support this assumption. The Defence will
10 furthermore seek to prove that the accused Prcac performed this job only
11 from time to time and exclusively following orders from Meakic or one of
12 the investigators. The accused Prcac did not compile the lists himself,
13 he received ready-prepared lists. The accused Prcac did not have the
14 order or obligation to bring in detainees who were on the list. This job
15 was done by someone else.
16 The Defence will seek to prove that it was otherwise the standard
17 practice in the Omarska Investigation Centre for these tasks to be
18 accomplished, according to need, by other guards as well. The Defence
19 will seek to prove who was in charge of compiling these lists, who
20 distributed the detainees into three groups, who determined which
21 detainees would be transferred to the military camp at Manjaca, and who
22 made decisions on the exchange of prisoners. That was certainly not
23 Dragoljub Prcac.
24 The Prosecution, in the indictment as well as in its opening
25 statement, alleges that the accused Dragoljub Prcac, as an active-duty
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 policeman in June 1992, replaced Miroslav Kvocka as Deputy Camp
2 Commander. As Deputy Camp Commander, the accused would have been superior
3 to everybody else in the camp apart from the Camp Commander. The
4 Prosecutor therefore alleges that the accused is guilty pursuant to
5 Article 7(3) of the Statute because he failed to prevent or punish the bad
6 conduct of individuals under him, subordinated to him.
7 The Defence will seek to prove that Dragoljub Prcac was not an
8 active-duty policeman. The Defence will seek to prove that Dragoljub
9 Prcac came to the investigation centre of Omarska on the 15th of July 1992
10 and remained there until the 6th of August 1992, that he did not replace
11 Miroslav Kvocka, that he was not the Deputy Commander, and that he did not
12 hold any command position.
13 The Defence shall seek to prove that the accused had no de jure or
14 de facto authority of any kind in the Omarska Investigation Centre and
15 that the hierarchy in the centre itself was not organised in the manner in
16 which is alleged by the Prosecution.
17 The interrogation of detainees was conducted by a group of
18 investigators composed of the representatives of public, state, and
19 military security. The Defence will seek to prove that the investigators
20 had a separate group of guards whom they used and who were at their beck
21 and call. These guards worked the same working hours as the inspectors
22 themselves and worked at the same time.
23 Sufficient evidence has been shown that in one period in the
24 investigation centre in Omarska, a group of -- a special unit group from
25 Banja Luka was present. Their task was to aid the investigators in their
1 investigations, and not even Simo Drljaca had control over them.
2 The Defence will seek to prove that the organisation in the centre
3 was as follows: In addition to the army and the units from Banja Luka,
4 there was the investigators' service, the security of the centre, and the
5 technical staff of the centre. Each of these structures had its own
6 duties and jobs to perform and all of them together were responsible to
7 Simo Drljaca and not to Zeljko Meakic.
8 The security of the centre was provided by active-duty policemen
9 and the reserve police force. Active-duty policemen, for the most part,
10 did not know the people from the reserve force, nor were the latter
11 trained in matters of security. It was the task of the security services
12 to prevent people escaping from the investigation centre. There is no
13 evidence to show that they had any other competencies.
14 The Commander of the police department, Zeljko Meakic, in
15 conformity with the law governing internal affairs, dated the 28th of
16 February, 1992, and published in the Official Gazette of the Serbian
17 people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the number being 4 and the date the 23rd of
18 March, 1992, as well as the rules of service, and nobody had the right to
19 appoint, replace, or punish members of his department. All Meakic could
20 do was to inform his superior, the head of the police station, of certain
21 events taking place or incidents taking place.
22 A necessary condition for accountability to exist is -- for a
23 crime to exist is premeditation, which implies the consciousness of the
24 perpetrator about the act he has performed together with the clear-cut
25 decision to take part in a crime by means of planning, instigating, or
1 otherwise aiding and abetting such a crime.
2 The Prosecution did not offer a scrap of valid evidence to prove
3 that the accused was indeed the deputy camp commander. The Defence will
4 seek to prove that the accused Prcac spent a short period of time in the
5 Omarska Investigation Centre and that he did so against his will, under a
6 terrible threat, along with the permanent presence of Zeljko Meakic, who
7 was his superior at all times.
8 Contrary to his will, the accused found himself in the centre
9 under duress and he had no consciousness of a common purpose or
10 participation in a criminal undertaking. The Defence will emphasise in
11 particular that the Prosecution did not provide valid evidence on the
12 existence of a military relationship between the subordinates and the
14 THE INTERPRETER: "Between the crimes committed and the accused,"
15 interpreters note.
16 The Defence will seek to prove before this Tribunal and Trial
17 Chamber that Dragoljub Prcac is not guilty pursuant to Article 7(1) and
18 Article 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal.
19 The Defence will also seek to prove that the Defence -- that the
20 accused held no command position, that he was not Deputy Commander, that
21 he did not replace Miroslav Kvocka in the Omarska Investigation Centre,
22 and that he was not a link in the chain of command in the centre.
23 The Defence will also seek to prove that Dragoljub Prcac, against
24 his own volition, was assigned to the investigation centre. The Defence
25 will seek to prove that in the Omarska Investigation Centre, he spent a
1 total of approximately 120 hours.
2 The Defence will also be hearing witness who is will throw light
3 on the role and conduct of the accused in the Omarska Investigation
4 Centre. The Defence will seek to prove, by means of witness testimony,
5 the positive character and conduct of the accused during his stay in the
7 The Defence will, Your Honours, seek to prove that Dragoljub Prcac
8 is not guilty on all counts of the indictment.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Jovan Simic.
10 I think that before we actually begin with the presentation of
11 evidence that it would be convenient to have a break. So we're going to
12 have a 50-minute lunch break now.
13 --- Recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
16 Before we begin with witnesses, I should like to turn to Mr. Jovan
17 Simic and ask you what are the decisions that you need before we begin? I
18 think that you filed a motion regarding a change in the list of
19 witnesses. I think there's also a question related to your expert
20 witness, and is there something else, could you remind me, at least, I
21 seem to recollect those two matters.
22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has filed
23 a request for a change of one witness. One of our witnesses from the
24 original list has declined to come. In the meantime, another witness has
25 decided to come after all. We have contacted the Prosecution and asked
1 their acceptance, and they are ready to accept the testimony of this
2 witness, but we have agreed that this witness should be on the last or one
3 but last day of our presentation of evidence. This was a witness who held
4 a high position in the investigation centre and for that reason, we asked
5 for safe passage for him, safe conduct.
6 Also, we have another request from our witnesses here present,
7 that is, when the witnesses left Prijedor until yesterday afternoon, two
8 witnesses have received phone calls at home. One got a call, allegedly
9 from the Justice Ministry of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is
10 Republika Srpska, and this anonymous caller asked the witness's wife to
11 explain where he is and whether he had been a member of any military units
12 and which units during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 A second witness has also been called up. Nobody introduced
14 himself, and his uncle was asked, because his wife doesn't have a
15 telephone, whether he happens to be in The Hague and, if so, to watch
16 out. This other witness, who has been listed as a witness, after that,
17 requested protective measures in the form of a pseudonym and facial
18 distortion. He has three children and a wife. He's a driver who is
19 constantly passing through areas predominantly inhabited by Muslims. He
20 doesn't have any tangible evidence, but he is simply scared and he has
21 asked us to ask Your Honours whether he could be allowed to testify with a
23 This is new, and I felt it was more appropriate for us to make the
24 opening statement and then submit these requests. We had intended to do
25 so in writing tomorrow, but you have preempted our requests and those are
1 the two requests that we have in relation to our witnesses.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps we should go into
3 private session because, after all, we need to have information which
4 might identify the witnesses, so let's go into private session to complete
5 this discussion.
6 [Private session]
13 Page 11345 redacted private session.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, we have
18 another question to address. That is the question of the expert witness.
19 I think that you objected, but in my opinion, you didn't give us
20 any specific reasons for your objection.
21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, as I read 94 bis, I don't think it
22 requires setting out a reason. It's just that we do not accept it and
23 we'd like to have the opportunity to cross-examine. These go to central
24 issues, structure, hierarchy, command, and because they are putting forth
25 evidence that is so central to it, we would like to have the opportunity.
1 Where we -- we occasionally do list, and usually it's at the
2 Chamber's inquiry because perhaps a time issue may arise, but normally the
3 Prosecution or the other party, even the Defence as well, will simply have
4 to indicate that they wished to cross-examine. And we would like to have
5 an opportunity. Although I hope it won't be a terribly lengthy one, I
6 would like to have a chance to inquire into some of the pronouncements
7 that are in the expert statement. Thank you.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, fine. You mentioned time
9 constraints. In view of that, how much time would you need for the
11 MS. SOMERS: I'm checking with someone with whom I'm in touch
12 right now on a couple of issues. If the Chamber would permit me to get
13 back to this individual so I can get a sense of how far I need to proceed.
14 I cannot answer it today, but we have -- the Chamber has allowed us even
15 reduced time in the past and we've complied. What is the Chamber's
16 position on the amount of time it -- does the Chamber see a particular
17 problem with that particular day? This would be, I believe, the last
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. I think the question is
20 that this witness, as far as I have been able to read, is the first
21 witness we're going to hear. It's the first one we have on the list.
22 Dusan Lakcevic. In my list, he's the first.
23 Mr. Jovan Simic.
24 MS. SOMERS: There is a change. I think perhaps the Chamber
25 doesn't have the new witness order. My understanding is that Professor
1 Lakcevic is the last or second last witness. He's coming at the very
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, maybe. Mr. Jovan Simic,
4 can you help me? But we have the order for the 12th of May, and I don't
5 think it is the 12th. The 12th is Saturday. And we always have a list of
6 witnesses. The first on that list is Dusan Lakcevic, then Ljubisa Prcac,
7 and so on. So it's the same set of documents.
8 Where do we stand, Mr. Simic, please? Please assist us.
9 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document you are
10 referring to was compiled further to Rule 65 ter listing the names of
11 witnesses who will be testifying here in court. We agreed with the
12 Prosecution. Because of certain deadlines, the Registrar has not managed
13 to have translated the expert report of Dusan Lakcevic, we will call that
14 witness as the last so as to fit into the deadline of 21 days that we need
15 to observe for the Prosecution to have enough time for preparation for the
17 I'm sorry if the order of the witnesses has not yet reached you.
18 We had agreed on that order with the Prosecution, and that list differs
19 entirely from the document that was filed in response to Rule 65 ter. So
20 these are two different documents. The order of the witnesses, the list
21 of witnesses and the schedule, which witness will testify when, for how
22 long, and relating to which facts.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Do you have any
24 additional observations, Ms. Susan Somers?
25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, we prepared our examinations according
1 to the most recent witness list which Mr. Simic has referred and that had
2 placed the expert at the very end.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the Chamber with respect to
6 protective measures requested by the Defence for the accused Mr. Prcac
7 grants the protective measures requested bearing exceptional circumstances
8 in mind which were communicated to us by counsel.
9 With respect to the list of witnesses, the Chamber also grants the
10 changes requested by Defence counsel, again taking into consideration the
11 specific circumstances of the Prcac Defence. With respect to the expert
12 witness, we will wait for the Prosecution to be able to decide how much
13 time we will give for the cross-examination of the expert witness.
14 So having spent 35 minutes, we can, I hope, begin in earnest, but
15 this was necessary, of course, to address these matters. Mr. Jovan Simic,
16 you have the floor to begin with the presentation of your Defence
18 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence calls our
19 first witness, Ljubisa Prcac.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Ljubisa, can you hear me?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please read the solemn
24 declaration given to you by the usher.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: LJUBISA PRCAC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Make yourself as comfortable as
7 you can.
8 I see that Mr. Prcac is a little bit emotional. I don't know
9 whether you are feeling all right. Can you continue? Yes? Very well.
10 These are emotions that we can understand.
11 Thank you very much for coming. For the moment, you will be
12 answering questions which Mr. Jovan Simic is going to put to you.
13 Mr. Jovan Simic, your witness.
14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:
16 Q. Good afternoon.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. For the record, will you tell us your name.
19 A. Ljubisa Prcac.
20 Q. Will you please make a short pause before answering my question
21 because of the interpreters.
22 Where and when were you born?
23 A. In Banja Luka on the 27th of March 1975.
24 Q. What are your parents' names?
25 A. Stojica and Dragoljub Prcac.
1 Q. You have a brother.
2 A. Yes, a younger brother.
3 Q. Could you tell us the name of your brother and when he was born?
4 A. His name is Radisa. He was born in 1982.
5 Q. Are you employed?
6 A. Just now, no.
7 Q. How do you make a living?
8 A. Mainly from farming.
9 Q. You are familiar with the life of your father.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell us how many grades of primary school your father
13 A. During his regular schooling, only five grades of primary school.
14 Q. Do you know the reason?
15 A. The main reason is the poverty of his family, a large number of
16 brothers and sisters that he had, and the inability of his parents to
17 educate him for any longer period of time.
18 Q. Did your father gain additional training later on?
19 A. As far as I know, he engaged in manual work, and after that, he
20 joined the police and he enrolled in the police academy because in those
21 days, that gave him a job and he would have free accommodation and food.
22 And this was something he had to do as he had no other financial
23 resources. Later on, this made it possible for him to complete his
24 education on a part-time basis as well as a course in -- as a criminal
1 Q. Do you know how old your father was when he completed secondary
2 school and the course for crime technicians?
3 A. He was 31 years old.
4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please distribute
5 these documents which we intend to tender into evidence, and if it could
6 be marked for identification, please. I think it would be 8/5.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That is correct, D8/5.
8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Prcac, would you please first look at the documents that have
10 been given to you and then I will have a few questions for you.
11 This is the employment record booklet of your father?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you tell us who gave the Defence counsel and the
14 investigators the original employment record card and who photocopied it?
15 A. I handed the Defence this booklet and I photocopied it, and it was
16 together with all his other documents.
17 Q. In this employment record, is there any proof to show that your
18 father completed secondary education, passed a test for a crime technician
19 on the 5th of February 1969?
20 A. If you look at page 2, yes, all those data are to be found on page
22 Q. If you turn to the next page, what are the data figuring there?
23 A. They are -- that is information about employment, where he first
24 got a job and so on.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you know when your father retired?
1 A. He retired at the end of 1984.
2 Q. Could you tell us where he worked before he retired?
3 A. He worked in the centre of public security in Prijedor as a crime
5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to ask the usher
6 to distribute a set of documents which will be marked 9/5 from D9 to
7 D15/5A and B.
8 There are some more documents.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, I think you
10 were distributing documents going from D9 to D15; is that right? Perhaps
11 we could distribute them at the same time. Otherwise, we have to make six
12 trips round the courtroom. Can you distribute all the documents at the
13 same time or not?
14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was afraid they may
15 get mixed up. These are key documents. We have to check the numbers,
16 even those of us who speak B/C/S, but we can distribute them together.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, we have to
18 organise our work. Otherwise, we run the risk of having an enormous
19 number of documents before us without knowing afterwards what their
20 numbers are.
21 So I'm going to ask Madam Registrar, before the documents are
22 distributed, to give us a number for them so that we can identify them, a
23 number for identification purposes. Otherwise, we won't know what number
24 9, 10, 11, up to 15 are.
25 Madam Registrar, please go ahead.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, the first document, D9/5, will be -- in the
2 English version it says the date of January 10th, 1983, number
4 Okay. D10/5 is the date of May 31, 1984, number 13-131-19/207.
5 D11/5 is dated the 11th of September, 1984, number 07/2-126-161.
6 The next exhibit that I'm about to give out is D12/5, and that has
7 the date of September 11, 1984, 07/2-126-161.
8 To save time, I will mark them myself and distribute them to the
9 parties, the rest of the documents. Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. And we're very
11 grateful to you for volunteering to do that work, Madam Registrar.
12 Mr. Jovan Simic, what are we going to do now? What comes next?
13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to ask
14 the witness something about these documents very briefly.
15 Q. Mr. Prcac, I should like to ask you to take a look at all these
16 documents and to explain to us briefly what they refer to, what they're
17 about, and who gave these documents to the Defence team of your father,
18 Mr. Dragoljub Prcac?
19 A. I gave these documents to the Defence team. The first document,
20 dated the 10th of January, 1983, relates to a decision. It is a decision
21 in which my father is assigned to duty, the position of authorised
22 operative employee in the field of crime technician, for which a secondary
23 school education is required, and commencing on the 1st of January, 1983.
24 THE INTERPRETER: "Secondary school qualifications," interpreters
1 A. The next document I think the year is 1984, but it's not a very
2 good copy so I'm not quite certain of the year. I think it's 1984. And
3 it is once again a decision that Dragoljub Prcac, assigned to the tasks
4 and duties of an authorised operative employee for crimes against
5 property, and income calculation and payment of salary are being
6 ascertained, and he is given 1.560 points for his ongoing work in the form
7 of advanced pay, 509 points for past work, and a total of 2.069 points
8 income calculation and payment of salary pursuant to this decision will
9 commence on the 1st of January, 1984, on which day this Secretariat's
10 decision, number 13-131-19/141, dated the 15th of February, 1984 shall
11 cease to have effect.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I apologise, but in order to save time, please don't read out the
14 decision as it stands but just tell us briefly what the document is
15 about. The next document is 11/5.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, I apologise for
17 interrupting, but, Mr. Ljubisa, these documents that you are analysing,
18 were they part of a set of documents which you saw as being personal
19 documents relating to your father and starting out with the employment
20 record, booklet?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now, where were these documents
23 when you took them? Where did you take them from?
24 A. All the documents were in a suitcase of his, because any papers he
25 ever received in relation to his employment, in his job, and relating to
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 his family members he always kept in one place.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Simic.
4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. We've come to document 11/5. Could you just tell us briefly what
6 this document is about? You don't have to read it, just explain to us
7 what it is about.
8 A. That is a testimony that he worked in the security organs from
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the dates, please.
11 Could the witness please repeat those dates.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The next document relates to when he stopped working in these
14 organs; is that right?
15 A. Yes. And it states his right to claim a pension.
16 Q. Could you tell us the date when he ceased working?
17 A. The 31st of December 1984.
18 Q. The next three documents are documents which determine his pension
19 and when the pension will be paid out, when commencement of the pension
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. Mr. Prcac, can you tell us, please -- I'd just like to tell the
23 usher that we shan't be needing the documents any more.
24 Can you tell us, Mr. Prcac, what your father did after he retired,
25 what did he do?
1 A. After he retired, my father worked in farming. He tilled the land
2 because that was the only way in which he could make a living for his
3 family. The costs for the treatment of my younger brother were enormous,
4 and his pension was very small. The only way to feed his family was to
6 Q. Your father obtained an apartment in 1980 in Prijedor, did he not?
7 A. Yes, he did. That's right.
8 Q. Who lived in that apartment?
9 A. When we were given the apartment, myself and my father and mother
10 lived there, and in 1982, my brother was born.
11 Q. You also have a house in the village of Omarska, do you not?
12 A. Yes. It is my grandparents' house, my father's parents.
13 Q. In that period of time, and we're talking about the period when
14 Mr. Prcac retired, who lived in the house in Omarska, if anybody did?
15 A. Only his aging mother lived there at the time, and she needed care
16 and attention.
17 Q. Can you explain to me, please, if you lived in Prijedor and your
18 grandmother, your granny lived in Omarska, how did your father organise
19 his life, where did he, in fact, live?
20 A. In the morning, he would see to his children first. After that,
21 he would get on a bus, go to Omarska, work there the whole day, and return
22 once again by bus to Prijedor in the evening. He would very often travel
23 by bus because we never had a car of our own. And the stories about his
24 travelling I heard from the bus driver, and his surname is Kicanovic.
25 Q. Can you tell us, please, since the time he retired, or for as long
1 as you can remember up until the war conflicts broke out and later on, did
2 your father ever frequent cafes or go to the cinema or football games or
3 any public things of that kind? Did he do anything else except for what
4 you have just described to us?
5 A. His only work was his farming and to fend for his family. He
6 spent a great deal of time in the treatment of my younger brother.
7 Q. Was your father ever a member of the SDS?
8 A. No, he was never a member of the SDS or any other party except the
9 League of Communists of Yugoslavia because that was the prerequisite in
10 the former Yugoslavia for him to be able to get a job in the police
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should like to call upon the
13 usher once again to distribute document D16/5.
14 Q. Mr. Prcac, you have before you a document of the Serbian
15 Democratic Party confirming that your father was not its member.
16 A. That is right, yes.
17 Q. Could you tell me who asked for this document and who gave you the
18 document, who supplied it?
19 A. The Defence team received this document, and I took it over on the
20 premises of the SDS party in Prijedor.
21 Q. Thank you. Mr. Prcac, a moment ago you said that your family did
22 not own a car, a passenger vehicle?
23 A. No, never. It did not.
24 Q. Did your father sometimes borrow a car from somebody else and
25 drive it or not?
1 A. When the need arose, when it was absolutely necessary, then he
2 would borrow somebody's car. But after the accident, the traffic accident
3 which we had in 1989 at the Jasenovac bridge while he was driving, he
4 crashed the car. And after that, he couldn't pay for the damages that he
5 had caused, and he never borrowed a car again.
6 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to ask the usher
7 to distribute the next document, the next exhibit.
8 THE REGISTRAR: This is D17/5.
9 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Prcac, my next question: Can you tell us what the document
11 you have before you is and who procured it for the needs of the Defence?
12 A. For the requirements of the Defence, I procured it myself at the
13 Ministry of the Interior, the Public Security Centre, Prijedor.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. It is a certificate saying that there is no record in the vehicle
16 registration files of the person having a car.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us when your father was mobilised?
18 A. In May 1992.
19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now kindly
20 distribute the next document.
21 THE REGISTRAR: This document is D18/5.
22 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Prcac, was the military service identification and record card
24 in the suitcase that your father, Mr. Prcac, kept his documents in?
25 A. Yes, just like all the other important documents.
1 Q. Would you take a look at page 7 of this document. And if you look
2 at the war data -- do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And it says your father had taken part in the war from the 29th of
5 April, 1992, to the 31st of December, 1995. Is that true?
6 A. Yes. I've already said that, that he was mobilised at the
7 beginning of May. And as far as this date is concerned, the 29th of
8 April, I think that that was the date introduced for all workers, stated
9 for all workers for administration purposes and data processing, to
10 facilitate it. They were all given this one date.
11 Q. I should now like to ask the usher to distribute two sets of
12 exhibits and then I shall ask you some more questions about them. These
13 are two documents of the Official Gazette?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. One dated the 5th of June, the other of the 8th of June; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What are these two decisions? Look at the 5th of June Official
19 Gazette first. It is an order on general public mobilisation; is that
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. If you look at the second document, the second Official Gazette,
23 on page 2, if you open the document and turn to page 2, there's another
24 decision there.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, could you give
1 us a reference for the document, the number?
2 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. The first document
3 proclaiming general public mobilisation is D19/5A and B. That's the
4 English version.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. But it would be
6 convenient for you to mention the number so that we can identify it.
7 Thank you. Go ahead.
8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The next document, D20/5 --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That's right, Mr. Jovan Simic.
11 That's the way to proceed.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. On page 2, we have a decision on the organisation and
14 implementation of work obligations for defence purposes. Could you tell
15 us what these two documents are? Are you acquainted with the two
16 documents? What do they represent, in fact? What are they? What are
17 they about?
18 A. They represent decisions on general public mobilisation and
19 decisions on the wartime assignments. Wartime assignment and work
20 obligations and so on.
21 Q. To the best of your knowledge, when mobilisation was proclaimed --
22 is proclaimed, the population, did they -- were the citizens duty-bound to
23 respond to the call-up?
24 A. Yes, that's right, they were.
25 Q. Do you know whether there were any sanctions, whether anything
1 happened to the people who did not respond to the mobilisation call-up?
2 A. Yes, there were.
3 Q. Do you know what happened?
4 A. Well, if you failed to report to the call-up or to your work
5 obligation or assignment, this could lead to -- you would be in conflict
6 with the law, and every military recruit would be held responsible to
7 their superiors for the area, to the prosecution or whoever.
8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could the usher distribute the next exhibit, which is D21/5A
10 [Realtime transcript read in error "D25/5A"] and B. "A" is the B/C/S
11 version and B is the English version.
12 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour. The transcript is reading
13 "D25." Was it not D21 that Mr. Simic mentioned?
14 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] D21, yes. I'm sorry.
15 MS. SOMERS: The transcript reflects another number. Perhaps it
16 could be corrected.
17 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Prcac, the document marked D21/5, dated the 2nd of June, 1992,
19 is a public announcement --
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. -- in which all men aged between 18 and 45, who are not engaged
22 otherwise, to report to the army or the police; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. It says here that failure to respond to this call will
24 entail legal sanctions.
25 Q. Thank you. Upon the proclamation of the mobilisation, do you know
1 where your father was assigned to?
2 A. The first assignment was to the public security centre in
3 Prijedor. However, as that would prevent him from continuing to farm the
4 land, because in those days inflation was already high and his pension
5 hardly had any value. So he went to the public security centre in
6 Prijedor and asked to be transferred to the police station department at
7 Omarska to be able to continue to farm and thus to feed his family.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please. Mike, mike, microphone, please.
9 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Could the usher
10 distribute Exhibit number D22/5A and B.
11 Q. Mr. Prcac, what does this document represent?
12 A. It is an identification document for members of the reserve force
13 of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre, Public Security Station
14 Prijedor, and it is dated the 11th of July, 1992.
15 Q. Thank you. So you said he was assigned to the Omarska Police
16 Station Department.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know who he worked with and what his duties there were?
19 A. His duties were linked to the duties of the post of crime
20 technician. He worked in the department together with Rade Andzic,
21 Milorad Pusac, Ljuban Grahovac, Ilija Prpus, and for a time together with
22 a neighbour of ours, Bosko Dabic.
23 He was involved on a compilation of records linked to burglaries
24 into the agricultural cooperative called poljopromet.
25 Q. Did your father talk about his work with you or other members of
1 the family?
2 A. He never spoke about his work unless he considered it was
3 something that directly affected the family.
4 Q. Do you know when your father was transferred to the Omarska
5 Investigation Centre?
6 A. He was transferred in mid-July in 1992, and before this transfer,
7 the day before he was transferred, Zeljko Meakic explained to him the
8 duties he would have.
9 Q. Do you know how your father was transferred?
10 A. He received a direct order from Simo Drljaca. At first, he
11 wouldn't accept. However, when he was threatened, then he had no choice
12 but to accept.
13 Q. Do you know what kind of threat he received?
14 A. At the time, we were in Prijedor and that evening, he came in a
15 visibly agitated condition. We sat for a long while talking, and then he
16 told me that he had to move to the Omarska Investigation Centre because he
17 had been threatened with the life of his children and the burning down of
18 his house.
19 Q. Did you talk to your father about what was happening in the
20 Omarska Investigation Centre and are you at all aware of what he did over
22 A. You mean after he left and went to the investigation centre? No,
23 only on one occasion. We only spoke about it on one occasion. As for his
24 assignment, I know that he worked in some kind of shifts and when he was
25 off duty, he farmed the land.
1 Q. On that one occasion that you mentioned, what did he tell you?
2 A. Shortly after he went there, an incident occurred. He was given
3 orders from his superiors or I don't know from whom, to go downstairs and
4 take the particulars of the detainees. When he went down, he noticed that
5 the detainees were being beaten. Among them, he spotted two sons of a
6 friend of his who used to live in Tukovi, and he started shouting that
7 they should stop beating them. Nobody heeded his words so he took out his
8 pistol and said he would shoot, and the beatings stopped.
9 He came to Prijedor and said to me, my mother, and brother --
10 actually, he told us that we had to go to Omarska. When I asked him why,
11 he told me about this incident which had happened and actually, he feared
12 that Zeljko Meakic, who was present, would report him to Simo Drljaca.
13 Q. Did Zeljko Meakic inform Simo Drljaca, do you know? Did your
14 family suffer any consequences?
15 A. I personally think he did not. Zeljko acted fairly, decently
16 then. He told my father not to come to work for two or three days.
17 Actually, he wanted things to calm down. However, this reaction of his
18 provoked a response in the locality itself, in the neighbourhood, because
19 rumours started going that he was protecting Muslims and that he needed to
20 be liquidated.
21 I heard one such rumour from a work colleague of my mother's,
22 Gordana Jokic, who, while serving a group of soldiers, heard threats made
23 at our expense.
24 Q. Did anyone threaten you?
25 A. Not me personally, but there was gossip and rumours in the
2 Q. Mr. Prcac, could you tell us whether your father carried any
3 parcels to the investigation centre containing food or anything else, and
4 for whom?
5 A. Yes, he did. My mother and myself sent such parcels ourselves,
6 not only through him, but through others, food for Cikota Zlata and Cikota
7 Sead, also for Zumra, a neighbour of ours. And at first, we would send
8 this aid regularly, either through a guard or through him. However,
9 later, there was a prohibition, and then he carried these parcels less
10 frequently. Mostly he would take a sandwich in or something like that
11 that he could carry in without being noticed.
12 Sead Cikota, as he was very sick, he had health problems even
13 before he arrived at the investigation centre so we sent him the medicines
14 that he had need of.
15 Q. Was it customary in those days to send parcels and to help people
16 in that situation, people in the investigation centre?
17 A. As we lived in such a multi-ethnic environment, every Serb had a
18 Muslim friend and vice versa. So it was only normal to assist a former
19 colleague, a friend, an acquaintance, because he was not to blame for
20 being there.
21 Q. Mr. Prcac -- could I ask the usher now to distribute Exhibit 23/5A
22 and B.
23 Mr. Prcac, you have a document marked 23/5A and B. A being the
24 B/C/S version. Do you recognise this document and could you explain to
25 the Trial Chamber what this piece of paper is and what the message is?
1 A. This is a message from my mother. It was sent by Zlata Cikota and
2 in it, she thanks her and asks her, if she can, to send her a sandwich
3 again if -- and she says that she feels safest when my mother's father --
4 brother is there. As far as the brother she mentions is concerned, I
5 think she meant my father, because she didn't know at the time. And she
6 asked my mother to persuade him to stay on. She also mentions here that
7 Sead is not well.
8 There were other messages like this. Unfortunately, I didn't keep
9 them because I never believed any such thing as this would happen.
10 Q. Would you explain or, rather, tell us, you said that you were poor
11 and yet your father managed to send parcels. Was this exceptional or did
12 he always assist others if he could?
13 A. As far as poverty is concerned, I know that we didn't have the
14 money -- any money because our money was spent on the treatment of my
15 younger brother because we wanted to do everything we could to help him,
16 and what was contained in these parcels were products obtained from the
17 land that my father tilled. And he always did his best to help others
18 because he had no one to help him when he was in need.
19 Q. Did your father assist others in peacetime as well perhaps?
20 A. Yes, he did. Actually, I never heard of him refusing to help
21 anyone, and I know that it was quite frequent for our people abroad and
22 who were undergoing some kind of proceedings in court in Prijedor would
23 authorise him, would give him power of attorney to represent them.
24 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher now, upon the
25 recommendation of the President, to distribute documents from D24/5 to
2 Q. Mr. Prcac, these are various commendations, letters of
3 appreciation, awards. Could you just briefly tell us what they relate
4 to? You needn't read them.
5 A. For example, commendation for fulfilling the programme tasks of
6 the public security service, then for results achieved in providing
7 security for the Winter Olympic Games in Sarajevo in 1984, a certificate
8 that he was decorated with the Order of Merit with silver wreaths, a
9 letter of gratitude for humaneness shown in extending material aid to
10 earthquake victims in Bosnia Krajina, a contribution to the Kozara
11 National Park.
12 Q. Were all these documents also found together with all his other
13 personal documents?
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- would this be a
16 convenient time for the adjournment, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic. I think,
18 yes, we are approaching 3.00. It's a good suggestion.
19 I see Ms. Susan Somers wants to take advantage of the minute or
20 two we have left.
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. This is just to possibly
22 request that we have the exhibit numbers on these last documents given so
23 that for cross-examination tomorrow we can with facility make a reference
24 to a number and jump right in.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I think often we want to
1 speed things up and then we have to go back. It's true that I had
2 suggested that the documents be filed at the same time, but I thought that
3 the documents had already been marked, and Madam Registrar did that for
4 us. So she needs a supplement to her salary.
5 If the Defence had already marked all the documents, it would have
6 been very easy to take ten documents and put them on my table. If they
7 have not been marked for identification, that can cause confusion.
8 So as soon as the documents have been marked by Madam Registrar --
9 we wait patiently for Madam Registrar to do this marking.
10 I don't know whether we will need that in the future, but
11 Ms. Susan Somers has just noted and also the witness described a number of
12 documents. It is true that we can read them, but the link was not
13 established between the content and the identity of the documents.
14 So as to make things quite clear, Mr. Jovan Simic, I think that
15 you tendered a group of documents starting from D25 up to --
16 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first document was
17 marked D24/5 and it relates to a commendation of the Municipal Secretariat
18 of the Interior, dated the 13th of May, 1993.
19 The next document is D25/5. To summarise, it was issued in
20 Sarajevo in February 1984 and it relates to the XIV Winter Olympic Games
21 in Sarajevo.
22 The document marked D26/5 is a certificate whereby the accused has
23 received an order with silver wreath as a decoration.
24 And a letter of gratitude from the Red Cross for assistance to the
25 victims of the earthquake in Bosnia Krajina, issued in Porec in 1969 has
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 been marked D27/5A and B.
2 And the last document is a monetary contribution to the national
3 park at Kozara, marked D28/5A and B.
4 I hope that things have now been made quite clear.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Is what Mr. Jovan Simic
6 has just said is true, that everything is clear and in order now,
7 Ms. Susan Somers? I must say yes.
8 MS. SOMERS: Yes.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Fine then. So for today, we are
10 going to stop there and tomorrow we'll be back at 9.20.
11 So, Witness, we will be adjourning until tomorrow.
12 That's all for today. The hearing is adjourned.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.04 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 9th day
15 of May, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.