1 Monday, 18 June 2001
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Good morning;
6 good morning, everybody. We have reconvened today in order to try to
7 bring this hearing to the end, and we will be hearing the rejoinder of the
8 Defence this week.
9 Before we bring in the witness, the Chamber should like to have
10 some clarification from the parties, namely, some additional information
11 about the witnesses that have been proposed, the witnesses for Mr. Kvocka
12 and also the witnesses that have been proposed for Mr. Prcac.
13 The issue seems to be very simple and clear, and we should like to
14 hear an equally simple and clear answer. What testimony or, rather, what
15 witnesses and facts that will be discussed during the testimony which will
16 be heard as part of the rejoinder of the -- which have arisen from the
17 rebuttal of the Prosecutor is the testimony that the Defence wishes to
19 I'm asking this question of Mr. Krstan Simic first of all, and
20 Mr. Jovan Simic, and then we will be hearing the Prosecutor, that is to
21 say, about what facts arising from the Prosecution case will be discussed
22 during the rejoinder.
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. As you
24 have said, we have announced two witnesses which we propose to hear about
25 facts that have been discussed by Witness AW before this Chamber.
1 Witness Jasminka Kvocka participated in this incident. She was
2 present there. She even made coffee after they came back from the first
3 visit. She knows about the garage and everything else. And it was
4 impossible for us to examine this witness about the circumstances for the
5 simple reason because the testimony and the statement of Witness AW was
6 not disclosed at the time. So we didn't have any indication, any
7 information as to the importance of these facts.
8 And the same goes for Mr. Kvocka. During his cross-examination,
9 Mr. Kvocka was examined about the said events, and he indeed confirmed his
10 participation in this event, but as we didn't have the statement of
11 Witness AW, we didn't have an opportunity to examine Mr. Kvocka about this
12 particular incident, neither did we have an opportunity to carry out our
13 own investigation which would provide us with the appropriate basis for
14 the examination.
15 For those reasons, we believe that it is in the interests of
16 justice for these two witnesses to be heard, because we were not in a
17 position to know what would be discussed by this particular witness during
18 the rebuttal. Thank you.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Simic, if we bear in
20 mind the entire story of the case, that is, the visit to the locality,
21 what those individuals did there and what they did afterwards with what
22 they had found, so if we bear these three aspects of the event in the
23 mind, what are the things that you wish to contest?
24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] First of all, we contest that there
25 was -- that Mr. Kvocka took any part of that loot. After Mr. Momcilo
1 Gruban begged Mr. Kvocka, and since Mr. Gruban was his friend and since --
2 and Witness AW confirmed that, he was his employee, they had contacts
3 later on. Mr. AW had an intention to leave the area, and he had contact
4 to that effect with the Ministry of the Interior, and he said to
5 Mr. Gruban that he would give him his apartment, and in the end he didn't
6 do that and that is the reason why he didn't say goodbye to Mr. Momcilo
7 Gruban, and there are so many similar elements to that effect, and we wish
8 to say that -- we wish to show that Mr. Kvocka wanted to help both upon
9 the insistence of his wife. And in particular, we want to contest the
10 participation of the sister of Mr. AW in the said events. Nobody else saw
11 that woman, and we will try to prove that.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Krstan
13 Simic, for this clarification. You may be seated now, and I will give the
14 floor to Mr. Jovan Simic with the same question; that is to say, what is
15 the testimony and who are the witnesses and the facts which were presented
16 by the Prosecutor which you intend to contest in your rejoinder with your
17 four proposed witnesses?
18 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. First
19 of all, I should like to inform the Chamber that one witness has not
20 arrived. Nedja Karalic hasn't come here. He has had heart surgery and
21 his doctor has not allowed him to fly. That is why he -- we have been
22 left with three witnesses who have arrived here, and they will be
23 testifying about three facts.
24 First of all, that Mr. -- about two facts. First of all, that
25 Mr. Prcac, during the month of June, was and worked in the police station
1 department Omarska and not in the camp as was testified by Witness
3 The second fact which we intend to contest was the incident
4 involving the gun dragging, that is that Mr. Prcac pulled a gun and aimed
5 it at the guards of the Omarska camp, which was testified -- which was
6 denied by Witness Karalic.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much,
8 Mr. Jovan Simic.
9 Ms. Somers, let us hear you. In view of the information that has
10 just been supplied by the Defence counsel, what exactly is your position?
11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, first of all, as to Jasminka Kvocka's
12 being or not being, there was cross-examination on this matter. There is
13 nothing to have suggested from any extracts that were provided, pursuant
14 to the events of the week of the 28th, that Mrs. Kvocka was anywhere near
15 there. There's no testimony she was there. I believe that we may be
16 receiving potentially fabricated evidence. The degree to which Witness AW
17 was cross-examined was quite thorough, and there was simply no mention of
18 the presence of another woman other than the sibling.
19 Further, the cross-examination of Kvocka itself on this point was
20 quite thorough and the redirect, during which time this issue could have
21 been raised, Kvocka didn't volunteer that his wife was present. And
22 suddenly, a new witness appears which, at the very least, is suspicious
23 and, at the potential outside, is not going to be true testimony.
24 Our written submissions, I think, cover the bases for it. If the
25 Chamber is minded to hear Jasminka Kvocka because her testimony did not
1 have included in it anything about this, which is normal because there was
2 no information and we have reason to believe that it is not even germane
3 to her, that she was not involved, then we'd have to leave that in the
4 Chamber's hands. We did not argue in our written submissions her
6 However, as to Miroslav Kvocka, he had fully the floor on this
7 issue, the facts within his own knowledge. If he or his attorney chose to
8 withhold discussing those during their case, that is a strategic decision
9 made by them. To abuse rejoinder now, to come back and remedy perhaps a
10 poor strategic decision, is an abuse of the entire process.
11 On the issues of the witnesses for Mr. Prcac, we've set forth that
12 practically every aspect that was raised about criminal technician was
13 raised and properly belonged in the case in chief for Mr. Prcac. It was
14 covered adequately. This is perhaps a second bite at the apple, trying to
15 get in some either mitigation evidence which does not belong in this
16 phase. The cumulative nature of it suggests, if consistent with the
17 Court's practices, that it would not be helpful to the Chamber. The
18 substance does not offer anything that the Chamber has not heard during
19 the case in chief.
20 The challenge to the issue of the weapon or not, it's really a
21 case of raised in rebuttal -- raised by the Defence for the first time,
22 challenged in rebuttal, and there's really nothing new to hear about it.
23 It's going to be denial -- there was a denial by the affected detainee as
24 to the occurrence. It seems that there would be nothing additional to add
25 that could not have been brought out on cross-examination.
1 The issue of mood of the community was not raised during the
2 rebuttal case and does not properly belong here. If there is some type of
3 discussion about sympathising or whatever, that may have been suggested
4 during the Defence case, it was not pursued at all during rebuttal and I
5 think has no place during this week's testimony. These are matters that
6 simply did not arise during the course of the rebuttal case.
7 As the Chamber -- we, of course, are taking great pains to read
8 this Chamber's rulings on what is the appropriate type of proof for
9 rebuttal and rejoinder, and we find that these are outside of the
10 Chamber's own rulings. Thank you very much.
11 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Somers, can I ask you what's your position.
12 Mr. Simic said that one of the rebuttal aspects for Mr. Prcac would be
13 that during June he wasn't in Omarska, he was in the police station.
14 That's what he just said a few minutes ago.
15 MS. SOMERS: Sorry. I'm just checking. I was passed a note.
16 The issue of whether or not he was officially in Omarska, Your
17 Honour, is absolutely irrelevant. Whether he was there officially on duty
18 or had access as a police officer, whether his duties at Omarska had
19 commenced officially or not, we think is not the point. It is his
20 position which later did transfer to Omarska that is relevant, and witness
21 Kugic never said that he was working there at the time. There's no proof
22 that was adduced about working there or not as to that particular
24 JUDGE WALD: Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying
25 that the Prosecution isn't maintaining that he had any functioning
1 position in Omarska during June?
2 MS. SOMERS: Our position is that he took over from Kvocka
3 officially, and the dates are not necessarily firmly -- I think that there
4 is room for argument, which we will put forth in our submissions, about
5 who actually left and whether or not one officially had to be there to
6 carry on certain duties, whether de facto or de jure.
7 There is evidence that Prcac had been in the camp even prior to
8 any time that he may have officially replaced Kvocka as, according to the
9 Prosecution's case, deputy commander. And the fact that he was
10 nonetheless attached to the Omarska Police Station, giving him the
11 authority to get in the camp, is significant. So his exercise of
12 authority in one way or the other is present.
13 JUDGE WALD: That's good argument, but I'm not sure you made the
14 case for its irrelevance.
15 MS. SOMERS: In terms of -- for purposes of his being in the camp,
16 Kugic, if I am correct, said that he was acting personally, not
17 officially, if I recall the testimony.
18 JUDGE WALD: Okay, thanks.
19 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, if I may just add: And even
20 in that capacity, whether he was officially assigned, trying to extort
21 money was still very much on his agenda, and that was the point. But my
22 recollection is that Kugic did not indicate that he was doing it in
23 official capacity.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us just see whether
25 Mr. Krstan Simic has anything to add, and then later on I'll give the
1 floor to Mr. Jovan Simic. If yes, please be brief.
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I will be very brief, indeed.
3 We have asked the witness about Mrs. Kvocka, about the car and the garage,
4 so there are a number of relevant things that still need to be clarified.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.
7 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I, too, will be very
9 The Defence suggests that during the presentation of the case, we
10 tried to show that Mr. Prcac arrived to his working place on the 15th of
11 July, 1992, that is, that he came to the investigation centre in Omarska
12 on that day. Prior to that day, he did not have any official capacity
13 there, nor was any evidence led to that effect.
14 Mr. Kugic, during his rebuttal testimony, stated that during the
15 night, that is, during the shift that he was on while he was on duty,
16 Mr. Prcac came down and he spent the whole night with him. What is
17 important here was that he had a function there, that he was working at
18 the investigation centre. I hope that there is enough evidence that
19 Mr. Prcac, prior to the 15th of July, did not come to work at the
20 investigation centre in Omarska.
21 Once again, we are trying to lead evidence to prove that
22 Mr. Prcac, in the month of June, up until the 15th of July, was assigned
23 to the Omarska Police Station Department as a reserve policeman and that
24 he was working there as a crime technician. Thank you.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I believe we have finished,
1 Ms. Somers. Is there something new that you wish to inform us about?
2 MS. SOMERS: No. Just emphasis that there was never any testimony
3 about his being on duty.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Let me
5 consult with my colleagues.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber is now going to make
8 its ruling. The Chamber has received the list of witnesses that the
9 accused Mr. Kvocka and Mr. Prcac propose to call in rejoinder for this
10 week, and it has also received the response of the Prosecutor in which the
11 Prosecutor expressed its opposition to the calling of the witnesses that
12 have been mentioned.
13 The Defence of Mr. Kvocka wishes to call Mrs. Jasminka Kvocka and
14 Mr. Kvocka, who are supposed to testify about the details of the testimony
15 of Witness AW, who was called by the Prosecutor during its case in
16 rebuttal. The Prosecutor opposes the testimony of the accused Mr. Kvocka
17 because he, as they put it, has already had an opportunity to pronounce
18 himself about the incident with Witness AW during his cross-examination.
19 The Defence of the accused Mr. Prcac wishes to call four
20 witnesses, and they have informed the Chamber today that Witness Nedja
21 Karalic will not be present here. The Prosecution opposes these witnesses
22 because the subject matter of their testimonies does not arise from
23 evidence which was presented by the Prosecutor during his case in
25 The Chamber wishes to remind the parties that it applies the test
1 from the Celebici judgement, which was done in the case of the rebuttal of
2 the Prosecutor. The test is as follows: The Defence case will not be
3 admitted in rejoinder -- will be admitted in rejoinder only if it is
4 pertinent and if it arises from the evidence which was called by the
5 Prosecutor during his case in rebuttal, and that is why the elements which
6 concern a key aspect of the Defence case will not be admitted.
7 The Chamber believes that although the accused Mr. Kvocka has had
8 an opportunity to testify about the incident which was testified about by
9 Witness AW during his cross-examination, the Witness AW presented certain
10 new elements. Generally speaking, this witness has supplied the Chamber
11 with certain details concerning the contact between the witness and
12 Mr. Kvocka and Mr. Gruban about how they met and how they first went to
13 the house in Carakovo. He also spoke about the work which was done at the
14 house in Carakovo, the return of the Grubans to Pecani and the threats
15 that were expressed by Mr. Kvocka; furthermore, about the second attempt
16 which took place the following day and also what was done with the jewelry
17 which was dug out that day and also the third visit to the house on the
18 following day.
19 The Chamber believes that the response of Mr. Kvocka to new
20 elements which were presented by Witness AW falls within the scope of the
21 rejoinder. The same argument, the same reasoning, is applied to the
22 testimony of Mrs. Kvocka about the same subject.
23 As regards the witnesses that have been proposed by the accused
24 Mr. Prcac, the Chamber considers that the facts which surround the issue
25 of the police station department in Omarska and the investigation centre
1 in Omarska and also the incident involving the gun dragging in Omarska
2 also fall within the scope of rejoinder of the Defence.
3 Therefore, the Chamber will authorise the testimony of the
4 witnesses that have been proposed by the Defence of the accused Mr. Kvocka
5 and Mr. Prcac. These witnesses will testify as rejoinder witnesses during
6 this week.
7 The Chamber has rendered its ruling, and I think that we are now
8 ready, Mr. Krstan Simic, to proceed. You have the floor, Mr. Simic.
9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The
10 Defence now calls witness Jasminka Kvocka.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Jasminka
13 Kvocka. Can you hear me?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are back in the Tribunal
16 once again. You have already taken the solemn declaration before this
17 Trial Chamber, and we're going to consider your testimony as a
18 continuation of your previous testimony and the oath and solemn
19 declaration you took on that occasion. So you are continuing your
20 testimony under the solemn declaration you made the first time you were
22 Do you accept that? Are you fully conscious of the fact?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Then you
25 may be seated.
1 WITNESS: JASMINKA KVOCKA [Recalled]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You will first be answering
4 questions put to you by Mr. Simic.
5 Mr. Simic, your witness.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In view of
7 the fact that you have resolved the dilemma and take this to be a
8 continuation of the testimony, we're not going to ask the witness her
9 particulars, but we'll resume the examination where we left off.
10 Examined by Mr. K. Simic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Kvocka.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. Did you know somebody by the name of Momcilo Gruban, nicknamed
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Since when have you known that individual?
17 A. I have known him for many years.
18 Q. Where do you know him from?
19 A. My husband and that man are from the same village. They were born
20 in the same village.
21 Q. Were they friends?
22 A. Yes. They were friends for a long time. They knew each other,
23 and their two families have a relationship of kumship. They are kum to
24 each other.
25 Q. Did Mr. Gruban ask you or your husband for any assistance in the
1 course of 1993?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you tell us what that was all about?
4 A. Sometimes I would ask Mr. Gruban for help and assistance and
5 sometimes he would ask me for some help or assistance, or my husband.
6 Q. Now, when he asked you for your help, what was that about? Was
7 there any problem?
8 A. They came -- he came to our apartment on one occasion, and he
9 wanted our help and assistance for a friend of us. He wanted us to do a
10 favour. This man had done him a favour. Whether he was his foreman or
11 whether he had taken him on and given him a job, they worked in the same
12 work organisation and he wanted to return the favour.
13 Q. Did he say in actual fact what the assistance was, what kind of
14 help he wanted you to give this friend of his?
15 A. Yes. We were sitting around my place, and they were talking about
16 the fact that something had been left of his sister's and that something
17 had to be found in order for Gruban to be able to leave Prijedor.
18 Q. On that occasion, was any mention made of the fact that Gruban's
19 friend had tabled a request to leave the police force?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what were your husband's reactions to that?
22 A. I don't know what to say really. My husband couldn't tell anybody
23 whether to leave or to stay. It's a personal decision.
24 Q. I didn't ask you about the decision made by Mr. Gruban's friend.
25 What I asked you was what were your husband's reactions at this request
1 made by Mr. Gruban to have him help his friend?
2 A. Well, he didn't actually want to help his friend, because when
3 Gruban's -- when we heard what Gruban's friend was supposed to do, what
4 you had to do was to have a car first to go to the village and then to
5 have the things to get this done with. We didn't have any of that because
6 we lived in the apartment building that we lived in.
7 Q. So was everything over during this one conversation or were there
8 other visits and conversations?
9 A. Well, Gruban came by several times. But what we needed was to
10 secure a vehicle, a car to go there. We had to decide and see who we were
11 going to borrow a car from, because we didn't have a car ourselves.
12 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, as we're on this subject, you say that you did not
13 have a car. To make things clearer, could you tell us whether you and
14 your husband owned a passenger car in the course of 1992, 1993, or 1994?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Are passenger vehicles registered at the police station in the
17 name of their owners?
18 A. Yes. There is a special service for vehicle registration.
19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we should like to
20 tender into evidence at this point the following document: I think that
21 the number is D1/53A and B, and it is a certificate issued by the Public
22 Security Centre of Prijedor. The number is 14-03/1-1-222-41, dated the
23 13th of June, 2001, from which it emerges that Mr. Kvocka and his wife
24 were not the owners of any passenger vehicle in the course of 1992, 1993,
25 and 1994. I should like to tender this document into evidence, and I have
1 supplied copies of the document for all the parties and for the record.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Krystal, that is to say, the
4 registrar, draws my attention to the fact that there might have been an
5 error in the numbering of this document. Madam Registrar, you have the
6 floor to explain.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. The next number for the Exhibit is D1/54
8 instead of D1/53. D1/53 has already been tendered.
9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I stand corrected. It was my
10 mistake. I repeated the previous number. I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well. Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Krstan Simic.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, while we're on the subject of the ownership of cars,
15 could you tell us, please, whether you or your husband owned a garage in
16 Prijedor in your apartment building.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you ever own a garage?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you own a garage today?
21 A. No.
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, here and now the
23 Defence would also like to substantiate Mrs. Kvocka's testimony by showing
24 two documents. The first is a certificate of the property service keeping
25 records of real estate and property of the Prijedor municipality. The
1 number is 35-952-141/01. The date is the 11th of June, 2001. From this
2 document, it can be seen that Mrs. Jasminka Kvocka, nee Crnalic, does not
3 possess any real estate in the territory of Prijedor municipality. This
4 document would now be D1/55A and B, I believe.
5 I should like at the same time, under the following number,
6 35-952-142/01, dated the 11th of June, 2001, a document issued by the same
7 body, testifying to the fact that Miroslav Kvocka, son of Dragomir, does
8 not possess any real estate or garage of the kind testified to by Witness
9 AW. So I should like to tender those two documents into evidence and hand
10 them over.
11 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, just briefly tell us what kind of building you live
13 A. I live in the Pecani settlement. It is an apartment building with
14 five entrances.
15 Q. What floor do you live on?
16 A. The second floor.
17 Q. Have you got a garden of any kind?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you have any need to have a shovel and pick in your apartment?
20 A. No, of course not. Where would I keep such things?
21 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, you said a moment ago -- let me restate that. When
22 did your husband decide to help Ckalja and Ckalja's friend? When did he
23 make that decision?
24 A. Well, they would come for several days to the apartment and
25 discuss the matter. The weather was poor, was bad weather, and this man,
1 Ckalja's friend -- that is to say, Ckalja felt that he had to return a
2 favour because the man had given him a job.
3 Q. I'm asking you, when was this decision made? When did you make
4 the decision to help the man?
5 A. Do you want the date?
6 Q. No, not the exact date. Just tell us approximately. Can you tell
7 us the month?
8 A. Well, I can't say the exact month. But they spent several days
9 discussing the matter and how this could be done, because I said we didn't
10 have a car. So he would come every other day. He would come to see how
11 this could be done. Miro didn't actually want to do this because he had
12 to go to work the next day. Perhaps it was at my insistence, I wanted to
13 go with them and help them. Very often I didn't -- I went with my
14 husband. I didn't like him going off on his own. But we had some guests,
15 and it was at my insistence. I sort of forced him to help the man and go,
16 to help Gruban, because I too had to repay a debt. I owed Gruban
17 something because I sent my brother's packages through Gruban. So I
18 wanted to return the favour and to help his friend by the same token.
19 Q. You said you didn't have a car. So what did you do about the
20 car? How did you resolve that problem?
21 A. We asked Hasan Oklopcic, a friend of ours, to lend us a car.
22 Q. Did you obtain the car? Did your husband obtain the car?
23 A. Yes, he did.
24 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, what did you do about the shovel and pick?
25 A. They didn't know what they would use to dig the stuff up, and I
1 said that my brothers and my parents' house -- in my parents' house, that
2 there was a shovel and a pick and that they could go and borrow that,
3 because my parents cultivate a small portion of land.
4 Q. Did you call anybody up in that regard?
5 A. Yes, I called my brothers up and said that Miro, my husband,
6 together with Ckalja, would come by to pick up the shovel and pick.
7 Q. Which brother did you talk to?
8 A. I talked to my brother Rizak.
9 Q. When they returned, did they come back to your apartment?
10 A. Yes, they came back to my apartment.
11 Q. Who came to your apartment on that occasion?
12 A. My husband, Ckalja, and Ckalja's friend.
13 Q. And was that the first time you saw Ckalja's friend?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you know him from before?
16 A. No.
17 Q. What did you talk about? Were you present throughout the
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. Well, what did they talk about?
21 A. While I was making coffee and getting some drinks for them, they
22 said that they hadn't succeeded in doing what they had set out to do and
23 that they would go on another occasion, because he said he had to call his
24 sister abroad for her to explain exactly where it was all located. He
25 wasn't able to find his way around there.
1 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, did they go a second time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. When did they go this second time? How much time elapsed from the
4 first time to the second time?
5 A. They went three or four days later. Perhaps it was a week later
6 or maybe it was two weeks later. I don't know exactly. But several days
7 went by.
8 Q. They didn't go the next day?
9 A. No. The next day, my husband went off to work and Ckalja had some
10 of his own duties to see to, so they weren't able to go the next day.
11 Q. After they went the second time, did they come back to your
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did your husband tell you anything about how the whole, if I can
15 call it, operation ended?
16 A. Yes, he did.
17 Q. What did he tell you?
18 A. He said they had done nothing, managed to do nothing.
19 Q. I'm talking about the second time.
20 A. Yes. The second time he said that they had found something, a jar
21 or a box, but not anything very much. They didn't find what Ckalja's
22 friend had expected to find, in fact.
23 Q. Do you know whether they went again later on?
24 A. I don't know, no.
25 Q. While you were drinking coffee in your apartment, what was the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 atmosphere like? What was the general mood and the relationship between
2 Ckalja and his friend?
3 A. Well, they talked about the apartment of Ckalja's friend, and he
4 said that when he signed off from Prijedor, he would go to Germany and
5 leave Ckalja his apartment.
6 Q. But were they friendly, on friendly terms or not friendly terms?
7 A. Well, it couldn't have been not friendly, because they had been
8 friends for so many years and worked together. So it was necessarily
9 friendly. It couldn't have been unfriendly. In my house, nobody ever
10 felt unfriendly towards each other.
11 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, you said a moment ago that Mr. Gruban told you that
12 his friend had signed off and that he was going abroad and that that's why
13 he had to get this job done and that he needed assistance for it.
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence would like
16 to tender another exhibit into evidence. It is a certificate from the
17 Public Security Centre of Prijedor. The number is 14-03/1-1-207/20-410,
18 dated the 5th of June, 2001. And for protective measures for the witness,
19 I should just like to stress that the service of the Public Security
20 Centre confirms that for signing in and signing out, that Ckalja's friend
21 signed off at this service on the 28th of July, 1992, because he was
22 leaving for Germany.
23 And I think the number of the next exhibit is 1/57A and B. So I
24 should like to tender that document into evidence, if I have got the
25 number right. Thank you.
1 Could the registrar give me a number for this document?
2 THE REGISTRAR: D1/57.
3 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, later on did Gruban tell you whether his friend had
5 indeed left the Prijedor municipality?
6 A. Ckalja would come by often, and he was surprised on one occasion
7 when he went to visit him and he found some other people in his
8 apartment. He was very surprised.
9 Q. Why was he surprised?
10 A. Because they were very close friends, and that friend of his, that
11 is to say, Ckalja, would often visit that friend of his in that flat.
12 They'd sit around talking for a whole evening. And at that time, if you
13 had some close friends and could stay in their houses, you felt much
15 Q. What was Mr. Gruban's reaction, because his friend had promised to
16 leave him the apartment and didn't?
17 A. Well, he was very surprised and disappointed, because they kept
18 talking about this. His friend always told him that he would leave him
19 his apartment when he left and that he would take care of the apartment,
20 because they were exceptionally close friends, very good friends. And I
21 think they'd known each other for a long time. They had worked for the
22 same company and that kind of thing.
23 Q. Did you learn from Gruban whether he ever learnt how this other
24 family came to take up residence in that apartment? You needn't mention
25 their names.
1 A. I think Ckalja told me that the wife of the person living in the
2 apartment showed him a document which had been registered in a court of
3 law on the transactions regarding this apartment.
4 Q. And if this contract was registered in a court of law, it can be
5 checked out there, can't it?
6 A. Yes, it can. My parents have this kind of contract as well, and I
7 drew up a contract in a court of law with my mother whereby she left her
8 property to me, that kind of property contract.
9 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, did you have occasion to become acquainted with the
10 lady who came to live in Ckalja -- the apartment of Ckalja's friend?
11 A. Yes. She has a shop opposite my apartment, and she sells baby
13 Q. Did you talk to her, how come she came to live there and so on?
14 Did you find out those facts about her?
15 A. Yes. We talked, and she told me that they did her a favour,
16 because they helped his sister leave through the International Red Cross
17 and that they did the same to help Ckalja's friend. And as his sister
18 told him that she had left Banja Luka through the International Red Cross,
19 she had managed to leave Republika Srpska, in that same way, Ckalja's
20 friend was able to leave as well.
21 Q. Did Ckalja tell you about an individual who helped his friend to
22 swap apartments?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And who was that friend? What was the friend's name? Give us
25 their name, please.
1 A. Well, let me just think for a moment, please. I can't remember it
2 just now.
3 Q. Was it somebody that worked in the same company?
4 A. Yes. He worked in the same company with Ckalja, and he was a
5 foreman, I think. His name was Kobas Vlado, Vlado Kobas.
6 Q. Was Gruban angry with Kobas for working behind his back?
7 A. I can't say. It was logical for it to be Ckalja, if he was his
9 Q. Well, thank you, madam. Let's leave logic for the moment.
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
11 questions for this witness. Yes. I'm sorry, I have one further
13 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, did your husband, after the second time he went away,
14 did he bring home anything; any valuables, any money, any food, any
16 A. My husband never brought anything home in his life. When he was
17 in uniform, he would carry his cap or his newspaper in his hands, but he
18 would never bring anything home.
19 Q. Did he bring any jewelry home, any gifts of any kind or any money
20 after that second visit?
21 A. Absolutely and emphatically no. And in Prijedor, you can go to
22 the jewelry shops. I sold my own earrings and my daughter's. And
23 jewelry, there was no price at all. It was worth very little. All you
24 could do was perhaps buy a drink. And even if you had a wedding band, for
25 example --
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mrs. Jasminka. I apologise for
2 interrupting, but could the witness switch the other microphone on. We
3 are unable to hear the witness when she turns around. Could both
4 microphones be switched on? The interpreters say that they cannot hear
5 the witness properly because she is not speaking in the direction of the
6 microphone. So that is a technical matter that needs to be resolved.
7 Either switch both microphones on or have the microphone changed.
8 Thank you, and I apologise for interrupting.
9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, I just have a short question. Did your husband, from
11 that help, did he receive any counter-assistance from Ckalja or Ckalja's
12 friend, any counter-favours?
13 A. No.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
15 questions for this witness, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Krstan
18 Who is going to cross-examine the witness? Ms. Somers?
19 Ms. Somers, your witness.
20 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I wish to
21 inquire of the Court, if we take the 11.00 break, would it be possible
22 perhaps to break a few minutes earlier to enable me to check something
23 that is not with me? If it's not going to inconvenience the Court, I
24 would like to be able to have something at my disposal and I don't have it
25 here. So perhaps at quarter to or ten to, if that would not be an
1 imposition on the Court or counsel. I'm prepared to begin, certainly, but
2 I'd just like to be able to ...
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is to say, Ms. Somers, you
4 are ready to proceed but you're not ready to finish.
5 MS. SOMERS: That's correct. I'd like to have an opportunity just
6 to get something that I thought I had with me and do not. But I'm
7 certainly prepared to start. If the Chamber would just indulge us with
8 perhaps a slightly earlier time period for the break, I'd be grateful.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well. We will have
10 our break at around a quarter to eleven. But you can now proceed with
11 your cross-examination.
12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much.
13 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
14 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, how many times had you been to the home of this
15 individual, this friend of Ckalja's?
16 A. Never.
17 Q. How many times had you been to the home of the sister of this
18 friend of Ckalja's about whose treasures, jewels, and money --
19 A. Never.
20 Q. Did your husband tell you that when they went to the home of the
21 sister of Ckalja's friend that the house had been burned?
22 A. Yes, he told me that. That is why her brother couldn't find his
23 way around; that is why he couldn't find it on the first day.
24 Q. What had Ckalja told you that he might have done to have prevented
25 the destruction of the house of such an allegedly good friend? Why was
1 Ckalja surprised?
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic, what do you
4 object to?
5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, he was a mechanic, a
6 reserve policeman from the Omarska Police Station Department, and the
7 house was in a different area, so I don't see any link between the --
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers.
9 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but my learned counsel
10 opposite is testifying, and I think that that is perhaps something that
11 should be reserved for re-examination.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. Simic, it is
13 quite true, you cannot testify instead of the witness. I hope you
14 understand that. Do you accept that?
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour. But this
16 falls completely outside the scope of the examination-in-chief of this
17 rejoinder witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where Ckalja's friend
19 was and I don't know where his sister's house was.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a second.
21 Mr. Simic, why does that fall outside the scope of the
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The witness didn't speak about the
24 reasons for the destruction of the house of his sister, who destroyed the
25 house and who might have been able to prevent that destruction. She spoke
1 about the fact that those objects were dug out.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, you will have an
3 opportunity to address that during your re-examination. As you know,
4 there are two criteria for cross-examination of the Prosecution and of the
5 Defence: The purpose is to clarify the issue but also to check on the
6 credibility of the witness. You have to enable the Prosecutor to carry
7 out her job, and you will have an opportunity to clarify anything you wish
8 to clarify during your re-examination.
9 Ms. Somers, please continue.
10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Did you socialise at all during the war -- now, we were talking
12 prewar about your relationship with AW and/or his sister. During the war,
13 how much contact did you have with AW or with his sister?
14 A. That's Ckalja's friend.
15 Q. Right.
16 A. I didn't have any contact at all with him, up until the moment
17 when he came to ask for help.
18 Q. What about your husband? How much contact did he have with AW
19 and/or his sister?
20 A. We met when he came to my apartment, although our two apartment
21 blocks are situated next to each other.
22 Q. What was your understanding of why your husband allowed himself to
23 become involved in this particular effort to recover money and jewels from
24 the house of AW's sister? Why would he do this?
25 A. He was not the first man whom we helped. And on that day my
1 husband was unwilling to go; he was not in a good mood. But I asked him
2 to go there and I wanted to go with him because I always wanted to help
3 people, to help my people as much as I could. As I say, he was not the
4 only person whom we helped. There were many others that we helped.
5 Q. I want to make sure I understand this. You are saying that you
6 want to leave your area of Prijedor, go to another area, to the home of
7 someone whom you did not have any relationship with, in other words, this
8 sister, and do this for what motive? It's unclear why you would involve
9 yourself, why he would involve himself. I'm sorry. Your answer didn't
10 clear that up. Perhaps you can elaborate on that a bit.
11 A. Yes, I can elaborate it. He was not the first or the last
12 individual who came to see me personally for help. I said I could ask my
13 husband whether that could be done. Friends of my husband or Mr. Ckalja
14 would do that. For example, the manager of my company came to see me for
15 help, his wife did as well, and many others.
16 The last time I told you that if you had time to see me, I could
17 have clarified a lot of things for you. I apologise for this digression.
18 But, you know, if I came here to Holland, if I didn't have anyone to stay
19 with, if I didn't have anyone to help me out, would you be willing to help
20 me? Because I would be willing to help you if you were in the same
21 difficult situation. It's something that you probably cannot understand.
22 We are the kind of people who are willing to help others.
23 You probably want to say that me and my husband wanted to help him
24 for some particular reason, for some particular favour that we wanted from
25 him, but you cannot understand that.
1 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, both you and your husband, when you testified, gave a
2 series of instances of supposedly good treatment and favours toward
3 Muslims. Is there any particular reason why you might have omitted this
4 good deed in your testimony, whether it was direct or cross or redirect,
5 or why your husband might have eliminated or simply not chosen to talk
6 about this particular incident as a good deed done to help a Muslim? Help
7 us understand that, please.
8 A. Let me try and help you. If he had wanted to lie, he wouldn't
9 have mentioned this in his interview; or perhaps why this husband of mine,
10 since according to you he's such a bad person, when he came back from work
11 and found 20 Muslims in his house, why didn't he ask me, "What are these
12 people doing in my house?" Why didn't he object to that? Why didn't he
13 confront me with that? No, he didn't. Those people had to be fed.
14 But he never said anything. He never wanted to take any money or
15 jewels from that Ckalja's friend, and I don't know what this is all
16 about. I'm not interested in that. But that Ckalja's friend should be
17 ashamed because he remembers very well the coffee that we had together,
18 the jokes we told together. He was not the only person who felt at home
19 in my apartment. Why did he come to see me for help? I don't know.
20 Maybe there is something about Kvocka that makes all Muslims to trust
21 him. They were swarming all around him. I had problems because of that.
22 He didn't dare to go to the Sana River to swim there because of that
23 stigma, war criminal, that he had. I'm sorry I have to go at great length
24 to explain this to you.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, could you please try
1 and streamline these answers of the witness and your questions for that
3 MS. SOMERS: Yes, thank you.
4 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, your husband did not mention this during his
5 examination. This was a point that was brought up later. You indicated
6 that -- you just said, "I don't know what this is all about." Are you
7 suggesting that you were willing to put yourself into a position of going
8 into a territory that had been cleansed of Muslim residents with your
9 husband or to assist your husband in going into that territory, when your
10 husband, a police officer, spent a good deal of his cross-examination and
11 his defence case suggesting that any risk he took on behalf of Muslims
12 worked against him in his career? Why suddenly in early 1993 would he be
13 willing to take a risk, again assisting a Muslim in broad daylight, in
14 uniform, with another policeman? Maybe you could help us get some insight
15 into that.
16 A. Yes, I could do that. My husband's sister came from the States;
17 she's married to a Muslim and I cannot now be with her. My brother also
18 came on Friday. He was also here at the Amsterdam airport, but we
19 couldn't see each other because I was on my way here in order to give my
21 But talking about helping people, did you ever help anyone in your
22 life? You don't know, dear madam, what I did for those people. I'm
23 sorry, I want to finish my sentence.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, madam, I have to remind
25 you that you are here to answer questions put to you by the Prosecutor.
1 You are not here to ask questions of the Prosecutor. I hope that you
2 understand me. So let us try and be efficient. Let us try to complete
3 your testimony. Please be helpful and try to answer in precise terms the
4 questions that are put to you by Madam Prosecutor.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. But I
6 cannot speak about what was going on in my husband's mind on that day.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mrs. Kvocka, I haven't asked you
8 anything, I didn't ask any question of you. All I'm telling you is that
9 you have to answer questions put to you by Ms. Somers.
10 Ms. Somers, please try to ask very brief, clear, and concise
11 questions so that Mrs. Jasminka Kvocka can answer your questions in the
12 same way.
13 MS. SOMERS:
14 Q. Ms. Kvocka, why would your husband be willing to take a risk to
15 help a Muslim in early 1993 when it was his and your position that taking
16 such risks as he alleged himself to have done while in Omarska camp could
17 have cost him his career? What changed? Explain that, please.
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
19 A. I really don't understand what this is --
20 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. A moment
21 ago, a conclusion was requested. I have to remind my learned colleague
22 that Mr. Kvocka was dismissed. He was discharged from his function in
23 Omarska because he had brought parcels, because he had brought a copy of
24 Koran there. This is not the first time that we are hearing allegations.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, we are not hearing
1 any allegations or conclusions here. If there has been evidence led to
2 that effect, we will see. I don't know if you have anything to say to the
3 witness at this point, Mr. Simic. No, you don't.
4 The Prosecutor has asked a question concerning an event which
5 happened in 1993, something that we have already discussed, and the
6 witness will -- has supplied us with her answers as best as she could, and
7 one of her answers was that she didn't know. If the witness doesn't know,
8 she is free to say that. Please let the witness answer the questions.
9 Ms. Somers, please continue.
10 MS. SOMERS:
11 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, you have not answered my question. Do you remember
12 the question?
13 A. No, I don't remember the question. I don't understand the
14 question. I don't know what you want from me.
15 Q. I want you to tell me, Mrs. Kvocka, why it was any less risky for
16 your husband's career in 1993, at the time of this incident that we're
17 talking about with Witness AW, than it would have been in 1992 to help a
18 Muslim? Why was he willing to take this risk to help a Muslim who was no
19 longer a member of the police department, having been cleansed out?
20 Explain that. Why?
21 A. Because that's the kind of man he was. He helped everyone he was
22 able to help.
23 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, this individual, did he tell you -- did AW tell you
24 that he was planning to leave the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Was he
25 going to leave the Prijedor area? Did you know about it at the time? At
1 the time this happened, did you know about it?
2 A. That Ckalja's friend --
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you know that his sister was going to also leave the territory
6 of Prijedor municipality?
7 A. He told me that she had already left.
8 Q. If they left, there would have been no possibility of finding this
9 treasure or money; isn't that correct?
10 A. He said that he would call her on the phone so that she could
11 explain him where exactly it was.
12 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, wasn't the reason that your husband and Gruban,
13 Ckalja, undertook this at that time was because they needed to know where
14 this money was before these people left the territory? Isn't that
15 correct, Mrs. Kvocka? It was for the money for themselves.
16 A. No. That Ckalja's friend wanted to know where it was. He was the
17 one who wanted to find it, with their help, because he didn't dare go
18 there alone.
19 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, why is it that this is on the eve of the departure of
20 these people? Why not in October 1992, November 1992? Why at this point
21 in time?
22 A. I don't know. You should ask this man. He was available to you.
23 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, how many times has your husband gone to dig up the
24 treasure of Muslims who were cleansed out of the area? Please tell us
1 A. On that occasion, but Ckalja came to ask him about his friend,
2 when Ckalja came with his friend of his, and it was upon my insistence.
3 Q. Did you insist on helping this person, whom you claim not to have
4 known very well, when you found that he was no longer able to remain in
5 Prijedor but was taken to detention centres? Did you offer assistance
6 when he was in detention centres?
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic. What is your
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness was not in
11 a detention centre. She didn't speak about that. She said that she had
12 first come to know him after the first visit to the place to dig up the
13 jewelry. She didn't know the person, so she's not in a position to say.
14 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the testimony was that the individual
15 had been detained, and my question, of course, to the witness is: During
16 that period when assistance may have been rendered, was any rendered?
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please ask your question,
18 Ms. Somers.
19 Mr. Krstan Simic, you will have an opportunity to put additional
20 questions to the witness.
21 Please let us hear your question, Ms. Somers, and it will be the
22 last question before the break.
23 MS. SOMERS:
24 Q. Ms. Kvocka, what efforts did you learn about or did you
25 participate in, along with your husband, perhaps, to assist AW, Ckalja's
1 friend, during the period of time of his detention?
2 A. I don't know that he was in detention.
3 MS. SOMERS: Would this be an appropriate time for the break, Your
4 Honour? Thank you.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but let us first have the
6 witness escorted out of the courtroom, please.
7 We will have a half-hour break at this point.
8 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
11 Could the usher please bring in the witness.
12 Ms. Somers, let us continue and let us try to finish the
14 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, you mentioned during the direct examination of this
16 rejoinder testimony that you sold earrings, your own and your daughter's.
17 You sold them, did you not, because they had some value, some value; is
18 that correct? Some value; yes or no.
19 A. No value at all.
20 Q. Then why did you sell them?
21 A. Well, because I had to buy something else of equally small value,
22 but in those days, the gold was practically worthless. And because I
23 didn't work, my husband didn't work, I had to have some money, some cash.
24 And I think that one gram of gold was of very little value in those days.
25 Q. But many grams of gold or many items of gold could have had some
1 value, depending on where they were to be sold or traded; isn't that
2 correct? Depending on where they could be sold or traded?
3 A. But probably if people had a lot of gold, yes.
4 Q. And people who were very wealthy from the areas, the area in which
5 the sister of Ckalja's friend, AW, was living, those were very wealthy
6 people, weren't they?
7 A. I don't know the area in question, but the people who were very
8 wealthy, they had sent their family and their possessions outside
9 Republika Srpska a long time ago.
10 Q. How do you know that, Mrs. Kvocka?
11 A. Many of my friends left in the same manner.
12 Q. Did your husband assist any of your friends in digging up their
13 valuables from their yards or from hidden places in their homes? Your
15 A. No. No, except for this Ckalja's friend.
16 Q. And this sister of Ckalja's friend you didn't even know, did you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You thought that she had already left for a third country at the
19 time of this, didn't you?
20 A. That's what he told me. That's what her brother said, that he
21 would call her on the phone in a third country.
22 Q. Well, if other people who left for third countries had already
23 taken their jewels, as you just suggested a minute ago, why do you think
24 that this person would not have done the very same thing if you thought
25 she had left for a third country?
1 A. I didn't think that she had left. It was her brother who told us
2 that she had left, but maybe she didn't trust anyone else to go and pick
3 it up.
4 Q. Did it seem odd to you that she would entrust these jewels or
5 money to Gruban, to Ckalja?
6 A. No, because they were very good friends.
7 Q. Why did you decide to intervene on behalf of someone whom you did
8 not know, this woman, at this point in time? What motivated you to make
9 good on your debt to Ckalja at this moment in time?
10 A. Because he asked me for help.
11 Q. What was the favour you were repaying, please?
12 A. I told my husband to be there with Ckalja, to help him and his
13 friend, because Ckalja had helped me when my husband left Omarska. It was
14 through Ckalja that I was able to send things to my brothers.
15 Q. Why did Ckalja ask you for help in a venture where you didn't know
16 the parties? Why would he ask you? Why would you get involved?
17 A. He knew he could rely on me because I had relied on him.
18 Q. Exactly what did he do for your husband or for you when your
19 husband left Omarska? What was the favour you were repaying?
20 A. It was through him that I was able to send things over to my
22 Q. And how often did you use his services to do that?
23 A. I don't know. As often as I could, when I had something to send
25 Q. Did he tell you that he was doing so at risk to himself?
1 A. Everybody was doing that as a risk for themselves.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, let me just remind
3 you that the cross-examination time has already elapsed, so if you would
4 please move to the end.
5 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour, I will.
6 Q. You mentioned -- I'm sorry, your husband mentioned in his
7 testimony about assisting relatives of yours in the village Alisici - I
8 hope I'm pronouncing it correctly - Alisici; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And on page 706 of the transcript - I believe it's the transcript;
11 it could be the LiveNote but I think it's the transcript - he indicated
12 that in order to have vehicles to do that, he abused his official position
13 and got vehicles to do so. Do you recall that? Do you recall that he
14 abused his position and got vehicles to go and help your relatives?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall also that your husband had access to, used and
17 abused his official vehicle to ferry your brothers back and forth between
18 Omarska and places outside Omarska during the time of their detention?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic.
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] There was never any mention about
23 any abuse of a vehicle, ferrying back and forth. My learned colleague is
24 now trying to qualify certain behaviour. He did use a vehicle while he
25 was in Omarska. He issued it, but he wasn't abusing that in any way, nor
1 was there any discussion to that effect.
2 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, in the course of its closing arguments,
3 there will be -- we will draw on the documentary evidence to indicate
4 there was an order forbidding the use of vehicles for anything other than
5 official purposes. But I will move on, if I may. Is it okay to proceed,
6 Your Honour? May I proceed?
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I was waiting for the
8 interpretation to hear what you were going to say. But, yes, I think that
9 there has been a certain description or qualification in your question
10 which I think calls for reformulation.
11 MS. SOMERS: I will not go back about the use of the Mercedes for
12 the brothers. I will simply confirm that Mr. Kvocka said that, "In fact,
13 I abused my official position there to avail myself of a vehicle in
14 connection with Alisici," and that was confirmed by this particular
15 witness. And I will move on.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please continue, and please
17 try to finish it.
18 MS. SOMERS: Yes.
19 Q. There was a law or a decree in effect, was there not, prohibiting
20 looting and pillaging from the homes of those persons who had fled? There
21 was a law in effect, and your husband, as a police officer, would have had
22 to acknowledge that law, would he not? As would you. Looting/pillaging
23 was prohibited; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it not correct that the only activity related to a garage in
1 connection with this entire incident was the distribution of the jewelry
2 that was done in secrecy because it was illegal to do it? The
3 distribution of the jewelry was the only activity that took place in a
4 garage, whoever's garage.
5 A. This Ckalja's friend -- and by the way, I am not familiar with
6 laws. My husband is aware of that; I am not. But this Ckalja's friend
7 should be ashamed because he was the one who came to see us for help. As
8 for the distribution of that, he didn't have anything to distribute. It
9 was all worthless. My husband, while he was in uniform, never brought a
10 loaf of bread home, let alone anything more valuable. I think that during
11 these past four years you were able to observe the character of my
12 husband. When he was in uniform, all he could bring home was either his
13 cap or a loaf of bread -- or a newspaper.
14 Q. Mrs. Kvocka, my last question to you: Were you in the garage when
15 the valuables were distributed? Were you there?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you see them?
18 A. No, no. No, I didn't see them.
19 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, any additional
21 questions? If yes, please proceed.
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have, Your Honour.
23 Re-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Kvocka, you mentioned gold and the price
25 that gold was selling for. Can you remember how much a gram of gold was
2 A. I think it was somewhere below 3 German marks. Perhaps even
4 Q. Ms. Somers asked you about the garage, whether you -- does this
5 garage exist at all?
6 A. I have no idea. There are some garages at Pecani settlement, but
7 who they belong to, I don't know. And I was never in any garage there.
8 Q. Does your husband know whose these garages were and whether they
10 A. Well, I don't know. You can ask him whether he knows which garage
11 belongs to whom.
12 MS. SOMERS: It was asked already. Thank you.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
16 Judge Fouad Riad, any questions? No. Madam Judge Wald? None.
17 Madam Jasminka Kvocka, you have completed your testimony here. We
18 should like to thank you once again. I'm going to ask the usher to escort
19 you out of the courtroom. Thank you.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic.
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The Defence will continue its
23 examination of Mr. Miroslav Kvocka.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, I have a
25 question for you. You have two witnesses. Is there a reason for choosing
1 the order that you chose for the hearing of evidence from the witnesses?
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But do you realise that we have
4 Rule 90(C) on this subject?
5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well. As you can
7 see -- that is to say, we're now going to hear the testimony of
8 Mr. Kvocka. But he was present during the testimony of the other witness,
9 and that is why I brought Rule 90(C) up. It might have been better for
10 you to have called Mr. Miroslav Kvocka first, but the Rules do not prevent
11 us from hearing Mr. Kvocka now. So I address myself to Mr. Kvocka and the
12 security guards: Could you help Mr. Kvocka move to the witness box?
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to ask
14 Mr. Kvocka something quite different. I'm not going to go into the same
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Krstan Simic, I
19 understood that you were not going to ask about the same things. But are
20 we addressing ourselves to the same facts?
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, and we're talking about
22 the credibility of Witness AW.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
24 Mr. Kvocka, I think that you have understood the position. You
25 will continue your testimony under solemn declaration, under the oath you
1 took. May I remind you of that. Thank you. You may be seated. You will
2 now be answering questions put to you by Mr. Simic.
3 Mr. Krstan Simic, your witness.
4 WITNESS: MIROSLAV KVOCKA [Recalled]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examined by Mr. K. Simic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, during your testimony -- that is to
8 say, during the testimony of Witness AW, Witness AW said that after he
9 completed his military service he became the komandir of the reserve
10 police station. I should like to ask you how one becomes a komandir of a
11 police station, commanding officer.
12 A. That was one of the grossest lies he put forward during his
13 testimony, and I reacted to that and was cautioned by Their Honours.
14 MS. SOMERS: Objection, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, you have been here
16 for a long time. You cannot speak about a testimony in that way,
17 regardless of what the testimony was that was made here. So please
18 abstain from answering in that manner. We don't accept conduct of this
19 kind from the attorneys either, from the counsel either. You are not here
20 to judge the testimony of individuals who have testified. Having said
21 that, please proceed.
22 A. I apologise once again to the Court, and I also wanted to
23 apologise for my previous conduct.
24 As far as the question of how one becomes a leader or komandir,
25 there was no theory under which a metalworker could have become a
1 komandir. You have to have a university degree and all the respect, wield
2 respect and so on. And thousands of people hold university degrees but
3 cannot aspire to becoming a komandir. So it's ludicrous to think that he
4 could have been a komandir or leader.
5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Kvocka, this was a young man who had just completed his
7 military service. Under such circumstances, was there any chance of him
8 becoming a komandir with all the competencies and authorities that that
9 post has?
10 A. Well, precisely so. Everything speaks to the fact that he could
11 never have become a komandir, especially in the active force and in the
12 reserve force either. And even the reserve officers had university
14 Q. Mr. Kvocka, the witness, during his testimony, also said -- that
15 is to say you yourself said that you didn't know him.
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. But he said that he knew you because you were together at
18 meetings, attended meetings together. Were you in fact at those
20 A. No. We were never together at meetings nor could we have been. I
21 did not know him and it was impossible for us to have attended the same
22 meetings. As I said, I knew most of the active policemen, and he was
23 quite certainly not an active policeman. If he was a reserve police
24 officer, then he wasn't in the same police station as myself and it was
25 absolutely impossible for us to have attended the same meetings.
1 Q. So you state that he was never a professional policeman as he
2 testified. He said that during 1991, he was.
3 A. I am 100 per cent certain that he wasn't. I have already said
4 that in answer to Ms. Somers' question and I stand by that. Up to 1996,
5 1997, that is to say 1996, when I stopped working, until I was arrested,
6 he was not an active-duty policeman, right back from 1976 when I began.
7 That is to say, over the past 25 years, he was quite certainly not an
8 active-duty policeman in the Prijedor municipality.
9 Q. Why would Witness AW state that he was a komandir and that he was
10 a professional policeman? What would have his motives been to make those
12 A. It is difficult for me to say that.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
14 MS. SOMERS: [Previous translation continues]...
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Go ahead. Mr. Krstan
16 Simic, just a moment, please. Have you got a response to Ms. Somers'
17 objection? Your response, please.
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] My response is clear: The witness
19 said he was the komandir of a reserve police station and that he later on
20 become an active-duty policeman and ceased working in the Ljubija mine.
21 That was the testimony from the witness, and I wanted to establish what
22 the motive was, just like my learned friend asked the motive of
23 Mrs. Kvocka to assist and help a moment ago. My question was along those
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. But the question that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 was -- that should have been asked was: Do you know the reasons for
2 which, et cetera, and then if the answer was yes, you can go ahead and
3 ask. But Ms. Susan Somers is quite right in this respect.
4 Please proceed.
5 A. I hope that his motives will emerge very soon and all the reasons
6 for his testimony. I apologise to the Trial Chamber, but my reaction was
7 because he put forward ten gross lies, and I wanted to look him in the
8 eyes, to see whether he would still carry on drinking water as he did
9 while he was sitting here.
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I would like Mr. Kvocka to be shown
11 a document now, please. The suggestion made was that I tender the
12 documents later on, but I'd like to show a certificate of the iron ore
13 mine of Ljubija, Prijedor, to have the witness shown this document.
14 Q. Would the witness please take a look at the document and please
15 don't say anything, for protective measures, before I ask you my
17 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, would you hand a copy to
18 Ms. Somers, please.
19 Q. Mr. Kvocka --
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please,
21 Mr. Simic. What is the number of the document?
22 THE REGISTRAR: D1/58.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can we have a copy of the
24 document? Can the Judges be provided with a copy, please?
25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Kvocka, do you have before you a portion of the personal
2 dossier and file of an individual, the particulars from the file of an
4 A. Yes. We can see that from the heading, from the signature and
5 stamp, from everything, in fact.
6 Q. Does it state that the individual to which this certificate refers
7 to was employed from the 1st of January, 1980 to the 30th of April, 1993?
8 A. Yes, that is what it states.
9 Q. In the system that we had, could one person work at two work
11 A. No. That was impossible.
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kvocka, I should like now to go back to your
13 second visit to the locality. And Mrs. Kvocka did not testify about that
14 because she wasn't there, so we're not in collusion there.
15 The second time you went, who was there? Tell us all the people
16 who were there.
17 A. There was Ckalja, himself, and me.
18 Q. How long did the search last?
19 A. It lasted for quite a long time, but we didn't go early. We went
20 at around noon or just after noon and went until it became dark, which
21 means 4.00 or 5.00 in the afternoon.
22 And as I've already said, I think that second time we found the
23 glass jar straight away, the half kilo glass jar. It wasn't a plastic
24 container of two litres as the gentleman said, but we found this glass jar
25 straight away because he knew where it was. He had received information,
1 and then he sent us off to dig in this other place where he claimed there
2 was 6.000 marks buried. However, we weren't able to find that other
3 portion after having dug for five hours. The jar we found after two
4 minutes of digging, but we weren't able to find the other things at all.
5 So we didn't find any money at all. We couldn't find any money, although,
6 according to the information that his sister conveyed to him, as he
7 explained to us, that is, he took us to the exact location of where this
8 was supposed to be, but there was no money there. And we dug around. He
9 did most of the digging, but we helped him, and we dug in a circumference
10 around that locality and found nothing.
11 Q. The jar you mention, how was it closed?
12 A. I think it was the normal type of top to this particular type of
13 jar. Then there was a piece of nylon with a rubber band.
14 Q. Mr. Kvocka, was there any water in the jar when you dug it up?
15 A. Well, I can't remember. I didn't look very closely, but I think
16 there was some drops of water. Whether it was just moisture or whether it
17 was actually water, I can't say, but it did seem to be a bit of -- a bit
18 moist, damp.
19 Q. Was the jar opened in front you, before your eyes at all?
20 A. No, it wasn't.
21 Q. Where did you part from Mr. Gruban and his friend?
22 A. Gruban and him went off together in between our two buildings, and
23 I went to return the car back to my kum, Mr. Oklopcic.
24 Q. Did you hear from Ckalja later on how the two of them parted? Did
25 Ckalja see what was in the jar?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. He said and he told us, so I can't actually say, but story was --
2 his story was after everything had been completed, from what Ckalja had
3 said and what his friend had said, there was a small gold chain, several
4 costume jewelry rings, and a watch which he said was a memento and was
5 worthless, that it was an old watch, a gold-plated watch, but worthless.
6 So that was as a memento. And he said he needed money to go and treat --
7 to pay for the treatment of his mother. That's what he said the first
8 time, or Ckalja said what he said. So that was the reason that made me
9 decide to go and help them in the first place, because all the other help
10 and assistance was not that kind of assistance. So that was the reason.
11 So although on the one hand it was an act -- an unpleasant thing
12 to do, on the other hand, it did help.
13 Q. Mr. Kvocka, you mentioned a watch and you talked about a memento.
14 To whom was it a memento?
15 A. He said that it was his sister's remembrance of her husband, I
16 think. I think that's what was said. But it was a memento, a
17 remembrance. Whether it was her late husband's or her father's, I don't
18 quite know, but as they said, that it was a remembrance and a memento,
19 there was no need to go in to explain. The areas, the places where we
20 come from, we all understand what we mean by a memento.
21 Q. Mr. Kvocka, did you ever go into a garage of any kind during these
22 contacts you had?
23 A. No, not at all. There was no garage at all. And I would call my
24 kum into his apartment. He lived in the fourth floor in the other
25 opposite building. He knows Hasan Oklopcic very well, and he had -- made
1 jokes with him. And here in court, the court, he stated that he didn't
2 know Hasan Oklopcic, and that is one of the gross lies that he said here.
3 And the kum threw us the keys from his window. We switched the
4 motor on. It was a blue Zastava-type car. Ms. Somers said Lada. It
5 wasn't a Lada, it was a blue Zastava-type car.
6 And the gentleman who testified a year ago and said the truth.
7 And you will all hear the truth. It will come out. The truth will out
8 and the truth has already come out in many press articles and books.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel make pauses between question and
10 answer, please.
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Ms. Somers asked your wife something about this: What abuse was
13 it to get a car out and go off with it? Can you explain this to the Trial
15 A. Well, Mr. Alisic -- it was a white Golf car in Tukovi. I took the
16 car and went to Alisic, Alisici. If you look at it from purely legal
17 terms and rules and regulations, that might have been an abuse. But if
18 you look at the end that was achieved through this little misdemeanour,
19 then I don't take it to be any abuse. I saved a great deal of people from
20 shelling in Alisici by using, borrowing the car, so I don't see that I had
21 done anything wrong because the end was far greater. It is no abuse, to
22 my way of thinking, because I helped a lot of people. But if you look at
23 the strict rules of regulations where it says this, then --
24 Q. Ms. Somers said that you used the car to take your wife's
25 brothers, your brothers-in-law to Omarska and back.
1 A. That is not an abuse. That all comes within the frameworks of the
2 regular duties of a policeman. And I as somebody who had to -- who was
3 issued fuel and everything I needed for the car and that I was issued
4 these cars, I would always get one car, it would always be one vehicle,
5 two vehicles at the most. And the individual -- anybody who has a
6 positive -- that is to say, vehicles of this kind are issued to people who
7 are fully responsible for their acts, because they have to account for the
8 fuel used and everything else. And Mr. Zeljko told me that, without his
9 knowledge, I should not give the keys to anybody else. Only he could say
10 who was allowed to use the car because it was a requisitioned vehicle
11 which might have been damaged and then the damage would have to be paid to
12 the actual owner. So that is clear as day.
13 Q. What were your motives for going together with Mr. Gruban and his
14 friend to the locality in question?
15 A. My basic motive -- I touched upon this a moment ago, but my main
16 motive was that the end product of that affair was help and assistance.
17 That is how I experienced it. And the gentleman, I don't know -- want to
18 mention his name, and Gruban, I knew that they were friends of
19 long-standing, that they were very good friends. Gruban would tell me
20 that he visited him many times. He would visit him more often than he
21 would come to visit me. And he asked me to come along because they'd feel
22 more secure and safer. And knowing their relationship that was a proper
23 friendly relationship, a trustworthy one, and that this would be a help to
24 him, and as my wife insisted -- well, she didn't insist but it was her
25 suggestion that I go and help them, all these circumstances led up to me
1 accepting to help them, but only to help him. I wanted to help him,
2 although nobody asked me for any similar help. They asked me for other
3 types of assistance, but not that particular type.
4 Q. My last question for you, Mr. Kvocka: Did you personally take for
5 yourself any single item of that jewelry, costume jewelry, or whatever you
7 A. That is absolutely ludicrous. I don't know how to answer this. I
8 maintain and claim and state, if you want to give me a death sentence,
9 okay, but I say on pain of death that I never took anything or that I was
10 offered anything. Nobody offered; I didn't take anything, nothing at
11 all. It's an ordinary lie, a base lie which will come to the surface very
12 soon, and we will hear publicly why that lie was stated here.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
14 further questions.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers for the
16 cross-examination, please.
17 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
19 Q. Mr. Kvocka, I want to try to reconcile two positions that have
20 just been brought up. One is your wife's testimony that her motive for
21 supposedly urging you to become involved in this was to help Gruban, and
22 you just indicated that your motive, as encouraged by her, was to help AW
23 because of his sick mother. Could you tell us which it is? Which is the
24 real version of why you got involved? Your wife didn't mention a sick
25 mother, and perhaps you could explain how this just surfaced.
1 A. Well, first of all, my wife and myself, we didn't have any talks
2 as to how we would testify. She had her motives, which were hers; I had
3 my own motives. But they were our motives. I don't know whether he
4 mentioned his mother to her, except maybe after the first visit, but he
5 did say that to Ckalja and to myself. I believe I addressed the issue of
6 my relationship with Ckalja on several occasions and why I trusted him,
7 why I asked him to watch over my brothers-in-law and some other people, so
8 I don't want to go into that once again. But I can, of course.
9 He was a well-respected man. He had many acquaintances, and
10 people came to him for help. He was well disposed to that effect, and we
11 have heard a number of testimonies as to Ckalja's character. I don't wish
12 to repeat what they said about him.
13 So there were some additional motives, if we can put it that way.
14 My wife had an additional motive. For example, he used to bring apples
15 from his village, the village of Maricka, to her brothers while he was on
16 duty and I had already left. So maybe that motive was perhaps a stronger
17 one for my wife. So it's difficult for me to answer why my wife had
18 perhaps slightly different motives and why I had my motives.
19 Q. You may not have talked to your wife just now, but at the time in
20 1993, did you talk to your wife about this? Did you share with her what
21 you were about to embark upon?
22 A. Well, we agreed that it should be done. We had an agreement as to
23 that, that we had to help him. Because you're trying to put it to me that
24 we were about to loot some property. No. We wanted to help these people
25 and you don't seem to be able to understand that. One can help people
1 without asking for any compensation, without asking for anything in
3 Q. Mr. Kvocka, when you say, "We wanted to help him," "that we had to
4 help him," whom? Help whom?
5 A. That man, and also Ckalja. And because of this relationship that
6 we had with Ckalja, it is my view that there was nothing fishy about it,
7 that it was all very clear. I know what relationship they were -- that
8 they had, Ckalja and that person, and I knew that Ckalja was on very good
9 terms with this man and that this man was apparently going to leave him
10 his apartment. So it was something that lasted for awhile. It didn't
11 just happen out of the blue.
12 Q. Mr. Kvocka, on page 11942 of the transcript, Witness AW simply
13 said, "I moved and became the komandir of the reserve police force of the
14 police, and I was the komandir or leader for several municipalities of
15 Prijedor," and went on to discuss regular training, and said, "But we were
16 on duty with the regular police force every day."
17 Where did you conclude that Witness AW held himself out as being a
18 member of the regular police force? Where was that said?
19 A. He stated clearly in his testimony - I may have received an
20 erroneous interpretation, but that is what I heard - that he had been
21 accepted in active service by his cousin. I didn't know that at the time,
22 but I know that [redacted] was his cousin. And that he said he was a komandir
23 at Urije. And then later on he changed it and he said that Zivko
24 Knezevic -- I'm sorry, but I really have to give you my answer.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, will you please slow
1 down. You have raised an issue of misinterpretation, but if you continue
2 speaking this fast, you won't receive an adequate interpretation. So
3 please bear that in mind and slow down.
4 Ms. Somers.
5 MS. SOMERS: I respectfully ask the Chamber to make an appropriate
6 redaction from the record of the name that was given out that could lead
7 to possible issues, that would conflict with protection. Thank you.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. You're referring to page
9 54, line 4.
10 MS. SOMERS: Yes.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please continue.
12 Q. Witness AW went on, when asked, "How long did you work as a
13 reserve police commander," a reserve police commander, on page 11943 of
14 the transcript, "Until the beginning of the war in 1992."
15 Again, I ask you: Where did you come up with your position that
16 he was in the regular police force? Did someone tell you that other than
18 A. No, no. That is what I heard here from him, and that is why I
19 started to laugh, because I think he was lying. He didn't want to look me
20 in the eye and that is why I concluded that he was lying.
21 A year ago, when I was answering your questions, I said that he
22 was not for sure an active-duty policeman, and that is what I stand by.
23 It was him who stated that he was -- that he became an active-duty
24 serviceman, that he had left his job in the mining company. Those were
25 his words; that's what he was saying here.
1 Q. Are you aware whether or not all of the people who were interned
2 in camps, and in this instance Keraterm camp for this particular
3 individual, if all of those persons nonetheless remained on the rosters of
4 companies where they may have worked prior to their being detained? In
5 your position at Omarska, would you have been able to learn that, dealing
6 with thousands of detainees?
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
8 A. Mr. Simic, I will answer the question.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, what is your
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Speculation, Your Honour. My
12 learned colleague said, "in your position at Omarska." It is his position
13 that is in dispute here and it will be decided upon by the Court.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, you should perhaps
15 rephrase your question.
16 MS. SOMERS:
17 Q. To your knowledge, based on your experiences during the war and
18 perhaps in particular at Omarska, were the names of all the persons who
19 had been detained in Omarska, for example, or perhaps other camps like
20 Keraterm, were their names stricken from the rolls of their once
21 employers; do you know that? Was there a need to do so?
22 A. I don't know much about it. But in the interest of justice, I
23 will tell you what I knew and what I heard and what I saw from the
24 documents that you produced here. I know that in respect of certain
25 individuals in respect of whom guilt was established or they were
1 detained, I don't know how it was defined by the members of the Crisis
2 Staff, decisions were brought to the effect that their employment had been
3 terminated. I believe that you had a document to that effect which showed
4 that some people had been discharged because they had been arrested
5 pursuant to somebody's orders.
6 I wasn't involved in that. I didn't have any commanding
7 position. I was just a policeman who was on duty from time to time and I
8 was not involved in that. My job was to provide security to those
9 detainees and to prevent them from escaping. I actually told you about
10 what my assignment was and what it included, but it only concerned me at
11 my physical position and my post there.
12 Q. Following your logic, if persons had to be taken off of the rolls
13 of their employers at the time they were detained, that would suggest,
14 would it not, that they would have to be informed that they were detained,
15 and that a record of detention would come from somewhere. Perhaps the
16 camp itself. Are you suggesting that there was no coordination between
17 the industries and those persons who ordered detention?
18 A. I really don't understand why you need to make all these
19 constructions --
20 Q. Answer my question, please, Mr. Kvocka, and don't analyse my
21 motives. Please answer the question.
22 A. I'm trying to. You are interpreting and constructing things
23 because you said that evidence was -- that there were registers to that
24 effect. But there was nothing, there were no such logbooks in Omarska.
25 There may have been people who sent such things, but we were not involved
1 in that. We didn't have anything to do with such registers. We were just
2 the police force providing security to the facility. That's, I believe,
3 what was stated in that document and that's why I wanted to react. There
4 was no evidence whatsoever that such records were kept, and that is the
5 reason why I reacted the way I did, and I apologise.
6 Q. Mr. Kvocka, you said you spent some five hours digging for some
7 6.000 Deutschemarks. What was your position in the Prijedor police at the
8 time of this event? Your exact position, your title, please.
9 A. I wish I could remember exactly when it was, but it is quite
10 probable that it was in the spring of 1993, as this gentleman stated.
11 Maybe have even been in the fall of 1993. But nevertheless, I spent the
12 whole year of 1993 working in Prijedor as a police officer.
13 Q. Your position --
14 A. In 1994 I became a shift leader - let me finish, please - and I
15 was a police officer who worked on duty service for interventions. For
16 brawls in cafes and things like that, I would be sent over to the scene to
17 deal with that, together with another officer on duty, usually the
18 driver. But I wasn't called upon, taking any serious measures, steps.
19 You know what a police officer can do in order to prevent a fight.
20 Q. For at least five hours of a working day, you were away from
21 whatever police duties you had. Did you explain to anyone above you what
22 you were doing during those hours?
23 A. It was during my free time. I didn't go there while I was on duty
24 but when I was off duty.
25 Q. You went past a checkpoint, according to Witness AW, and with a
1 Serb signal to Serb officers at a checkpoint, you breezed through. Were
2 you using your official position to breeze through a checkpoint?
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, would you please ask
4 your question in a direct manner. You're now making conclusions. Please
5 go ahead and ask your question. You have the witness in front of you; you
6 can go ahead and ask your question, please.
7 MS. SOMERS:
8 Q. What did you tell the Serb officers at the checkpoint, if
9 anything, if you needed to tell them anything, about what you were doing
10 going to a cleansed Muslim village?
11 A. We didn't have to submit any particular report. We just stopped
12 for them to see me, and they knew me. It was just one of the checkpoints
13 on the junction for Ljubija, and it was manned by the traffic police. In
14 those days, there were no hostilities, there were no military activities,
15 and there were no other such checkpoints. There was just this checkpoint
16 with traffic policemen on it. They didn't ask me anything in particular
17 because it was not forbidden for anyone to go there. And this
18 three-finger salute that this gentleman mentioned - I knew you were about
19 to ask the same question - is an absolute lie, a fabrication.
20 Q. How did you account for the other persons in the vehicle? If you
21 got yourself through, was there any other issue about the other persons in
22 the vehicle, Witness AW and Gruban?
23 A. No, nobody asked anything. Gruban was wearing a uniform. They
24 were colleagues so they probably -- that's why they didn't ask us for our
25 IDs. They knew me and they knew him as well, probably. As I said, it was
1 not forbidden to go there. One could go there. It's just that control
2 was heightened.
3 Q. You were wearing a uniform as well, were you not?
4 A. Correct, yes, except for the fact that we didn't have rifles, as
5 this gentleman stated. We didn't have rifles because there were no
6 rifles. Just a gun.
7 Q. When you returned and you came back from the village after you had
8 removed the valuables -- excuse me, let me backtrack. When you came there
9 again with a woman in the car, the relative of Witness AW --
10 A. No. No, we didn't come back with a woman, no. It's a lie. Don't
11 say that. His sister was not there. He said that she was in Tukovi, and
12 he gave you a statement last year to the effect that she was in Raskovac.
13 So there was a misunderstanding. They are two opposite parts of
14 the city.
15 Q. Did you tell the persons at the checkpoint or any official, any
16 official in charge of that area where you were digging, that you had
17 removed property from that area? Did you tell them that?
18 A. No. There wasn't any official who was in charge for that area,
19 neither did we have to submit any report. That was his property, so he
20 didn't have to answer anything. But he was afraid because such were the
21 times, and that's why he asked his friends, his acquaintances for help,
22 people whom he could trust, and I believe that's quite clear to you as
24 Q. [Previous translation continues]... sister, was it not? It was
25 not his property; correct?
1 A. I don't know that. I don't know that. All I know was that he
2 said that he would call his sister in [redacted] Whether she was in [redacted]
3 or not, I don't know, but I hope that will become clear soon.
4 MS. SOMERS: I would ask for a redaction, please, of the record as
5 to locations, please.
6 A. There is no need. According to you, she was in Prijedor. So I
7 don't see any problem with [redacted] now. Why would that be critical to
8 you? Because according to her brother's words, she was in Prijedor in
9 those days, but then [redacted] was mentioned. I don't see any reason why it
10 should be stricken now.
11 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour --
12 A. And he called her on the telephone.
13 MS. SOMERS: I would ask for assistance, perhaps, in controlling
14 the witness on this issue and a proper redaction. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Interpreters are complaining
16 about the speed. We should have pauses between questions and answers.
17 Yes, appropriate redactions will be made of the reference which
18 was made about a country.
19 Ms. Somers, will you please now try to finish your
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I certainly will.
22 Q. As a police officer, were you aware that there was a prohibition
23 against looting or pillaging or removing the valuables of persons who had
24 left the territory as a result of the takeover?
25 A. For me, as a policeman, ever since I donned my uniform in 1973,
1 this prohibition against looting has always been applicable. That is a
2 prohibition which is a permanent one, a standing prohibition, but this was
3 not a case of looting.
4 Q. Mr. Kvocka, would it be correct to say that as long as Witness AW,
5 and as he said, his sister, accompanied you, they would provide cover, an
6 air of legitimacy for removal of goods from her own property; is that
7 correct? They were your cover, were they not? They legitimised your
8 action, didn't they? You did this in broad daylight with their cover.
9 A. I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't know who
10 protected whom. Are you trying to say that we protected them or it is
11 them who protected us, as my wife said? I really don't understand what
12 your objective is now, because we keep saying that we helped him, actually
13 him and not them, because you keep putting in the sister who was not
14 there. She was not present.
15 MS. SOMERS: No further questions, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 Mr. Simic, any additional questions?
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Just one
19 question. Actually, several brief ones.
20 Re-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, Ms. Somers asked you about the fact
22 that Witness AW was a member of the reserve police force. Did he mention
23 that he was on sick leave and he was a member of the Territorial Defence?
24 A. Yes. He said that prior to the war he was on sick leave and that
25 after his sick leave he joined the active service, and that is what I
1 heard. I don't know what is contained in the transcript, but I clearly
2 remember what he said.
3 Q. Did he say that he was admitted to the professional police station
4 which was a completely different one from the one that he worked before?
5 A. Yes. He referred to it as Prijedor II or Urije.
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, I think I know what
8 you're going to say, but please do say it.
9 MS. SOMERS: The record speaks for itself. Mr. Simic is
10 co-testifying with the witness about some explanation as to what he
11 heard. It is inappropriate. The record speaks for itself.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept what my
14 learned colleague has said, but I really couldn't keep silent, because
15 apparently the witness was presented with a different portion of the
16 transcript and not with the truth. We spoke about two segments of the
17 problem here. The record speaks for itself, but --
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, of course the record will
19 speak for itself. However, Mr. Simic, if you closely look at the
20 transcript, you will see that you have adopted a different position.
21 You must not lead the witness in your examination. I have here
22 only the English transcript which reads as follows: [In English] "... a
23 police station which was a completely different one from the one that you
24 were before."
25 [Interpretation] Question should have been: "Did he tell you
1 anything about so-and-so?" and then you continue with your question.
2 You are fully aware of that, Mr. Simic, and the problem that I
3 have is that as an intellectual, you are perfectly aware of the fact that
4 you are leading your witness, and you know that you have other ways of
5 asking your questions.
6 Please do ask a direct question of the witness.
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. After his sick leave, Witness AW, did he work as an active-duty
9 policeman at Police Station Urije II after 1991, 1992?
10 A. That's what he stated here, and I don't know whether it was true
11 or not. He couldn't have worked there as an active policeman at Urije
12 because I knew all other active-duty policemen, Popovic Milenko, Prodan
13 Slobodan, Cvijo whom he mentioned, that is true, but he mentioned him
14 because he was his neighbour. Cvijo Maric was his name. Zivko Knezevic,
15 who was komandir at that time, and he said that he was actually the
17 Q. And my last question for you, Mr. Kvocka: My learned friend
18 mentioned a document according to which the Crisis Staff stated that
19 detained individuals could not be employed at the same time. When was the
20 first time that you saw this document?
21 A. When I came here in the detention centre and then later on again
22 when the Prosecutor led that evidence.
23 Q. Later on you never saw such a document?
24 A. No, never.
25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
1 questions for the witness.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Judge
3 Fouad Riad, do you have any questions?
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE RIAD: I have just one question to clarify. You mentioned
6 that the help you offered to Ckalja and his friend was the only kind of
7 help which was asked from you or which you gave in that -- in this
9 Now, usually the help you gave was given to your in-laws, to your
10 brothers-in-law, wasn't it? That was your main concern?
11 A. Well, Your Honour, yes and no. I helped many people in different
12 ways, and many witnesses, even Prosecution witnesses, testified to that.
13 I offered them protection and gave them assistance. Perhaps you didn't
14 understand me. But when I said that kind of assistance, the kind of
15 assistance was at their insistence. My wife and I decided to help them
16 and do the job.
17 Perhaps I didn't express myself properly, but that kind of help
18 with respect to the digging up of this -- these things, that was the only
19 time I did that, because of the overall relationships between me and
20 Ckalja, Ckalja and my wife, and so on and the wartime circumstances.
21 The other types of assistance, the other ways in which I helped
22 people were not linked to this particular activity, because I helped my
23 brothers-in-law, but I helped many other people as well. And as my mother
24 said -- my wife said in 1992, 1993, the Muslims stuck to me like a stamp
25 on a letter and then afterwards they ran away, but that is the expression
1 my wife used, and I apologise for taking up this time to state that
3 Now that we're home again, or she's home again, they're starting
4 to stick to us again, asking for help. Some of them have apologised for
5 testifying here. They didn't know they were testifying here against me.
6 They ring my wife up from third countries and say they didn't do anything
7 wrong. I don't know why. Something seems to have bothered them. Their
8 conscience perhaps. But I'm not angry for any one of them for testifying
9 here except this last person, because it was the first time that I heard
10 such a flagrant lie in my life, not -- and in the Court here, not only in
11 Court but in general. That was a flagrant lie. But I apologise for
12 taking up your time, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Riad.
15 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
16 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Kvocka, I have got several very specific, short
18 On these excursions, did you do the driving? Did you drive the
19 car on these two days that you went? You did.
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. And you, if I understand your testimony,
22 or it may have been your wife's testimony, but one of you said that you
23 were the one that asked for the loan of the car from Oklopcic; is that
24 right? I don't know which one of you, but that either you or your wife
25 asked to borrow a car from Oklopcic; right?
1 A. Yes, that's right, too, yes, because Oklopcic was a friend of ours
2 from before, a comrade, and later we became kum, and we spoke about that
3 relationship of ours.
4 JUDGE WALD: Right. Right. I think you also testified that,
5 under your version of what happened, this person whose name we don't
6 mention, the friend of Ckalja's, that he also knew Oklopcic. Didn't you
7 say that?
8 A. Right. Yes, I did.
9 JUDGE WALD: Yes.
10 A. And I said that 100 per cent, because we joked with him when we
11 asked him to throw us the keys out of his window. We were all present
12 there when we took the car from him, and he threw the keys out of the
14 JUDGE WALD: So my question is: In your impression, why do you
15 think that Gruban or Ckalja felt he needed you to be involved at all if AW
16 knew Oklopcic and -- I mean, what function did you perform in going along
17 with them? Because as you pointed out, Gruban was also a policeman, had a
18 uniform, and they recognised him at the Serb checkpoint. What function
19 did you think you were performing? Why did they tell you they needed you
20 to come?
21 A. Well, he -- a Muslim didn't approach another Muslim for help and
22 assistance. It was a little tricky. And actually, a Muslim couldn't have
23 helped another Muslim, so he didn't ask him. He asked directly, that is
24 to say, Gruban's friend asked Gruban directly. And then Gruban said that
25 they had to find a car, set about a time, that there should be a meeting
1 point, that there -- where we should find a pick and shovel, and it's not
2 easy to find picks.
3 And I think Gruban, because the other man didn't know me, but it
4 was Gruban's idea. And he told me later on when we stopped off for a cup
5 of coffee, that is to say, after the first time, we had coffee and spent
6 two hours drinking coffee and having a drink in my apartment, and he said
7 that he had known about me, he knew everything about me, so he didn't
8 appear to be afraid in any way. And so I think that Gruban suggested me,
9 and he had nothing against him contacting me. So there was no special
10 role, it was just better to have the two of us and him rather than having
11 just the two of them. Gruban didn't have a car. He found it difficult to
12 find a car. He didn't know people in Prijedor as well as I did. He
13 couldn't borrow a care that easily. So they thought it was better to have
14 two of us and one of him, the three of us rather than just the two of
16 And the decision -- I apologise, Your Honour, but the decision
17 because I myself thought that their relationships were quite clearcut and
18 that there were no problems, that they were good friends and visited each
19 other. Gruban visited him in his apartment nonstop. And after the events
20 in Omarska, I would see Gruban in town and he would say that he was either
21 on his way to visiting this friend or things like that. We always bring
22 up the name of that friend of us and that's why I knew who he was, but I
23 didn't know him personally.
24 JUDGE WALD: You testified, I believe, that you went out on two
25 separate days; is that right? You went out one day and then you went out
1 sometime after. It's unclear as to whether it was -- one story is the
2 next day, I think someone said -- no, it was a few days later.
3 In between -- and did you use Oklopcic's car both times? On both
4 occasions you used Mr. Oklopcic's car; right? Okay. In between, in
5 between --
6 A. Yes, both times I used Mr. Oklopcic's car. And many times during
7 the war -- may I explain, Your Honour? I would like you to understand the
8 circumstances that prevailed in our relationships.
9 Many times, that is to say, Oklopcic wasn't a driver. His wife
10 was a driver, and she had the car, the Zastava 101 car, registered in her
11 name, and very often they would have a job to do and I drove Oklopcic.
12 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, between the two trips, whatever time
13 passed between the two trips, did you return the car, the car keys? You
14 returned the car to Oklopcic after the first trip and then went -- then
15 had to get the keys again on the second trip or did you just keep the car
16 in between the two trips?
17 A. I would give the keys back, and the car was usually parked in
18 between the two buildings. So I saw -- I could see the car throughout the
19 war out of my window. It was -- the two buildings were next to each other
20 and I could see the car from my window. I could see his building and his
21 car from my window. They were two apartment blocks, one next to the
22 other, and the car would be parked there in between the two buildings.
23 JUDGE WALD: I believe your wife testified that there were some
24 garages attached to the apartment complex, although you didn't have a car
25 or didn't have a garage. I take it that Mr. Oklopcic did not park his car
1 in the communal garage, or did he? You talked about it being parked
2 between the buildings. It wasn't parked in the garage that was a part of
3 the apartment complex; is that right?
4 A. That's right. It was always parked in front of the building. And
5 he would -- on both occasions he threw down the keys to us from the
6 window. I don't know if he had a garage. Probably not, because he would
7 have probably gone into his garage had he had a garage. At one point I
8 would have seen it. But he never mentioned a garage.
9 JUDGE WALD: When you returned from both of the trips, you would
10 take the -- you would park his car where -- did you park his car where he
11 usually had it and then return the keys to him, and then the other people
12 just went their way? Gruban, AW, they just went off by themselves or how
13 did -- when you returned from the trip in both cases, just go through the
14 movements in terms of your getting the car back.
15 A. The first time when we got back and we didn't find anything, we
16 parked the car closer to the entrance to my building, to my entrance,
17 because we all went upstairs to my floor and apartment to have a cup of
18 coffee and have a drink, an alcoholic beverage to get our circulation
19 going, because it was night-time already. After that conversation and
20 that time, they went off, and I went down and reparked the car, parked it
21 closer to Hasan's apartment and took him back the keys.
22 On the second occasion, the second time, his children -- his
23 wife -- his son and daughter were playing in front of the building, so I
24 gave them the keys. So the next time I parked directly in front of his
25 building, and the first time I did as I have just explained it.
1 JUDGE WALD: My second question is: When you were out there at
2 the site of the burned house, did you help with the digging at any point,
3 or did you just watch while the other people were digging and trying to
4 find the money or the valuables? Did you participate in the digging?
5 A. Yes, I did. I did dig. Perhaps a little less than the other two,
6 I didn't do as much digging as they did, because all this was a sort of
7 strange atmosphere. But what can you do? That was what happened. But I
8 did dig, yes. And after the first time, my wife washed my boots that
9 belonged to the uniform and Ckalja's boots, she washed them for us. I
10 remember that clearly.
11 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
14 Mr. Kvocka, we have no more questions for you. We thank you once
15 again for having testified, and I should like to ask the usher to ensure
16 that you are escorted back to your place.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours. And I
18 apologise once again if I exploded several times, having been cautioned by
19 you a few days ago, but this is the first time in my life that I have
20 heard such a flagrant lie.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic.
24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we had four documents,
25 if I remember correctly, which I would like to tender into evidence; two
1 certifications on the non-possession of a garage and vehicle, and an
2 excerpt from the personal file of Witness AW, and the request for
3 departure from Prijedor municipality. So five documents in all.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So they are the documents that
5 have already been marked, and they are D1/54 to D1/58 inclusive; is that
6 right, Madam Registrar and Mr. Simic?
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
9 MS. SOMERS: We have objections, Your Honour. If it's possible
10 just to go through them chronologically and register our objections.
11 As to the document labeled 1/54, which purports to be a document
12 from the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Prijedor giving a negative
13 indication of possession of a car, we think it is irrelevant. Possession,
14 ownership/possession, we think it has no probative value in this
15 particular line of testimony. There is no authentication of this
16 document. It's a bit of a strange presentation. And the same person has
17 signed off on two documents here that look as if they were prepared for
18 litigation, frankly. I think both on issues of authenticity and on
19 relevance, they would be inappropriate to admit.
20 Now, the second document with the signature of a Nevenka Miskovic
21 is D1/57, which purports to be a document from the Ministry of Internal
22 Affairs concerning an address, the residence of Witness AW, and signing
23 from this address for going -- purposes of going abroad. I think these
24 documents are questionable.
25 And 1/55A, there is no translation of --
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting.
2 Just one moment, Ms. Susan Somers. We're in public session. You have a
3 document, the document is in the possession of a number of persons, and
4 you are linking up the residence in the document and a witness. I don't
5 think you're protecting the witness properly, or am I not seeing
7 MS. SOMERS: I think, Your Honour, I was trying to be as general
8 as possible without -- just mentioning the pseudonym and then the nature
9 of the document. There is --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] All right. But residence isn't
11 a pseudonym. Residence is what it says. If I say to somebody that the
12 name of a street and the door, and I state somebody's pseudonym, that
13 could be served for identification purposes.
14 MS. SOMERS: Correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You can identify the
16 individual. I don't think I was translated properly. I apologise to the
17 interpreters. Perhaps I was speaking a bit too fast, but I don't think
18 what I said was translated properly. It's not important. But please
19 proceed, go ahead.
20 MS. SOMERS: Can I just clear up the record, Your Honour, so that
21 you're not under any misperception about what I asked. I did not mention
22 any residence, any name of any residence. It was just the nature of the
23 document. In case that was perhaps an interpreting problem, just so the
24 Chamber is aware. I'm aware of the protective measures.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers. I'm now
1 going to speak slower in order to be interpreted.
2 We have a document which has a number. The document is a public
3 document. The document contains a residence which is concrete. So if you
4 link up the residence in the document - the residence is a concrete
5 residence - and the pseudonym of a witness, you run the risk of disclosing
6 the identity. I don't know whether my idea has been properly
7 transmitted. Do you understand what I'm saying?
8 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour. If there is in my -- if there was
9 any possibility, even remote possibility, of making that link, it was
10 unintentional. And if there is any redaction that would serve that - I
11 perhaps didn't quite see it that way - but I would, in an abundance of
12 caution, ask that we do review it and perhaps make appropriate
14 In fact, if the Chamber is minded to admit any of these documents
15 that have any possible connection, we would ask that they perhaps remain
16 in confidential status, under seal, however the Chamber phrases it.
17 Having reviewed two documents, 1/54 -- I'm sorry, D1/54A and
18 D1/57, I'm moving on to D1/58. This purports to be something personal to
19 the witness about whose testimony we discussed. There is no -- not even
20 an indicium of authenticity, and I would indicate that it was prepared
21 strictly for litigation. I think that it is inappropriate to consider for
22 any purpose at all, based on what was given in evidence.
23 Sorry, I must have missed 1/55. It is not translated, Your
24 Honour. I'm just trying to take a quick glance to see. If we could defer
25 this until there is a translation, it would be helpful. I don't
1 necessarily see that this would be appropriate for admission, but I'd like
2 to have the benefit of an official translation or even a draft.
3 D1/56A and B purport to be registers or excerpts from the
4 registers of real estate, and again prepared for litigation. It is
5 unclear what the real records would reflect. And I think that this being
6 a questionable summary of -- without any indication of why the original
7 deeds or documents or any official document indicating the status of a
8 piece of property was not produced, I think this is not an appropriate
9 substitute and should not be admitted. It is a negative of something.
10 Again, the term "possess," I don't know what they're -- if this is
11 meaning ownership. And even if so, it is not evidence of the use of
12 property at all. It really has no -- it's impossible to say what its
13 value is.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have you finished, Ms. Susan
16 MS. SOMERS: I have finished.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay.
18 Mr. Krstan Simic, let's hear you.
19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 I just agree with my colleague when she says that the documents
21 have been prepared for litigation. But the preparation was such that we
22 went to the competent institutions keeping these kinds of records and we
23 asked them to look into their files and records and give us these
24 certificates and data. The official institutions complied.
25 It is a fact that we already said that within the Public Security
1 Station, there is a public sector and that Nevenka Miskovic, the leader,
2 was the head of this registration section, and that she issued two
3 certificates with respect to ownership of cars, and that comes under her
4 competence and jurisdiction.
5 As regards the other two facts, it is stated in the heading that
6 this is a record issued by the Land Surveying Institute and Service, and
7 this is where the real estate records are kept, the real estate property
8 of individuals. They are not found there as owners of real estate in
9 Prijedor municipality. Had they established that they were owners of real
10 estate, they would have issued a certificate to that effect.
11 The institute of the iron ore mines looked at its own personnel
12 files, and all this material is available to the Prosecution. It is true
13 that the Trial Chamber will assess the probative value.
14 Witness AW has lived for one and a half years in the opposite
15 building. He said that Mr. Kvocka had a garage; we showed that he did not
16 own a garage. The witness said he owned a car; we wished to prove that he
17 did not own a car. The Trial Chamber will, of course, attach what weight
18 it deems should be attached to these documents. But on the 9th of
19 February, 1992, a contract, agreement, was made up on the utilisation of
20 an apartment. We heard that he was thrown out. So documents of this kind
21 do exist. The Prosecution could have come by these same documents and
23 Let me say that the International Criminal Court is truly an
24 institution which represents the community. All of us taking part in a
25 procedure of this kind are duty-bound to act in this way vis-a-vis the
1 witnesses we bring in, who come into this holy institution. That is what
2 I wanted to say.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, thank you.
4 There is, however -- you said a great many things, but there is a question
5 that you have not responded to addressed by Ms. Susan Somers. She said
6 that one of the documents was not translated, there wasn't a translated
7 copy of the document.
8 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, there is, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, there seems to
10 be some confusion with respect to the distribution of the documents,
11 because I, too, at the beginning did not have a translated copy. Now I
12 do. Perhaps I have the copy that should have gone to Ms. Susan Somers.
13 Could you clear that up, Madam Registrar, please?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President. When I received the exhibits,
15 they were not numbered and they were out of order, so I just distributed
16 them. I probably inadvertently did not give Ms. Somers a copy, which I
17 will supply to her after the session.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay.
19 Having heard that, Ms. Susan Somers, we see that all the documents
20 have their translations. I can confirm that. I have the translation of
21 the document. Would you like to add anything, having heard that?
22 MS. SOMERS: I would only ask to have the benefit of looking at
23 the translated document and then reserving on it, if I could do that.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay.
25 We are now going to adjourn for lunch. Ms. Susan Somers can use
1 the interim for looking at the documents. We shall be coming back and
2 making a ruling on the decision, and to hear the other witnesses for the
3 Prcac defence.
4 A 50-minute lunch adjournment.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.56 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.52 p.m.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
8 Ms. Somers, have you now got all translations and does that change
9 your position in any way?
10 MS. SOMERS: I regret to inform the Chamber that the Registry was
11 unable to provide a copy of the translation of 55 because it does not have
12 the translation. It was not provided to the Registry.
13 As to the other four documents, we remain -- we hold our
14 position. This particular document has not been subject to our review for
15 lack of translation. Our original, by the way, is with the -- the
16 original in B/C/S is still with the Registry.
17 I presume, Your Honour, that that means the Chamber also does not
18 have an official translation.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, can you help us
20 with this? Does that document have a translation or not?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. President, the problem is that we received a
22 B/C/S copy and apparently an English copy was given -- it's the same
23 English translation for two exhibits and that's the problem. I'm trying
24 to work with Mr. Simic for getting the correct translation for D1/55.
25 Also, when they're not numbered given to me, then it creates such
1 a hassle, and I do request all that Defence counsel please number their
2 exhibits before they hand them to me. Thank you.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will, therefore, have to hold
4 this decision in abeyance until further developments.
5 Can I have my copy back, Madam Registrar, please.
6 Very well. As we have indicated, the ruling will be postponed
7 until this issue involving translation is clarified because I, too, am
8 somewhat confused because it seems that one and the same translation has
9 been submitted in respect of two documents. And since the documents were
10 not tendered with numbers, it was impossible to identify the corresponding
11 translation. We will have to wait, therefore.
12 Mr. Jovan Simic, it is your turn now.
13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Defence calls Witness
14 Petar Jokic.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, I hope that you
16 have in mind the decision of the Chamber. We will address the issue of
17 the Omarska police department station and the incident involving gun
19 [The witness entered court]
20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness is not
21 going to talk about the incident involving the gun. He will only be
22 speaking about the police station department in Omarska and the duties
23 which were performed by the accused within that department.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Jokic. Can
25 you hear me? Could you please come a little closer to the microphone so
1 that the interpreters can hear you, and will you please now read the
2 solemn declaration now.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated now.
6 WITNESS: PETAR JOKIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for coming
9 here. You will first answer questions that will be put to you by
10 Mr. Jovan Simic.
11 Mr. Jovan Simic, your witness.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Jokic.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. Would you please state your name, your surname, and your place and
17 date of birth.
18 A. My name is Petar Jokic. I was born on the 21st of July, 1956, in
20 Q. At the beginning of the war, that is, in May 1992, were you
21 mobilised as a reserve police officer to the police station department in
23 A. Yes, I was.
24 Q. Could I please ask you to pause before giving me your answer, for
25 the purposes of interpretation.
1 Did you ever visit the investigation centre in Omarska while it
2 was there, while it was functioning?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Do you know the accused Dragoljub Prcac?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Was Dragoljub Prcac also mobilised as a reserve police officer in
7 the Omarska police station department?
8 A. Yes, he was.
9 Q. Do you know whether he was an active police officer or had he
10 already retired?
11 A. He was a reserve police officer.
12 Q. Do you know when Drago Prcac was mobilised and where he was
13 assigned to?
14 A. He was mobilised in May 1992, and he was assigned to the Omarska
16 Q. Do you know what kind of work he was involved with during that
17 period of time while he worked there?
18 A. He worked as a crime technician.
19 Q. Did he work as a crime technician throughout that period of time
20 in the Omarska police station department?
21 A. No, he didn't.
22 Q. In what period of time, that is, from what period of time was he
23 no longer working in the Omarska police station department?
24 A. From the month of July, but I don't know the exact date when he
25 was transferred to the investigation centre.
1 Q. Could you tell us whether you remember how it was? You said he
2 went, he was transferred to the investigation centre. Did he come back
3 after that?
4 A. Yes, he did.
5 Q. Could you situate us a little bit in terms of time framework?
6 When did he leave, how much time did he spend there, when did he come
8 A. Two to three weeks. That is the period of time that he spent
9 there and then he came back to the police station department.
10 Q. While he worked in the Omarska police station department, could
11 you tell us who he worked with and what his working hours were?
12 A. He worked with Rade Andzic who is also from Omarska. As to his
13 working hours, I think it was non-stop or, rather, when necessary.
14 Q. I think we will have to be a little more precise than that. Could
15 you remember at least when it was that he came back to the police station
17 A. June, July when he left over there, and he spent two or three
18 weeks over there in the investigation centre.
19 Q. And you don't know when he came back?
20 A. No, I don't know the dates.
21 Q. You don't know the month either?
22 A. No, I don't remember.
23 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I object. The witness has given a clear
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. The witness has already
1 said that he doesn't remember the date. Mr. Simic, please continue.
2 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to get the
3 month at least to find out at least what period of time it was.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, Mr. Simic.
5 But he said it already, he said that he left at the end of June or July,
6 that he spent two or three weeks there, and after that he came back. So
7 the witness has already answered your question.
8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Do you know when the detainees of the detention centre were
10 transferred to Manjaca?
11 A. I don't know the date.
12 Q. You said you knew Dragoljub Prcac.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. While you were working with him at the Omarska Police Station
15 Department, did you ever hear something about him receiving some money, or
16 did you ever hear anything bad about him?
17 A. No, never. Nothing bad.
18 Q. Could you tell us what your opinion of him is as a man.
19 A. He's a very good person, a very good man. He's a good farmer. He
20 has a family. He's retired.
21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
22 questions for the witness.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
24 Mr. Waidyaratne, please.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
1 Q. Mr. Jokic, could you tell us as to whether you were mobilised in
3 A. Yes, in 1992.
4 Q. Where were you?
5 A. In the Omarska department.
6 Q. As a reserve policeman?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was your duty?
9 A. I was a guard there. I was providing security to the actual
11 Q. Could you be a little bit clearer, sir? When you say "I was
12 providing security to the actual facility," what do you mean by "the
13 actual facility"?
14 A. A guard, a watchman. I don't know how to put it.
15 Q. What do you mean by "the actual facility"?
16 A. The station, that facility. That's what I had in mind.
17 Q. Mr. Jokic, you are aware that the policemen from the Omarska
18 Police Station were the people who provided security to the Omarska camp.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The reserve policemen and the active policemen from the Omarska
21 Police Station were sent to the Omarska camp to provide security.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, you said that Mr. Prcac worked with Mr. Andzic. Could you
24 kindly give us the first name, please?
25 A. Rade Andzic.
1 Q. He was also an active policeman, was he?
2 A. No. He was a reserve police officer.
3 Q. Now, you didn't know when Mr. Prcac went out on assignments or his
4 work as to what time he came to the police station and what he did during
5 these assignments.
6 A. I know that he came in late May, that he was a crime technician,
7 that he would go out to visit the scene in cases of burglary or murder, up
8 until the time he left for the investigation centre.
9 Q. That's right, this is what you have heard. But you were not
10 physically present with Mr. Prcac when he went to this place.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. The witness said that he
13 knew, not that he had heard.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
15 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I would move on, Your Honour.
16 Q. This is what you have heard from others, as to what you said about
17 Mr. Prcac, is it -- is that your position?
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic.
19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I objected and my
20 learned colleague was about to move on, but then he repeated the same
21 question. The witness said that he knew, not that he had heard.
22 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I would proceed, Your Honour.
23 Q. How did you know, if I may put that question directly, how did you
24 know as to what Mr. Prcac did during these assignments?
25 A. Because I was there. While I was on the same shift, he would tell
1 us where he went and he would report back when he went out on the scene,
2 and so on.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Jokic, if you can be a little more clear. When Mr. Prcac
4 came back, did he report to you as to what he did during his assignments
5 and the places that he went? Is that your position?
6 A. We knew in advance. When we had a report that somebody was
7 supposed to go out to the scene, then the officers would inform us in
8 advance where they were going before they would actually go out.
9 Q. Mr. Jokic, my understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought
10 you were providing security to the station. Did you have any role in what
11 Mr. Prcac did?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Now, did you know that Mr. Prcac, during the time that he was
14 attached to the Omarska Police Station, visited the Omarska camp on the
15 orders of Mr. Meakic --
16 A. No, only when --
17 Q. Please let me finish my question. On the orders of Mr. Meakic?
18 Did you understand my question?
19 A. Yes. Mr. Meakic was the komandir of the department. He would
20 come in, he would write down what our duties for the day were, he would
21 come to see us, and that was all.
22 Q. Mr. Jokic, my question was: Did you know whether Mr. Prcac,
23 during the time that he was attached to the police station, Omarska Police
24 Station, visited the Omarska camp?
25 A. While he was there, that is, before he was transferred, no, he
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 didn't go; and afterwards, yes, he did.
2 Q. What if Mr. Prcac, in his interview with the Office of the
3 Prosecutor, has admitted that he had gone to the Omarska camp? If he has
4 admitted that he has gone to the Omarska camp, what is your position?
5 A. I don't know that.
6 Q. You will say that he has lied?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. So your position is that you don't know as to whether Mr. Prcac
9 visited the Omarska camp during the time that he -- before he was -- when
10 he was attached to the Omarska Police Station; is that your position? You
11 didn't know.
12 A. No, I don't know.
13 MR. WAIDYARATNE: That concludes my questioning. Thank you, Your
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, additional
17 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, very briefly.
18 Re-examined by Mr. J. Simic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jokic, could you tell us whether, during the
20 period of time you worked at the Omarska Police Station Department, were
21 you ever on duty there?
22 A. You mean at the police station?
23 Q. Yes, at the Police Station Department.
24 A. Yes. We had our usual assignments.
25 Q. Did you ever inform Mr. Prcac about a theft or burglary or a
1 murder or anything of that kind that happened there?
2 A. Yes. Rade Andzic had a telephone. He didn't have a telephone, so
3 he would call him because he lives close to his house.
4 Q. I didn't quite understand you. Did you inform --
5 A. Yes, I did inform Mr. Prcac about those things.
6 Q. Did you ever talk with Rade Andzic or Mr. Prcac about what
7 happened after a particular investigation had taken place?
8 A. Yes, we would discuss those matters, of course. Thefts,
9 burglaries, murders, things like that.
10 Q. So you had certain knowledge about those events and you would
11 discuss them.
12 A. Well, we would normally talk about those events; of course we
14 Q. But you don't know whether he, formally speaking, ever compiled
15 any reports. You don't know that. But you do have knowledge as to his
16 presence and what he did there.
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. No further questions.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
20 Judge Fouad Riad, no questions? Madam Judge Wald.
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Jokic, just one question. During the period of
23 May, June, July, and August, while you were working in the Omarska Police
24 Department, did you know of anybody besides Mr. Meakic, the commander, who
25 worked part time at the police station and sometimes or part time at the
1 Omarska prison camp? Did you know of anybody besides Mr. Meakic that did
2 some work both at the site of the police station and at the site of the
4 A. Yes, I did. For example, Borislav Bojic was at the police
5 station. He was an active-duty policeman.
6 JUDGE WALD: And just to make sure I understand your answer,
7 Mr. Bojic would work part of the time at the police station and some time
8 at the camp; is that right?
9 A. No. No, no, no.
10 JUDGE WALD: Let me rephrase, let me repeat my question. I said
11 during those months that we talked about, May, June, July, and August, did
12 you know of anybody who worked some of the time at the police station
13 where you were working and some of the time at the camp? The way you
14 mentioned Mr. Meakic, who was the chief, would come into the police
15 station, give orders, but he was also at the same time out at the camp
16 some of the time. Did you know anyone else that worked in the police
17 station part of the time and in the camp part of the time?
18 A. Dragoljub Prcac.
19 JUDGE WALD: Well, let me make my -- I think I understand where
20 we're getting confused. I don't mean that they worked, like, for a month
21 in one place and then were transferred to the other but that they might
22 work part of the day one place and part of the day the other or maybe a
23 week or two one place and then a day or two the other place before they
24 were formally transferred. Did you know anybody like that?
25 A. No, I don't.
1 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam
3 Judge Wald.
4 Mr. Jokic, I have one question for you. If I understood correctly
5 your testimony, you told us that Mr. Prcac came to the Police Station
6 Department in Omarska at one point in time, then after awhile he left for
7 the investigation centre in Omarska, and then finally came back to the
8 Omarska Police Station Department. Did I understand you correctly?
9 A. Yes, you did. Prcac came back when they were sent off to
10 Manjaca. After that, he was taken back to the Police Station Department.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have also told us that he
12 stayed at the investigation centre for two or three weeks, more or less?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now, how much time did
15 Mr. Prcac -- how long did he stay at the Omarska Police Station Department
16 before he left for the investigation centre in Omarska?
17 A. How long did he stay there. For May until July. From the moment
18 he was mobilised, up until June or July. I don't know. I don't remember
19 the date.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
21 Mr. Jokic, we have no other questions for you. Thank you very
22 much for having come here. Let me ask the usher to escort you out of the
23 courtroom. Thank you very much.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [The witness withdrew]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
3 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Defence calls Witness Ranka
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, madam. Can you
7 hear me?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Will you please read the solemn
10 declaration the usher is giving you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
14 WITNESS: Ranka Stanar
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for coming
17 to the Tribunal. You will first answer questions that will be put to you
18 by Mr. Jovan Simic.
19 Mr. Simic, you have the floor.
20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please tell us your name and surname.
23 A. My name is Ranka Stanar.
24 Q. When and where were you born?
25 A. I was born on the 8th of September, 1959, in the Slavicka opstina
2 Q. Do you know Dragoljub Prcac?
3 A. Yes. I've known him for 20 years.
4 Q. Can you tell us something about the period of time when the
5 Omarska Investigation Centre was functioning? Do you remember if anything
6 was talked about Mr. Prcac in your village during that period of time?
7 A. During that period of time, people spoke about Dragoljub as a man
8 who was helping Muslims a lot, and in those days he was not well liked by
9 the Serb population that lived there. At one point in time, there was
10 also rumours that he, probably wishing to help someone, was prepared to
11 point -- pull a pistol on one of the guards. So he wasn't well liked in
12 those days.
13 Q. What is your opinion about Mr. Prcac? What do you think what kind
14 of man he is?
15 A. I told you that I have known Dragoljub for 20 years. Dragoljub is
16 a wonderful person, very kind, sincere, and honest person, and I really
17 can't find words to describe him in a positive sense as much as I would
18 want to.
19 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. No further
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne?
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
23 Q. Ms. Stanar, in 1992, where did you reside?
24 A. In Omarska.
25 Q. Were you neighbours of Mr. Prcac or how did you know Mr. Prcac?
1 A. I was his neighbour.
2 Q. Could you tell us who lived in Mr. Prcac's house during 1992, in
3 the months of May, June, and July?
4 A. In May and June, his mother lived in his house, together with
6 Q. And where did Mr. Prcac's family live? Do you know as to where
7 Mr. Prcac's family lived?
8 A. Mr. Prcac has two sons, and they lived in Prijedor. They were in
9 school there.
10 Q. And Mrs. Prcac, too; am I correct?
11 A. Mrs. Prcac would spend some time with her children and from time
12 to time she was with him and his mother.
13 Q. And Mr. Prcac was living in Omarska with his mother; is that
15 A. Yes. And he would occasionally go to Prijedor to see his wife and
16 children, if necessary.
17 Q. But Mr. Prcac would occasionally go to Prijedor to see his wife
18 and children, if necessary. That's what you say?
19 A. Yes. Yes.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic.
21 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend keeps repeating
22 the same questions. We have heard this question for the second or the
23 third time. His questions are identical.
24 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I repeated what the witness said, Your Honour.
25 I will move on.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Waidyaratne, but it is
2 not necessary to repeat what the witness has already said. Please move on
3 with your questions.
4 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I'm sorry.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have other things on our
6 agenda. Let's waste no more time. Please ask your question and do not
7 oblige the witness to repeat her answers, in order to save time, please.
8 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I will move on, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mrs. Stanar, you spoke about, say, rumours. From whom did you
10 hear these rumours?
11 A. Omarska is a very small place; people talk. And those rumours
12 were spread by people such as guards or cooks who moved around the
13 investigation centre, and those rumours circulated and it was common
14 knowledge in those days. It's a very small village and people talk.
15 Q. Now, you said that Mr. Prcac -- you heard rumours that Mr. Prcac
16 helped Muslims. Do you know any of the Muslims he helped? Did you hear?
17 A. No. I don't know any of the Muslims who were helped by Mr. Prcac,
18 but I do know that there were many such people. And I myself also helped
19 people in those days.
20 Q. So it was nothing unusual to you, is that your position?
21 A. It was not unusual, but it was prohibited.
22 Q. Now, after you heard these rumours, did you stop associating with
23 the Prcac family, specifically Mr. Prcac, as he was helping the Muslims?
24 A. No. No. Dragoljub has a big heart and that is how I know him.
25 It is no wonder that he helped Muslims. He would have helped Serbs and
1 Croats. That's the kind of man he is and the way he was brought up, and
2 such was also the society we lived in. It was based on brotherhood and
4 Q. Did you question Mr. Prcac at any time after you heard these
5 rumours? Did you ask Mr. Prcac about these rumours?
6 A. No, I did not ask him, because - and I'm telling you my personal
7 opinion - because I believe that it was just something that was done on
8 the spur of the moment because he wanted to achieve something and not that
9 he wanted to do anyone any harm.
10 Q. Now, did Mr. Prcac live in Omarska right throughout the conflict
11 and after the conflict, in the same house?
12 A. Yes. Yes, he did.
13 Q. His family, the two sons and also his wife, also came to stay with
14 him; is that correct?
15 A. His wife lived with him, and their sons were in Prijedor. One was
16 in school; the other was employed.
17 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour. That concludes my
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic?
20 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] We have no further questions for
21 the witness. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Judge Fouad Riad?
23 Madam Judge Wald?
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Stanar, besides Mr. Prcac, were there any other
1 guards you heard rumours or talk about being helpful to the Muslims in the
2 Omarska camp? You don't have to name their names, but were there other
3 guards that you would hear that kind of talk or rumour about?
4 A. That they were ready -- I didn't hear those rumours.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat that part of her
6 answer, please.
7 A. I don't know how well-acquainted you are with the situation and
8 circumstances in our country, but nobody was ready for all that. It came
9 as a surprise to all of us. We were all taken by surprise. And I think
10 that 90 per cent of the population were ready to help as much as they
11 could, to help things. And so the guards, too, if they knew somebody,
12 they would be ready too.
13 JUDGE WALD: I understand your answer, but in your original
14 testimony, you came to tell us that in the village where you were that
15 there were -- that it was said about him that he was helping the Muslims
16 and that the Serbs didn't - I wrote this down - that Serbs didn't like him
17 or didn't like that and that there was a rumour that he pulled a pistol on
18 one of the guards.
19 What I was asking, that sounds as though the rumours were not good
20 ones about him from the point of view of the people who were spreading
21 them, and I wondered if that was true only of him or if there were other
22 guards at Omarska camp you would hear the same kind of thing about,
23 criticism, in other words, that he was helping the Muslims.
24 A. Yes, that's right. There were people -- other people who were
25 criticised except Dragoljub Prcac. There was Miroslav Kvocka, for
1 example. Miroslav, too, was in a very difficult situation. He was
2 criticised. And because his good qualities, he was very similar to
3 Dragoljub. They weren't different with all their good qualities, and he,
4 too, was criticised, and he was threatened, and things like that.
5 JUDGE WALD: And there were others without -- there were others.
6 Is that what your testimony was, there were others, too, or are those the
7 only two that you know about?
8 A. Those two I know for sure about. And other people who succeeded
9 in bringing things in, if they heard about people helping, it didn't lead
10 to a scandal. But Miroslav, unfortunately, was exposed to rumours of that
11 kind because he was married to a Muslim, and Dragoljub was criticised
12 because he had pulled a pistol on a guard and he didn't want to stop
13 people from helping other people. That's how I understood it and how I
14 heard it from others.
15 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
16 A. You're welcome.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
19 Mrs. Stanar, do you know if either Mr. Kvocka or Mr. Prcac
20 suffered any consequences due to the fact that they helped Muslims? Did
21 they suffer the consequences of that?
22 A. As far as Dragoljub is concerned, I think that the greatest
23 consequence was that his son -- the result was that his son was sent to
24 the front. As far as Miroslav, too, by shutting him up in the
25 investigation centre. Although I don't understand their assignments and
1 things, but I do know that he had to go to the battlefield as well and
2 leave his family. So that kind of thing, yes.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. We have
4 no more questions for you, Mrs. Stanar. We would like to thank you for
5 coming. I'm going to ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Jovan Simic.
10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our last witness,
11 Radmila Rosic.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mrs. Radmila.
14 Can you hear me?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Yes, I can.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now going to read the
17 solemn declaration handed to you by the usher, please.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 WITNESS: RADMILA ROSIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
23 Thank you for having come. You are going to answer questions put
24 to you by Mr. Jovan Simic to begin with.
25 Mr. Jovan Simic, your witness.
1 Examined by Mr. J. Simic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. For the record, could you state your name and surname, please, and
5 your date of birth and place of birth.
6 A. Radmila Rosic. The 13th of February, 1954, at Donja Lamovita.
7 Q. Mrs. Rosic, do you know Dragoljub Prcac?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At the beginning of the war conflicts in the Prijedor
10 municipality, and we're talking about the month of May onwards, do you
11 know whether Drago was mobilised; and if so, where he was assigned to?
12 A. He was a retired person. He was then mobilised. As I work in the
13 Poljopromet company, we have a lot of outlets, shops and we have
14 burglaries often, and he would go to the crime scene.
15 Q. Where was he assigned? To the police station department; is that
16 what you're saying?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. My next question is the following: Can you remember whether there
19 were any rumours going around about Dragoljub Prcac during the
20 investigation centre of Omarska?
21 A. Yes, and not very nice things were said because he helped
22 Muslims. People even said that he had pulled a gun at one of the guards.
23 Q. Knowing Dragoljub Prcac, what could you tell us about him as a
24 man, as an individual, human being?
25 A. He was quiet and calm, a good person, a good man. He did a lot of
1 farming; kept his mother and his two sons who are invalids, provided for
2 them. I also know that he had some pigs. I would pass by his plot of
3 land frequently. He had sheep and pigs.
4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
5 further questions.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
8 Q. Mrs. Rosic, did you know a person by the name of Krle, Milojica
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you provide a statement for Mr. Kos?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you remember what you said in that statement?
14 A. That I have known him since childhood. We were born in the same
15 place. And he carried some things, he helped.
16 Q. Well, did you ask Mr. Kos to carry anything to the camp? Is that
17 what you're saying?
18 A. Not me personally. But some people did, some of my female
19 colleagues did.
20 Q. So Mr. Kos took things to the camp; is that your position?
21 A. [No audible response]
22 Q. And you said that you didn't hear good things about -- I'm sorry.
23 What is your answer to my earlier question? My question was: "So Mr. Kos
24 took things to the camp; is that your position?" What is your answer?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So now you said that you heard bad things about Mr. Prcac, saying
2 that he took things to the camp for the Muslims.
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic.
5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is not what the
6 witness said. The witness said that she heard he had helped the Muslims,
7 not that he took things.
8 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well. I'm sorry, Your Honour, if I -- I
9 would ask this question:
10 Q. What did you hear, these bad things about Mr. Prcac?
11 A. That he helped the Muslims.
12 Q. How?
13 A. What?
14 Q. How? Did you hear as to how he helped the Muslims?
15 A. Well, I don't know. I don't know.
16 Q. You don't know as to how Mr. Prcac helped the Muslims in the
18 A. [No audible response]
19 Q. Now, did you hear rumours about Mr. Kos, bad things about him?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you see Mr. Prcac during 1992, in the months of May, June, and
23 A. Only when he went to investigate the scene of the crime with my
24 colleague, Bogdan Delic.
25 Q. Did he come to the company that you worked to investigate any
1 things during that time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You don't know as to what exactly Mr. Prcac was assigned during
4 the months of June and July?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Did you know that Mr. Prcac worked in the Omarska camp?
7 A. No.
8 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I have no further questions. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, any redirect?
10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Honour, a few
12 Re-examined by Mr. J. Simic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Rosic, the company you worked for, how many
14 shops and outlets did it have in Omarska, in the territory of Omarska?
15 A. It has about 25.
16 Q. Did it have any warehouses?
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 Q. Can you tell us how many shops and warehouses were burgled, and
19 whether some of those facilities were burgled several times in a row?
20 A. They were burgled daily, some of them several times.
21 Q. Can you tell us if your firm could file a request with the
22 insurance company for compensation without the police doing an on-the-spot
24 A. No.
25 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I'm sorry to interrupt my learned friend, Your
1 Honour, but I don't see the relevance with regard to this question.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You don't see it,
3 Mr. Waidyaratne? Okay. Mr. Jovan Simic, perhaps you could respond and
4 enlighten us.
5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] My learned colleague has attempted
6 to show that the witness does not know what he did, and I am now
7 challenging that by showing that an on-site investigation had to be
8 conducted and that Mr. Prcac was present.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
10 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Jovan Simic.
13 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. My question was: Could you file a request with the insurance
15 company for compensation without the police investigating the crime scene
16 and compiling a report?
17 A. No, we were not able to do that.
18 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I object, Your Honour. This didn't come up in
19 cross-examination and I do not see how Mr. Simic could re-examine this
20 witness on these issues, new areas of evidence. Thank you.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ask your question, Mr. Jovan
22 Simic, please.
23 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Once again, you had to have an on-the-spot police investigation
25 for you to be able to make claims to the insurance company. Now, in this
1 report, was the report signed and the investigation conducted by
2 Mr. Prcac?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you see the accountant in the company?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have to make a list of what was stolen, destroyed, and so
7 on, in order to receive compensation?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
10 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Objection again, Your Honour. This didn't
11 transpire in cross-examination. These are new areas, and I do not know
12 how this witness could testify with regard to what Mr. Prcac did with the
13 investigation. She would have --
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No.
15 MR. WAIDYARATNE: And Mr. Simic is testifying. He's giving --
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There perhaps you have a point.
17 I'm going to ask Mr. Jovan Simic to ask questions without leading the
18 witness. But you can continue to ask your question, Mr. Simic. So you
19 can finish off your question, complete your questions, but ask them in a
20 direct manner and not in a leading way, please. Do you understand what
21 I'm saying when I am saying "ask a direct question"? What I mean is don't
22 lead the witness. Ask your question so that you are not leading the
23 witness. Go ahead.
24 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mrs. Rosic, did you have a document of that kind, that is to say,
1 the minutes or a record or report signed by Dragoljub Prcac, in your
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was the document signed by anybody else; and if so, by whom?
5 A. Bosko Davic and Rade Andzic.
6 Q. And my last question: The rumours about him drawing a gun, that
7 rumour, was it connected with the investigation centre of Omarska or the
8 village of Omarska?
9 A. The investigation centre of Omarska.
10 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Fouad Riad, any
13 questions? No. Madam Judge Wald?
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE WALD: I have one question, Ms. Rosic. In the months of May
16 and June 1992, how often did you see Mr. Prcac in your line of work? I
17 mean you said that there were these many outlets and he would be involved
18 in the crime investigations of it. Can you remember how many times you
19 saw him in that line of work during those months, approximately?
20 A. Well, several sometimes. I don't know the exact number.
21 JUDGE WALD: Were some of those times in May and some in June or
22 were they all in June or all in May? Can you remember that?
23 A. I can't remember that.
24 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam
1 Judge Wald.
2 Mrs. Rosic, you have told us that there were rumours. Can you
3 repeat for us what exactly you heard, the actual words? What were people
4 saying exactly?
5 A. They were saying that he was helping the Muslims a lot.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Only that?
7 A. Only that.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What did people understand by
9 that? Where was the problem?
10 A. Well, I don't know. I don't know.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. How many
12 times did you hear rumours of that kind bandied about?
13 A. Well, two or three times.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Two or three times, you say.
15 Was there any difference in the rumours when you heard them once or the
16 second time or the third time or did people always say the same thing?
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Generally speaking, that was
18 it. It was about his helping.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Where did you hear those
20 rumours? Where were you when you heard that?
21 A. Well, I work a great deal after working hours, accountancy and so
22 forth. I work in the cafes and I do part-time work and that's where I
23 heard these rumours.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but where? Tell us one
25 occasion when you heard -- you said you heard rumours two or three times.
1 Where did you hear this rumour once, on one occasion? Give us an example
2 of one occasion, or don't you remember?
3 A. Well, I don't remember.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Do you happen to remember
5 the person who told you that, who you heard it from?
6 A. Well, I don't remember.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So you don't know the name or
8 you don't know the person? Which is it of those two?
9 A. I don't know. I don't know the person or the name of the person.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So you don't know the person or
11 their name on the two or three occasions when you heard the rumour; is
12 that right? Is that what you're saying?
13 A. Well, it wasn't one person.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. How many people said
16 A. Well, I don't know the exact number.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Okay. No problem.
18 If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you don't remember who
19 told you. You do, however, remember that you heard these rumours on two
20 or three occasions, and you tell us that there were more than one person
21 who's talked about these things; is that right?
22 A. That's right, yes.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. We have no more questions
24 for you, Mrs. Rosic. We should like to thank you for having come, and we
25 wish you bon voyage back to your place of residence and work.
1 I'm going to ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
2 Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Jovan Simic, I think this
6 brings us to your last witness for the day, is that right, or in general?
7 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, Your Honour. It
8 is the last Defence witness.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We still have to
10 decide on the documents, and we're going to leave the issue of documents
11 and tendering into evidence the ones that Mr. Krstan Simic wished to
12 tender when we come to discuss the entirety of the documents that the
13 Chamber is going to consider. We have a number of outstanding documents
14 to consider.
15 I can't tell you now when you will have a ruling by the Chamber,
16 but perhaps tomorrow. I think the Chamber might have a ruling for you
17 tomorrow. So we'll include to the initial batch the ones that Mr. Simic
18 tendered, and we'll set a deadline for the Defence to answer any
19 additional questions which the Chamber might need to clarify in order to
20 make a ruling on the documents. There are documents where the Chamber can
21 make a definitive decision; there are others where we need some more
22 details. So we'll set a date, a deadline for response by the parties,
23 additional filings, of about seven days, but we're going to include the
24 documents put forward today by Mr. Krstan Simic, and we'll have a ruling
25 in due course.
1 As to the other matters, we are going to stick to our schedule;
2 that is to say that we're going to meet again. I can't tell you off the
3 bat by heart, but I think that it will be -- have you got the calendar,
4 Madam Registrar? Can you help us, please? No? I think the parties are
5 well aware of the dates.
6 13th of July [as interpreted]? Thank you.
7 There's another question that I have -- that I would like to
8 address, and that is the following: We have granted one week for oral
9 arguments and a day and a half to the Prosecution so that the three and a
10 half days remain for the Defence to use in proportion unless the Defence
11 has a proposal to make. So for the moment, the Chamber has received no
12 additional proposals from the Defence, which means that the three and a
13 half days will be divided up equally for each of the Defence counsel, the
14 Defence teams, and that is how we shall proceed.
15 I don't know if anybody would like to make any observations with
16 respect to that matter before we close our business for today.
17 Would the Prosecution like to make any observations in that regard
19 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. Not at this time, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
21 The Defence counsels? I see Mr. Fila on his feet.
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] It is not the 13th of July, the 16th of
23 July. That was an error in the transcript. I said the 16th of July.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could you take
25 a look at the calendar and tell us the exact date, please.
1 THE REGISTRAR: It is the 16th of July.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. It is indeed the
3 16th of July. There we have it.
4 I wish you every success in your work until we meet in the
5 courtroom again. Until then, I adjourn the meeting.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.00 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day
8 of July, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.