1 Thursday, 19 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you were going to be finishing
7 with your cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Dzakula.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are reminded that you are pound by the pledge
10 or the declaration that you made at the beginning of your evidence.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 WITNESS: VELJKO DZAKULA [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you testified about Operation Corridor; is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You mentioned that this operation took place in mid-1992. Would
21 that be a fair assessment of what you said?
22 A. Yes, roughly speaking, mid-1992.
23 Q. Can you please tell us how was the corridor cut in half? Are you
24 familiar with any details about this?
25 A. I think the road leading from Banja Luka to Serbia, that's at
1 least what the media said was correct, had been cut off and could no
2 longer be used to travel.
3 Q. Would it be right that in or around that time, UN forces arrived
4 in UN-protected areas and the road had in fact been open until the moment
5 it was cut off?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you tell us who blocked that road?
8 A. I can only share with you what I learned from the media. It was
9 reported that this had been done by units belonging to the Croatian
10 Defence Council, who were probably together with the Croats and the
11 Bosniaks. That's what the media reported.
12 Q. Is it true that sanctions had already been imposed by this time
13 against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, composed of Serbia and
15 A. Yes. I believe that was the case.
16 Q. What did these sanctions entail? Did they entail an end of all
17 traffic and communication, air traffic, road traffic. In other words, the
18 country itself being ostracised as it were?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What about this road through Bosnia that we mentioned? Was this
21 not in fact the only road leading to the Republic of Serbian Krajina at
22 the time and this road was used for all supplies, medicines, fuel, food,
23 everything that the local population needed?
24 A. Yes. That was the case.
25 Q. Since you were a member of the government of the Republic of
1 Serbian Krajina, perhaps you're familiar with this. Did the government of
2 the Republic of Serbian Krajina or indeed its president demand that the
3 international community open that road so that the UN units could get all
4 their supplies, all the supplies they needed?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you know that the Security Council established at the time that
7 the units that had blocked that road were regular units of the Croatian
8 army who had for some reason ended up in Bosnian territory?
9 A. I don't remember that particular detail.
10 Q. If not in your capacity as a government member, then perhaps you
11 might be familiar with this from the media, from the press, the public
12 communications media. There was a dire shortage of nearly everything that
13 prevailed, in the Banja Luka hospital 12 newborns died in their incubators
14 because there was a shortage of oxygen and it wasn't possible to get it
15 over from Belgrade and in the Knin hospital kidney patients died because
16 no equipment was available to perform a dialysis.
17 A. I read about this in the papers and in the media, yes.
18 Q. Mr. Dzakula, do you know that when the so-called corridor was
19 split in half, cut in half, the Serbian population suffered a great deal
20 on the hands of the armed forces who had blocked the road?
21 A. I've heard and seen media reports of this, yes.
22 Q. Do you perhaps remember this? The unit that Mr. Martic in his
23 capacity as Minister of the Interior was with -- was this perhaps
24 discussed at a session of the government? Did Mr. Martic perhaps ask
25 approval to start an operation like this because there was no other way?
1 A. I heard about that but I was elsewhere in Western Slavonia and was
2 not physically present at this particular meeting.
3 Q. Let's be specific about this, please. You heard this issue was
4 indeed raised at this government meeting, as I phrased it myself?
5 A. Yes, that is the case.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dzakula.
7 Do you perhaps know that there was an operation to re-establish
8 traffic along that road and that during that operation many soldiers from
9 the Republic of Serbian Krajina were killed and wounded?
10 A. Even a single life seems like a huge waste, even when a single
11 life is lost. Even that I would consider to be a huge waste. I don't
12 know how many actually were killed but I do believe that a number of them
14 Q. Is it because of this particular result that he obtained that
15 Mr. Martic later on enjoyed a great deal of respect and authority among
16 the local population as someone who had waged a brave war with his
17 soldiers and was eventually successful?
18 A. Yes, that's what I said. He enjoyed a great deal of authority and
19 respect and he was promoted to the rank of General by Goran Hadzic, the
20 president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and everything you asked me
21 now about the corridor, what I know is based on media reports but there is
22 something else I have to say. Once the corridor was blocked, the whole of
23 the Posavina area was devastated, many houses were torched and many
24 civilians were killed. Croat civilians too. There can't have been a good
25 enough reason to torch all these villages, all these houses and devastate
1 and destroy all these villages as part of the operation.
2 Q. Did you yourself take part in this fighting along the corridor?
3 A. No. I wasn't personally involved.
4 Q. What do you know about the intensity of fighting that went on
5 along the corridor, about the number of units involved, which Croatian
6 brigades, which BH army Brigades and which units on the Serbian side?
7 A. I know about media reports but I've never seen or heard anything
8 that would constitute reliable information on what you're asking me about.
9 Q. You say you weren't physically present and were not aware of the
10 intensity of the fighting. You knew nothing about the exact ratio of the
11 warring parties. You know nothing about the circumstances under which the
12 fighting occurred. How can you then say, sir, that there can't have been
13 any reason for all this destruction? Destruction does not necessarily
14 only come about as a deliberate act of damaging property.
15 A. It's not always deliberate. Sometimes it's a side effect of
16 fighting. One thing that I would like to add is, I was in prison, I was
17 there with some people who were involved in the fighting around the
18 corridor and I heard accounts from them on how civilians had been killed.
19 They didn't talk about thousands of civilians being killed but yes they
20 did say that civilians had been killed. They were feeling greatly
21 distressed about all those young men aged 20 or 21 being killed and they
22 saw all those people who were steeped in crime around them. They said it
23 was a huge shame. I know that every time there is a war, every time there
24 is a battle, houses get torched and destroyed and so do villages. But
25 what I'm saying sir, is that in this particular operation there was damage
1 inflicted and destruction wrought in places where there was no direct
2 fighting or combat. And this was the case in Posavina.
3 Q. But isn't it the case that in every war there is vengeance and
4 there is pointless crime, Mr. Dzakula? What do you have to say about
6 A. Yes. That certainly is the case but there is always the
7 obligation to pursue -- to try these people.
8 Q. You held a high office in the prison [as interpreted], you had all
9 the information. Did you ever report these people to anyone so that they
10 could be tried?
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please speak one at a time.
12 MR. WHITING: Excuse me, Your Honour. First of all the
13 interpreters have just intervened, as the Court is well aware. But I
14 think partly as a result of the speed and the overlap, I think the last
15 question, there appears to be an error, at least in the translation that
16 we've gotten, and maybe it could be rephrased.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The last question? Is that the question that says
18 "you held a high office in a prison"?
19 MR. WHITING: Right. I assume that that's an error.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: It should be a high office in something else other
21 than prison.
22 MR. WHITING: I would think so, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you think, Mr. Milovancevic? Was he a
24 prison warder?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Obviously, Your Honour.
1 Obviously there must be a mistake which is not deliberate.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: High office in what? Can you tell us what high
3 office did you --
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We can re-ask the question,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please ask the question again and once again,
7 Mr. Milovancevic, slow down.
8 Mr. Dzakula, wait for Mr. Milovancevic to ask his question and
9 answer after he has stopped, and Mr. Milovancevic, wait for Mr. Dzakula to
10 give his answer before you ask the next question. Thank you very much.
11 You may proceed.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Dzakula, I asked you if, as a highly -- high-ranking official,
14 you did anything about these people who talked about their own crimes.
15 It's a horrible thing. It's a huge responsibility on their shoulders?
16 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I object that -- the question misstates
17 the evidence. Because we are talking clearly about the time period of the
18 fall of 1993 and the witness has testified that he did not hold a
19 high-ranking office at that time in the RSK government. He did have a
20 position but I think counsel has misstated the evidence and I would also
21 suggest that he's getting a little argumentative with the witness.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is being argumentative, Mr. Whiting, to say
23 that it's a horrible thing, it's a huge responsibility on their shoulders?
24 MR. WHITING: Well, I won't press that part of the objection,
25 Your Honour, because now that I look at it, it just seemed to me heading
1 in that direction. But I won't press that part. My objection that I will
2 press is that the question misstates the evidence.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the question misstates the
4 evidence. What is your response?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in order to avoid
6 having a discussion about all of this, the gist of my question was, Mr.
7 Dzakula, as a responsible and educated person, having heard about these
8 war crimes that had been committed from their direct perpetrators, knowing
9 about the place and time of these crimes, did he inform anyone about this?
10 Irrespective of his position, this would be a duty for any human being in
11 that sort of situation.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's a completely different question, and I see
13 Mr. Whiting is not objecting to that one. If Mr. Dzakula heard the
14 question, will he please answer?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I held no office whatsoever at the
16 time. I was in prison, I was being tried for treason and espionage. I
17 lived like a hunted animal after that, as I said in my testimony. I had
18 no opportunity whatsoever to share anything with anyone because anything I
19 did was risky, constituted a life risk for me, any action that I might
20 have taken.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Dzakula, Operation Corridor took place in June 1992 and you
23 were in prison in 1993, weren't you?
24 A. Mr. Milovancevic --
25 Q. Please allow me to complete my question. Does that mean that it
1 wasn't until one year later that --
2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, there was a question and the witness
3 tried to answer the question and then he was cut off by counsel, who
4 apparently wanted to ask a different question. Maybe if counsel could
5 allow the witness to answer the question.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. I do think, Mr. Milovancevic, you can't cut
7 the witness off. You asked a very complete question: "Mr. Dzakula,
8 Operation Corridor took place in June 1992 and you were in prison in 1993,
9 weren't you?" And you didn't allow the witness to -- can you answer the
10 question, please? Will you please answer the question whether you were in
11 prison at the time Operation Corridor took place in 1992?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to answer? Well, as I
13 said a moment ago, I heard about this when I was already in prison, not in
14 1992. I knew nothing in 1992 about the specific crimes. I learned about
15 this when I was in prison which was in late 1993. I had no opportunity to
16 share anything with anyone. The only thing I could have risked in prison
17 was losing my life. I was in the same section with people who killed one,
18 two, three, four, five or more people. It would have made no sense for me
19 to turn any of them in at the time. It would have constituted a great
20 risk to myself and what those people saw in me was a person accused of
21 treason, of high treason.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Didn't you tell us a while ago, Mr. Dzakula, that those murder he
24 is, multiple murderers in some cases who there were in prison?
25 A. Yes. But those people were there because they had killed Serbs.
1 Q. Would I be right, Mr. Dzakula, if I said that all of the appeals
2 sent by the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina to the
3 international community, UNPROFOR, UNHCR, assistants of the Secretary
4 General of the UN, the government of Yugoslavia, to have this road
5 reopened, the road that was the life line of the Republic of Serbian
6 Krajina, that all these appeals and attempts failed? Would I be right in
7 saying that?
8 A. Yes, entirely right.
9 Q. Thank you very much. I have nothing else to ask about this
10 particular subject.
11 Let's move forward a little, Mr. Dzakula. Let's go to 1995,
12 January 1995. You mentioned in your testimony something called plan Z-4;
13 is that right, Mr. Dzakula?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you say that this plan envisaged a high level of autonomy for
16 Croatian Serbs?
17 A. A high level of autonomy for the former SAO Krajina which means
18 the best part of what then was the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
19 Q. Can you tell us what this plan envisaged in relation to Western
20 Slavonia? You were one of the high-ranking officers of the region before
21 the war.
22 A. Immediate integration into the Republic of Croatia with no
23 autonomy whatsoever.
24 Q. Can you tell us what this plan Z-4 envisaged in relation to
25 Eastern Slavonia?
1 A. A five-year transitional period followed by integration into the
2 Republic of Croatia.
3 Q. Does that mean that the former Serbian autonomous region of
4 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Srem, in addition to your own Western
5 Slavonia were meant to be integrated back into the Republic of Croatia
6 with no level of autonomy whatsoever?
7 A. Yes, that's precisely what the whole thing meant.
8 Q. What about the former SAO Krajina, the remains of the third part
9 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the former SAO Krajina, the autonomy
10 that was on offer, which part of the is SAO Krajina was that in relation
12 A. I can't remember all the municipalities. I'll try to list some.
13 I'll start from the north. Dvor, [unintelligible], Glina, Dvornic
14 [phoen], Vrgin Most, Plaski, Korenica, Lapac, Gracac, Knin, Benkovac,
15 Obrovac, I think that's about it.
16 Q. Perhaps you remember the exact figure. How many predominantly
17 Serb municipalities made up what used to be the Republic of Serbian
18 Krajina? What was their number?
19 A. I don't remember their exact number. This was after all a long
20 time ago.
21 Q. Are you familiar with the report of the government of the Serbian
22 autonomous region of Eastern Slavonia from 1992, where it is stated that
23 in the course of 1991, in the operations conducted by Croatian military
24 formations in the territory of Daruvar, Podravska Slatina, Grubisno Polje,
25 Pakrac, Okucani municipalities 4.118 Serb houses were destroyed as well as
1 27 Serbian churches?
2 A. I remember that, except it was not the government of Western
3 Slavonia. Rather, the regional council.
4 Q. In the same document, Mr. Dzakula, do you remember that in that
5 report dating from April 1992, it was also stated that in the territory of
6 the entire former Yugoslav Republic of Croatia, over 80 Serbian Orthodox
7 Churches had been destroyed in 1991?
8 A. I remember that as well.
9 Q. You, as a long-time advocate for establishing the truth, for
10 helping the victims, you as a high official of the Serbian democratic
11 council, are you familiar with the report of the UN Secretary-General,
12 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, from May 1993, stating that in Croatia, outside of
13 the territory of SAO Krajina, 251.000 Serbs had been expelled only from
14 urban areas or from urban areas alone?
15 A. Yes, I heard about this report.
16 Q. Did we conclude jointly yesterday that in the flash operation, in
17 May of 1995, and in the storm operation in August of 1995, by means of
18 brutal military operations conducted by Croatian forces, almost all
19 Serbian inhabitants had been deported?
20 A. Yes. I said that yesterday, from the territory of Western
21 Slavonia and the former SAO Krajina.
22 Q. Given these circumstances, do you still believe that the plan Z-4,
23 which was on offer, was something that could be termed as acceptable for
24 Serb population?
25 A. I believe so.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dzakula.
2 A. I will explain.
3 Q. No, that's all right. I understood you. Thank you.
4 Are you familiar with the provision of Vance Plan from 1991 on the
5 basis of which the UN peace forces were sent to the territory of the
6 former Yugoslavia and deployed to the areas where there was a majority of
7 the Serb population? Are you familiar with the provision specifying that
8 the status of Serb territories would be resolved via negotiations without
9 predetermining the outcome?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And finally, my last question, Mr. Dzakula: Are you familiar with
12 the speech of the then-president of the Republic of Croatia,
13 Mr. Franjo Tudjman, given at the main square in Zagreb, Jelacica square,
14 on the first anniversary of inception of the new Croatian state in May of
15 1992, when he said that there would have been no war had Croatia not
16 desired one, that Croatia estimated that it could only achieve its
17 independence by means of war?
18 A. I remember that.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dzakula. I have
20 no further questions.
21 Your Honours I have concluded my cross-examination.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic. Any re-examination,
23 Mr. Whiting?
24 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, you may proceed.
1 Re-examined by Mr. Whiting:
2 MR. WHITING:
3 Q. I'm going to divide my questions into two groups. The first group
4 of questions will be about events -- about things that you've talked about
5 and events that occurred before August of 1991. The second group of
6 questions will be about events that you talked about that occurred after
7 August 1991.
8 So let's start with the events that occurred before August 1991.
9 You were asked on cross-examination a series of questions about non-Serbs
10 who held positions in the military, in the government in 1990, and you
11 answered a question about a Konrad Kolsek, and you agreed that he had been
12 the 5th military district commander in 1990. Do you know what happened to
13 him in 1991?
14 A. I think he was replaced.
15 Q. How about Aleksandar Spirkovski, a Macedonian who you agreed with
16 Defence counsel that he was the Belgrade district military commander in
17 1990. Do you know how long he kept his position?
18 A. He was also replaced. I don't know how long he stayed in office.
19 Q. You also spoke about Anton Tus, who you said or agreed was the
20 commander of the air force in 1990. Do you know when he left his
22 A. I think in 1991.
23 Q. By August of 1991, Mr. Dzakula, do you know the ethnicity of the
24 military district and operational group commanders in the JNA at that
25 time? By August of 1991.
1 A. Well, they were Serbs, as far as I remember. They were Serbs.
2 Q. You were also asked some questions about some political leaders.
3 For example, you were asked about Stjepan Mesic. Now, do you know when he
4 actually became the president of the Presidency of the SFRY? Do you
5 remember what year that was?
6 A. I think that was in 1991.
7 Q. You testified on cross-examination that his nomination was
8 challenged, but there wasn't any follow-up question to that. Can you tell
9 us who challenged his nomination?
10 A. The issue of his nomination or appointment were challenged by
11 Borislav Jovic who was the Serbian member of the Presidency and Slobodan
12 Milosevic who was then president of Serbia.
13 Q. Before Mr. Mesic actually became president of the Presidency of
14 the SFRY, do you know if the Serbian bloc, that is Serbia and Montenegro,
15 did anything with respect to the SFRY Presidency?
16 A. I remember that there was a change, there were personnel changes
17 among the members of the Presidency but I don't remember the details. I
18 remember, however, that some changes were made in order to ensure that
19 there would be four representatives. Some changes were implemented
20 relating to Kosovo.
21 Q. Did -- do you remember if the Serbian bloc remained within the
22 SFRY Presidency?
23 A. For a while they would go out, storm out, and then come back.
24 Q. Did you ever hear the term "rump Presidency"?
25 A. Yes, I did. That's what it was called.
1 Q. What did that refer to, to your knowledge?
2 A. As far as I can remember, this term was used for the four
3 representatives in question, those from Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and
5 Q. And what did they do -- what did they do that resulted in the rump
6 Presidency or that related to the rump Presidency or what's the
7 relationship? Can you explain further what ...
8 A. I think that they made some personnel changes. They wanted to
9 replace the member of the Presidency from Kosovo and Vojvodina, as far as
10 I can remember.
11 Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Mesic had any real power within the
12 SFRY Presidency when he finally did assume the Presidency?
13 A. From what I heard from the media, he had none.
14 Q. You testified about a statement that you agreed you had heard was
15 made by Mr. Mesic in October of 1991 to the effect that he had
16 accomplished his task and Yugoslavia ceased to exist. Do you know if in
17 the spring of 1991, at the time of this rump Presidency, Milosevic said
18 anything about Yugoslavia?
19 A. I don't remember. I don't.
20 Q. You were also asked about Ante Markovic who you agreed was the
21 Prime Minister of the SFRY for a time, including in 1990. Do you recall
22 hearing about a programme which he described as a reform programme that he
23 proposed at the end of 1989?
24 A. All of us followed his programme very attentively. We were hoping
25 that it was a good programme for Yugoslavia and all of its citizens. I
1 remember that for the first time, dinar became a hard currency,
2 convertible currency.
3 Q. Do you know what Slobodan Milosevic's position was with respect to
4 that reform programme?
5 A. He didn't support it.
6 Q. By 1991, do you know what kind of power, if any, Ante Markovic had
7 within the government of the SFRY?
8 A. He didn't.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic? You may --
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Every Prime Minister has
12 authority stemming from the constitution. So there are authorities which
13 stem from the constitution and then there are also factual ones or de
14 facto authorities. Therefore I would like my learned friend to be more
15 specific and to indicate precisely which ones he had in mind. Otherwise,
16 the question is vague.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any response, Mr. Whiting?
18 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, think it's been established that he did
19 in fact hold the position so the question obviously is, did he have any
20 real power within that position. I think the question was specific. I
21 think the witness has answered it.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did the witness answer? What did he say?
23 MR. WHITING: He said he didn't. He answered before the objection
24 was articulated.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
1 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Do you know when Mr. Markovic left the government?
3 A. I'll try to be as specific as possible. I believe it was in early
4 1992. I'm not sure.
5 Q. Now, you were also asked on cross-examination about a number of
6 questions about steps that were taken by the Croatian government before
7 August 1991 relating to the coat of arms, the constitution, the flag, and
8 steps that were taken towards independence. Do you remember those
9 questions and your answers to those questions?
10 A. I think so. If necessary, perhaps that can be repeated.
11 Q. I just meant generally, just to orient you to the topic. You also
12 testified that after some of these steps had already been taken, you took
13 the initiative in June and July of 1991 of creating the Serbian Democratic
14 Forum with the goal of seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict. Could
15 you explain to the Court why you thought that was possible in June and
16 July of 1991?
17 A. I believed that that was possible, not only because Serbs did not
18 live only in the territory of Slavonia, Banija, Kordun, and I believed
19 that if we started negotiations and dialogue and if we pointed out all of
20 these - unfavourable to the Serbs - actions that were conducted, that we
21 would gain the support of the intellectuals and some other people because
22 at the time it was the policies of Milan Babic and Franjo Tudjman that
23 dominated and those positions were extreme ones. We wanted to recruit
24 other forces and to do other things in order to prevent the war, which was
25 approaching. We believed firmly in this and we thought that it was our
1 obligation as intellectuals, as citizens, those who belonged to the SDS
2 and Jovan Raskovic, we thought it was our duty to make that attempt
3 because we knew that both Serbs and Croats were afraid and we knew that
4 both Serb and Croat citizens of Croatia were held hostage to those two
5 types of policies which were almost identical, although opposed to each
6 other. We had to do it because, gentlemen, in 1941 I have to give you an
7 example of what happened then. Ante Pavlic slit throats of Serbs, torched
8 villages, and Serbs, together with Croatians, joined the Partisan movement
9 and fought for freedom. After all these tragedies, after killing and
10 burning they found enough strength to fight jointly for common freedom.
11 And therefore, we believed that before the conflict actually erupted, in
12 order to prevent it, that we should go and try to find brave, smart people
13 and there were such among Croats, who could help us avoid the domination
14 of these two extreme political forces.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, once again, can I ask you to slow
16 down. You made a long -- gave a very long answer there, and I can
17 understand that it became emotional and your voice was raised, but also
18 your speed increased. If you can just please reduce your speed. I don't
19 mind your emotions going up but just slow down your pace.
20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will.
22 MR. WHITING:
23 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you were also asked a number of questions about the
24 reaction that Serbs had to the steps that were being taken by the Croatian
25 government in 1990 concerning the flag and the constitution and steps
1 towards independence, and you testified that the Serbs you said were
2 stunned and not pleased. I want to ask you about how the Serbs felt about
3 the extremist leaders, as you have described them, on the Serb side and
4 let's start in 1990 with the area of Western Slavonia. Did the Serbs --
5 in your estimation, did the Serbs in Western Slavonia support the
6 extremist leaders on the Serb side in 1990?
7 A. We didn't support them. Those of us who were involved in politics
8 in Western Slavonia at the time, and also the Serbian population of
9 Western Slavonia, and also Banija and Kordun, all of us were certainly
10 afraid, we were intimidated by the Serb extremists displaying their
11 Chetnik symbols. It was alien to us and it was as alien to us as the
12 Ustasha symbols. We didn't want anybody to identify us with that.
13 However, we were aware of the fact that the Croatian then political elite
14 couldn't -- didn't want to miss the opportunity to generalise things and
15 to portray all Serbs in that manner.
16 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you testified on cross-examination that around June
17 of 1991, when Slovenia declared its independence, that the JNA under the
18 direction of the SFRY leaders withdrew from Slovenia. My question is:
19 Was there a significant Serb population living in Slovenia at that time?
20 A. There were. There were a lot. There was a significant number.
21 Slovenia was economically quite a developed country and a lot of Serbs and
22 others went to work there, those from Bosnia, Croatia, and other places.
23 Q. What was the majority population in Slovenia, in terms of
25 A. Slovenians.
1 Q. Now, okay. Now we are up to -- now I'd like to ask you
2 questions -- those are the questions about events that occurred before
3 August of 1991. Now I'm going to turn to questions about events that
4 occurred after August of 1991.
5 You were asked some questions about JNA soldiers who were killed
6 at the Korana bridge in Karlovac. Can you tell us how you heard about
8 A. I heard it from the media.
9 Q. I'd like to show you a map.
10 MR. WHITING: And with the assistance of the usher we could put it
11 on the ELMO. The ERN of this map is 05013937 and in addition, I also
12 have -- would ask the usher provide copies to the Bench. Defence counsel
13 has already been provided with copies of this map. It's map 3 in the map
14 book that we provided to Defence counsel.
15 It's upside down on the ELMO.
16 Q. Just to orient the Court and the parties and I'm not going to ask
17 you to mark this. Just for the benefit so we can see where you're talking
18 about, can you just point out for us where Karlovac is? First of all let
19 me ask you, Mr. Dzakula, do you recognise this map?
20 A. I do. Republic of Croatia and Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. And is this how the Republic of Croatia looked in terms of the
22 municipality divisions in 1991 and 1992?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Could you just show us where Karlovac is on the map, just
25 so we are oriented.
1 A. [Indicates] Right here.
2 Q. And you testified on cross-examination that the perpetrators in
3 this case had been charged and are currently on trial. Who are the
4 alleged perpetrators in the case?
5 A. I think the reserve forces or the police of the Republic of
7 Q. Where are they on trial, if you know?
8 A. In Croatia.
9 Q. You were also asked about a family by the name of Zec or Zec, I'm
10 not sure about the pronunciation, that was killed by -- that you said was
11 killed by Croatian extremists in Zagreb in October of 1991. Can you tell
12 us how you heard about that?
13 A. It was written about in the Republic of Croatia, quite
14 extensively. The media condemned that and it was quite well publicised.
15 Q. Which media condemned that?
16 A. Croatian media as well, Feral Tribune was the most vociferous one
17 and there were others who wrote about it as well.
18 Q. You said on cross-examination that the perpetrators were
19 investigated and tried. Do you know anything about the alleged
21 A. You mean the Zec family?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. What I heard from the media was that they were members of the
24 security detail of Franjo Tudjman. As a result of that, when they were
25 questioned -- perhaps I won't explain it in proper legal terms but the
1 story was that some legal errors were made in investigation or during the
2 questioning. Allegedly their attorneys were not present when they were
3 questioned. At any rate, this led to their acquittal, these procedural
4 errors, and due to that, a deal was struck with the Zec family. They
5 received some kind of a compensation. This is what I learned from the
7 Q. And just to be clear, were the alleged perpetrators Croats or
9 A. They were Croats.
10 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think I have probably about ten
11 minutes more, maybe 15 at the most.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have 15. You have 15.
13 MR. WHITING: Should I -- I have tone or 15 minutes to go. Should
14 I continue? I see we are -- oh, no I'm sorry, I actually should be able
15 to finish then. I misread the time.
16 Could the witness please be shown Prosecution Exhibit 3, please?
17 It's a map and I think it's not on the E-Court system. This is the map
18 which we subsequently provided the translation for.
19 Q. Mr. Dzakula, could you just take a look at that map, please? Do
20 you know who produced this map, who made this map?
21 A. It says the army. It's written down here. Probably someone from
22 the Republic of Serbian Krajina authorities.
23 Q. Thank you. That was my own question about that exhibit.
24 You also -- you testified, Mr. Dzakula, you were asked questions
25 about a number of Croat military operations that took place in 1992 and
1 1993 at Miljevac plateau, the Maslenica bridge and the Medak pocket and
2 I'm just going to ask you a few questions about those operations and your
3 testimony but before I do I just want to see if we can establish a little
4 bit of terminology to make it easier. You've also testified about that
5 the United Nations took control of certain areas within Croatia in the
6 beginning of 1992. Can you tell us what those areas were called?
7 A. Once the UN forces had arrived, they divided the Republic of
8 Serbian Krajina into four sectors, sector west, Western Slavonia; sector
9 east, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem; sector north, Banija and
10 Kordun; and sector south, Lika and Dalmatia.
11 Q. Did you ever hear of the term pink zones?
12 A. Yes. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Can you tell us please what the pink zones were?
14 A. Based on what I remember, these were zones or areas where the
15 Serbs were not the predominant ethnic group. Rather, Croats had succeeded
16 by military operations to -- in constituting a majority in these areas.
17 And that is why the UN had to deploy their own units in the shape of ink
19 Q. Do you know if the pink zones were within the UN-protected areas
20 or were they outside of the UN-protected areas?
21 A. We are talking about ink spots here, so they were considered
22 protected zones as well.
23 Q. I understand the ink spots were considered protected zones. But
24 what about the pink zones? Do you know if they were considered protected
1 A. As far as I remember, yes.
2 Q. Now, you testified about the operation at Miljevac plateau in June
3 of 1992. And if we could -- well, first let me ask you this: Can you
4 tell us if you know where in Croatia this is? In terms of municipality or
6 A. This is sector west. I think it's around Sibenik or Zadar, that
7 general area, but I can't be more specific. Rather, this is sector south.
8 I'm sorry. Zadar, Sibenik. I don't know the area. It's along the border
10 Q. Can you tell us how you heard about the events there in June of
12 A. I heard media reports also, when I came to a government meeting,
13 the families of some of the missing started coming. There was a
14 government meeting where appeals were made to find these people, their
15 sons, whatever. They spoke about this operation, they said this was quite
16 a surprise. The people who were in position there were killed, and for a
17 long time, nobody knew their whereabouts.
18 Q. You also testified about the Maslenica bridge operation in January
19 of 1993. Can you tell us where that is?
20 A. It's a bridge. It was under Serb control. It's down somewhere
21 near Obrovac, if I remember correctly, near the confrontation line between
22 the Croats and the Serbs.
23 Q. How did you hear about what happened there?
24 A. First there were some media reports, and then when operation
25 Maslenica occurred I was in Knin myself. We spent the night there because
1 there was a government meeting the next day and we heard that Maslenica
2 had been attacked. For this reason, the government meeting that was
3 scheduled was never held. They told us that the positions had shifted and
4 that Maslenica had been taken by the Croatian army. That was all I heard
5 at the time. We parted ways. It wasn't possible to have a government
6 meeting on account of all these newly arisen circumstances.
7 Q. You were also asked questions about the Medak pocket operation in
8 September of 1993. Can you tell us how it is you heard about that?
9 A. I think I was in prison by this time. I heard about media reports
10 seen or heard by people who were there with me in prison, I mean. I heard
11 about the Medak pocket operation. I heard that some of the population
12 there were killed and that houses were torched. There was a lot being
13 written about that in Croatia. There was a trial and I think somebody was
14 sentenced. I think it was General Norac, who was convicted, or, rather,
15 the trial is about to take place. General Norac and General Ademi are
16 about to be tried in Croatia about the Medak pocket. That's what I
18 Q. And those generals, Norac and Ademi, are they Croatian generals or
19 Serb generals?
20 A. They are Croatian generals.
21 Q. You were asked some questions today about the Posavina corridor
22 operation in 1992 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and you testified that you heard
23 from later -- when you were imprisoned in the fall of 1993, that you heard
24 from people who had participated in that operation or who had been
25 witnesses. Could you elaborate a little bit more what it is you heard
1 from those people?
2 A. There was no talk of any great deal of combat or of fighting.
3 What I did hear was from a young man who was there for a day, and was then
4 taken somewhere else. He started talking about how they were involved in
5 the fighting around the corridor and that they came across many civilians,
6 old hags, as he said, and were killing them. It was a brief statement
7 that he made with no additional comments. Later on, however, when I
8 travelled there myself, the Posavina corridor, I realised that it had been
9 razed to the ground, devastated, and laid waste. This is a long and wide
11 Q. Mr. Dzakula, you also testified that at this time, there were
12 sanctions against Serbia-Montenegro. Do you know why there were
13 sanctions, UN sanctions?
14 A. I think the sanctions were imposed because of the use of the air
15 force and the shelling of Sarajevo, the war in Bosnia.
16 Q. Do you know if medicines were covered by the sanctions or exempted
17 by the sanctions?
18 A. As far as I know, not. I think not. But I can't be certain.
19 Something was always exempted that was a necessity. I know that even
20 during sanctions, fuel would be allowed to come in for the harvest,
21 something apparently so harmless.
22 Q. In one of your responses to Defence counsel's questions you
23 started to -- you offered to explain why you thought the Z-4 plan was
24 still possible or still acceptable under the circumstances -- given its
25 terms. And -- but you were not invited to give that explanation. Could
1 you tell us now what -- why you thought it was acceptable or workable or
2 what it was you wanted to explain?
3 A. Well, above all, what I had in mind was that, when this plan Z-4
4 was first tabled by the people who had produced it and when the plan was
5 turned down, even for consideration, that was a mistake. I believe the
6 plan was worth considering and publishing in the Serbian Krajina, and
7 people should have been given a chance to give their opinion on the plan.
8 More time should have been allotted to analyse the plan, to speak about
9 what the real possibilities were and which of all the options on offer
10 were really feasible and what the ambitions were. If you had a plan like
11 that, the one that was tabled, and this plan was never even considered, I
12 think this was extremely irresponsible. I know that we Serbs were
13 diffident about the Tudjman government but that situation was not
14 sustainable. It would have been impossible for Western Slavonia to cut
15 Croatia in half and to have its own country in the area. This should have
16 been cut down to size, to fit a more realistic framework. Ambition is one
17 thing, reality is an altogether different thing. Attempts should have
18 been made to reach some sort of common ground. What we are witnessing
19 nowadays and we should have known this even back then, at the time,
20 Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, all these former Yugoslav
21 republics, with the exception of Slovenia which is now part of Europe,
22 they are on their knees begging to be allowed in as soon as possible, all
23 these governments. All the borders that we wanted to pull up would have
24 become meaningless. It would have been important for all those people to
25 stay where they were for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, to have
1 all the refugees back, for life to go back to normal.
2 I think this plan known as plan Z-4, if this had been accepted and
3 we see that it was later accepted because it was later accepted, I'm sorry
4 that it's late now, and I'm sure that it doesn't justify the operations
5 that took place later on. I'm not trying to justify them, but it's a huge
6 mistake. It's a huge mistake by the Krajina leadership to have turned
7 down that plan and not to even have considered it. I didn't approve that
8 in Western Slavonia. My people didn't approve of that move. They wanted
9 at least to be given an opportunity to see what the plan was offering so
10 that they could speak their own minds.
11 Q. Finally, Mr. Dzakula, I just have just two or three questions on
12 one last topic and I hope you'll forgive me that it's a little bit of a
13 personal topic. You testified on cross-examination about your family,
14 what happened to your family in World War II, and you testified that your
15 parents were in a camp in World War II. Could you tell us which camp they
16 were in?
17 A. After the massacre in the village of Dreza, where my father hails
18 from, and Kusonje, my mother's village, members of their families had been
19 killed and thrown into wells and the remaining members ended up in a camp
20 in Stara Gradiska. These were camps in the Jasenovac district. My father
21 ended up in Sisak. Three of his own brother were killed there and some
22 other members of his family, without going into that now.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness
24 just please slow down a little because I'm not -- I'm no longer keeping
25 track of all these names and locations and --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My parents, when they were still
2 children, together with their own grandparents were taken away to camps,
3 to a camp in Stara Gradiska and a camp in Sisak, alongside with many other
4 children from those villages who were being taken away.
5 MR. WHITING:
6 Q. How did your parents survive the camp?
7 A. My father was saved by a Croat who hailed from Crkveni Bok near
8 Sisak. He took him home to his own house and he fed him until the end of
9 the war. My mother was saved by Josip Delic from Filipovac, Pakrac
10 municipality. She later left for a different Croatian family, Krusevar,
11 and stayed there until the end of the war. My parents had been taken to
12 camps by the Ustasha. Their entire families had been wiped out by the
13 Ustasha. 17 of my father's family were killed. It was only he and his
14 sister who remained alive, who survived, and yet they were saved by Croats
15 who rescued them from the camps. My parents taught me --
16 Q. That was going to be my question. What did your parents teach
18 A. My parents taught me that what the Ustasha did to them was one
19 thing. The other thing was the Croats who helped them.
20 Q. Mr. Dzakula. Thank you. I have no further questions.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour, and I apologise for going
22 over the time.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, Mr. Whiting. We will take a break.
24 We will come back at five past four. Court adjourned.
25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry, could the witness be
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Actually, before we excuse the witness and before
3 we retire for a short break, what do you intend doing with this map.
4 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I neglected to act on that
5 map. If it could be moved into evidence, please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The map may be then admitted into evidence
7 and be given an exhibit number, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That would be Exhibit number
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Court adjourned. Come back
11 at five past four.
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry again, but did you want the
13 witness back or did you want him excused?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We do want him back.
15 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, you'll have a few questions from the
19 Chamber. Judge Hoepfel will ask questions.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, Mr. Dzakula, please. In your chief
22 examination, you mentioned on Monday, 16th, at several times in connection
23 with the title of the accused, Mr. Martic, the ministry -- a ministry, you
24 called the Ministry of Police and the Minister of Police. So as in page
25 363 on the transcript of 16th of January, 363 to 364, when you spoke about
1 your arrest, the arrest on the 21st of September 2003, you said "in the
2 morning hours, I was arrested by the assistant Minister of Serb Krajina,
3 Krsta Zarkovic, who brought a group of members of a special unit in Knin.
4 They arrested me and took me to Knin."
5 And on the question of Mr. Whiting, that you described Krsta
6 Zarkovic as an assistant minister. Assistant Minister of what? You said
7 assistant Minister of Police, assistant to the then-minister, Milan
8 Martic. Could you then please clarify what you meant under Minister of
9 Police? Is this a Minister of the Interior or Minister of Defence or a
10 special sort of minister? You then mentioned it at several other
11 occasions, speaking of the Minister of Police. On pages 366 to 68, and
12 then 370 to 71 and 399 to 400, Minister of Police or Ministry of Police.
13 If you would clarify what you meant by that term, I would appreciate that.
14 A. Your Honour, we say Minister of Police but what that actually
15 means is Ministry of the Interior. It's like an abbreviation. That's
16 what people say. It's a term that people use so they call them Ministry
17 of Police. It's that simple.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. So second -- this meaning
19 also, your statement of 17th of January, at page 424, line 25 to 425, line
20 15, where you talked about how Mr. Martic behaved as a minister in the RSK
21 government from February 1992 to February 1993. Which kind of minister
22 did you mean in this connection? Is it the same category?
23 A. Your Honour, it's the same ministry. It's the Ministry of the
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. Let me ask you a third
1 question, going back to the interrogation of 16th of January about this
2 arrest on the 21st of September. Having mentioned -- having -- to have
3 been brought to Knin to be arrested, to have been arrested and have been
4 taken to Knin by a group of members of a special unit in Knin.
5 Mr. Dzakula, do you know the name of that unit and to which organisation
6 they belonged?
7 A. Your Honour, this unit was part of the Ministry of the Interior.
8 The term "special police unit" was often used at the time. I'm not sure
9 about its exact meaning but the term was widely used and this is also how
10 these people referred to themselves. What was peculiar about them is
11 their weapons. They didn't merely carry pistols. They had long-barrelled
12 weapons too and armour piercing weapons. I'm not sure what these are
13 called exactly.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Dzakula, there was a reference in your
17 evidence yesterday to the TO and membership of the TO. I'd like to know
18 what the TO is or what it refers to. Could you please explain to the
19 Chamber for me?
20 A. Your Honour, TO is an abbreviation that stands for Territorial
21 Defence. Territorial Defence comprised two different kinds of units used
22 for defending the country, the JNA on the one hand and the TO throughout
23 the republics, municipalities, and local communes. This was a form of
24 reserve force of the army.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm most grateful to you, Mr. Dzakula.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Dzakula, my questions might be a little funny
2 because you might think that these are things that ought to be known but
3 please bear with me. I'm trying to put everything in place in my mind.
4 On the very first day and unfortunately I'm not able to get back
5 to the line, you made reference to two parties, the one, the SDS, which
6 you called the Serbian Democratic Party, and the other, the SDP, which you
7 referred to as the party of democratic change. Did you belong to any one
8 of these?
9 A. Your Honour, I belonged to the League of Communists of Croatia up
10 until a few months before the war broke out. Later on, this party,
11 Croatia's league of communists had its name changed into SDP which means
12 party of democratic change. At the first multi-party elections, I voted
13 for the SDB, for the party of democratic change which was the former
14 League of Communists of Croatia. I was not a member at the time I voted.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good, yeah, I remember you saying so. And the SDS?
16 Who belonged to it? Or let me ask you a very specific question. Did
17 Mr. Martic belong -- which party did Mr. Martic belong to, to your
18 knowledge, if any?
19 A. SDS is the Serbian Democratic Party. I don't know whether
20 Mr. Martic was a member of that party and if so when he became. I don't
21 know either whether he was a member of the League of Communists of
22 Croatia. Most of the people employed in the police force at the time were
23 but I cannot claim with certainty that Mr. Martic was as well.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The reason I'm asking you, today, let me say today,
25 and I think it's at page 3 of today, line 22, I'm not able to get to it.
1 I would read what you said -- read to you what you said but the question
2 that was put to you in cross-examination at that line suggested that you
3 and Mr. Martic were in the same government. You said, the question
4 was, "Do you perhaps remember this? The unit that Mr. Martic in his
5 capacity as Minister of the Interior was with, was this perhaps discussed
6 at a session of the government? Did Mr. Martic perhaps ask approval to
7 start an operation like this because there was no other way?", suggesting
8 that you might have discussed it in the same government as Mr. Martic, you
9 were sitting in the same government. Did you ever sit with Mr. Martic in
10 the same government?
11 A. Your Honour, Mr. Martic and I were both members of the government
12 of the Republic of Serbian Krajina starting from the 26th of February
13 1992, until late February 1993, at which time I was replaced. So we were
14 members of the cabinet. He was the Minister of the Interior and I was
15 vice-Prime Minister of the government, in charge of forestry and
16 agriculture. I did not attend that particular session of the government,
17 discussing the corridor, because at that time I was in Western Slavonia.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Dzakula.
19 Now, you also stated, Mr. Dzakula, in your evidence, that on the
20 2nd of October 1993, you were released from prison by order of the
21 investigating judge but that on the same day, you were arrested again in
22 Kostajnica and returned to the police station there. Do you know who it
23 was who arrested you and to which organisation he or they belonged?
24 A. Your Honour, at the border crossing between Republika Srpska and
25 Republic of Serbian Krajina, I was arrested by the Serbian police with
1 headquarters in Kostajnica. They were members of the Ministry of the
2 Interior and they took me to the police station in Kostajnica.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: They were members of the Ministry of Interior, is
4 that what you say?
5 A. That's right.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this the same Ministry of Interior under
7 Mr. Martic? Or was Mr. Martic the Minister of Interior at the time?
8 A. Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you said also that when you were released on
10 the 3rd of December 1993, you were again arrested and detained for several
11 hours. Do you know who it was who arrested you on that occasion and to
12 which organisation that person belonged?
13 A. On the 3rd of December 1993, I was released from prison,
14 Your Honour. On the 4th of December, another arrest warrant was issued to
15 arrest me and my colleagues. The arrest warrant was issued by the
16 Ministry of the Interior. We received it from the police secretary for
17 Western Slavonia region, Mr. Vaso Ostolucanin. At that time I was not
18 arrested. I was in hiding for 50 days in order to avoid my arrest. Later
19 on, on the 4th of February 1994, I was kidnapped in Belgrade. When I
20 said "kidnapped," I do so because the persons wearing civilian clothes who
21 approached me to take me into custody did not produce any IDs, did not say
22 that they were any officials. They simply told me to go into -- with them
23 into parked vehicles. I put up resistance and they used physical force
24 and beat me and dragged me away.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you? That is the next question I'm
1 going to ask. Can we finish the 3rd of December first before we go to the
2 4th of February the following year? You said now that the arrest warrant
3 was issued by the Ministry of the Interior. Who was the Minister of the
4 Interior at the time of the issue of that arrest warrant, the arrest
5 warrant of the 3rd of December 1993?
6 A. Your Honour, Mr. Martic was Minister of the Interior at the time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Now let's get to the 4th of February
9 A. On the 4th of February, Your Honour, in 1994, when I was kidnapped
10 in Belgrade at 11.30, these persons who did so did not identify
11 themselves. To this day, I don't know their identity. They wore civilian
12 clothes. They turned me over to another three civilians on the same day,
13 in the afternoon, and they said that they were from Western Slavonia.
14 Now, as to whether they were members of some special police force or
15 something else, I don't know. However, they took me to Knin, to the
16 offices of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbian
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, and you also testified about Knin and that the
19 next day, two men in camouflage uniforms came and took you to -- I think
20 to a building in Knin. Do you know who these men were and what
21 organisation they belonged to, the one in camouflage uniform?
22 A. Your Honours, I don't know their names. They said that they were
23 members of the security, and by this, they meant the security services or
24 secret service, which belongs to the Ministry of the Interior.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Dzakula. I don't
1 have any further questions for you.
2 Are there any questions arising from the questions by the Chamber
3 from the Prosecution?
4 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour, thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: From the Defence?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Dzakula. You are excused.
10 You may stand down from the witness box.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting?
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the next witness will be handled by
15 Mr. Black but I'm wondering if before we call the next witness we could
16 discuss the schedule for this witness. And I don't want to speak for the
17 Defence but from conversations I've had with the Defence I understand that
18 there is a concern about being prepared for this witness. I think there
19 is a solution, though, because of the way the timing has worked out this
20 week. What I would anticipate is that this witness would -- would give
21 the bulk of his evidence today and tomorrow. He may even finish tomorrow,
22 though I think there is -- it's more likely that he'll carry into next
23 week just a little bit but in any event he will not finish before the end
24 of the day tomorrow. And therefore, the Defence would not have to do the
25 cross-examination of this witness until next week, Thursday at the
1 earliest. I would hope that that break between today and tomorrow and
2 Thursday would give the Defence enough time for the cross-examination but
3 if we just -- and then that will effect the rest of our scheduling as to
4 whether we bring witnesses and so forth. I just want to be sure we are
5 all on the same page in terms of the schedule.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want the Court to ascertain with the Defence
7 whether that arrangement would suit them.
8 MR. WHITING: Yes, please, Your Honour, thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic works that suit you, if this
10 witness gave his evidence-in-chief today and tomorrow and you would only
11 begin your cross-examination sometime next week around Thursday, would be
12 ready to cross-examine the witness by then?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order for the
14 Trial Chamber to understand the position of the Defence, I will highlight
15 only two separate issues. One has to do with the expert report. Pursuant
16 to the ruling of the Chamber of the 13th of January this year, this is
17 introduced into evidence, including almost all of the transcripts from the
18 Milosevic case except for some pages concerning which this witness will be
19 heard live, and the Defence can cross-examine on this. In accordance with
20 the pre-trial ruling of the Trial Chamber, the OTP has to provide the
21 witness list prior to the 25th of December 2005. However, that wasn't
22 done until the 2nd of January 2006. That's one problem.
23 Another problem is that only a few days ago, the OTP informed us
24 that this witness will be a fact witness. However, we did not receive the
25 written statement of this witness as a fact witness, and this is in
1 violation of Rule 66(A)(ii). This means that the beginning of testimony
2 of this witness would be contrary to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence
3 and prejudicial to the Accused. That's one issue.
4 The second issue, Your Honour, is the state of readiness of
5 Defence. I think that you know the majority of issues concerning this and
6 we are very grateful to your intervention in that regard. What I also
7 want to reiterate is this: When it comes to creating all the necessary
8 material conditions for the work of the Defence, this is something that
9 needs to be done at the very beginning of the trial. This trial began on
10 the 12th of December 2005. The registry informed us on the 14th of
11 December that we had to submit a formal invoice for them to pay an advance
12 to us. I want to say, concerning this, that this invoice that we were
13 supposed to send does not need any further review. We sent a letter to
14 the Registry on the 5th of January and we asked them kindly, Your Honours,
15 to bear in mind the fact that the trial is about to restart on the 16th of
16 January. We were scheduled to arrive in The Hague on the 12th of January
17 and we asked them to ensure that the funds were ready on the 12th of
18 January. It is quite possible that the procedure in the registry is such
19 that it is quite lengthy. However, the Registry never warned us about the
20 fact that they were unable to provide funds for us in a timely fashion.
21 Had we been informed on time we would have perhaps looked for some other
22 possible solution.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I please -- I thought you were going to be very
24 brief on that point and that's the point on which you're dwelling for a
25 very long time. We have discussed that point. We discussed it yesterday,
1 sir. And, please, let's not burden the record with things that we have
2 discussed. We resolved this issue yesterday that you're going to be paid
3 this week sometime. If you haven't been paid by today, I would expect
4 that you would be paid tomorrow. And if that doesn't happen, then you
5 have cause to complain once again. But I think we have dealt with that
6 last point yesterday exhaustively. I would like to go back to the point
7 -- first two points that you raised.
8 Can we just remind the Chamber what ruling or what decision that
9 you were referring to of the 13th of January that allowed evidence into
10 the record which is just coming in like that, the way you explained? That
11 was your first point. You said, in terms of a ruling of this Chamber, on
12 the 13th of January.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was the Trial
14 Chamber's decision on introducing the expert report dated 13th of January
15 2006, into evidence, as well as the transcript of this witness's testimony
16 in another case. The reason I mentioned this is that I didn't really want
17 to re-discuss the funds. All I wanted was to point out to you that the
18 Defence finds itself in a very difficult situation where we are supposed
19 to cross-examine a very sensitive expert witness, in view of the material
20 that has to be covered, and the exhibits, a large number of exhibits that
21 have to be introduced. The testimony of this witness is about to begin in
22 the situation when the Defence is not ready for his testimony, in view of
23 all of the circumstances that I have mentioned so far.
24 If you would allow me to conclude, I wanted to add that our
25 request is that this witness begin his testimony at a later date. He is,
1 after all, an employee of the OTP, and he can come at any later date.
2 Perhaps we will use a day and a half of work now, but this will save us
3 time in the future. It will enable us to prepare better.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. Now I
5 understand what you're saying. Your short answer is, you are not able to
6 start your cross-examination of this witness next week, Thursday. That's
7 the short answer.
8 That's the answer, Mr. Whiting. It does look like the Defence is
9 not in a position because of the three reasons that they've given to
10 cross-examine the witness next Thursday. Do you have any alternative
11 suggestion in terms of scheduling?
12 MR. WHITING: Well, Your Honour, no. We can't just bring
13 witnesses on the drop of a hat, as the Court is well aware. I would
14 respond -- I don't -- I would submit that the Defence has had sufficient
15 time to prepare for this witness. The expert report of this witness was
16 provided to the Defence almost a year ago. The Defence responded,
17 obviously looked at -- read the report and filed a response to the report
18 at that time. All of the exhibits that are going to go in through this
19 witness, and the Court will be happy to hear that it's going to be a
20 smaller number than all of the exhibits referred to in the report, are
21 cited for the most part I think almost entirely in the report. Other
22 exhibits that may go in through this witness have been -- we have told the
23 Defence about that. We did -- it is true we did inform the Defence on
24 January 2nd that this witness would be the second witness testifying. We
25 had already told them in December who the first witness would be. And so
1 by my count, they have had three and a half weeks since they knew about
2 this witness, but by the time they have to cross-examine this witness next
3 week, they will have had three and a half weeks' notice that this
4 witness -- that they would have to cross-examine the witness. In any
5 court in this building, that's more, by a factor of two, probably, than
6 enough time to -- than is ordinarily given and that should be fluff time
7 to prepare, especially given a witness whose report was disclosed almost a
8 year ago and dealt with then and responded to and discussed in filings.
9 The point about him being a fact witness is a very minor point.
10 He's going to talk very briefly about things that he saw in Zagreb when he
11 was stationed there in 1995. There is no -- he has not done a witness
12 statement on that issue. We disclosed in letter form what he would be
13 talking about. It's very brief. And so there is no violation of Rule
14 66(A)(ii) because, since there is no statement to turn over, the rule is
15 not violated. If we had a statement we would turn it over but instead
16 what we've done is told him what it will about and that is standard
17 practices that witnesses -- if there is new information that a witness is
18 going to talk about, we disclose either by a memo or a letter to the
19 Defence to alert them. And this was done sometime ago and they've had
20 certainly plenty of time to respond to that and it is nothing new about
21 the Zagreb -- about what happened in Zagreb. It's nothing materially
22 different. It's completely consistent with our evidence and the theory of
23 the case. So I would submit that the Defence should -- there is no good
24 reason for them not to be ready to cross-examine the witness flex week.
25 I think it would be very undesirable for a lot of reasons to have
1 the witness start, to give his direct testimony, and then for there to be
2 a large break between that and his cross-examination. And I can go
3 through those reasons, if the Court wishes. But it puts a real constraint
4 on his work here at the Tribunal and I think also it is undesirable to
5 have an enormous -- for everyone's preparation purposes, and attention,
6 it's very undesirable to have a big break particularly with this kind of a
7 witness, between his direct examination and the cross-examination.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I -- the Chamber does not wish to go into the arena
9 on to whether or not the Defence should be able to cross-examine because
10 they were given documents last year already. They say they are not able
11 to, and I think there can be any number of reasons. And I'm not trying to
12 speak on their behalf and I'm saying that indeed they may very well have
13 read those documents, they may very well have filed their response, but
14 they have already told us yesterday that a lot of the documents are in
15 storage. I don't know whether documents relative to this witness are in
16 storage or not. I really don't know. And that may need -- that they may
17 need to refresh their memory from those documents.
18 The thrust of the Chamber here is to solve the problem, as I hear
19 the Defence, if the witness gives his testimony in chief at a later stage
20 and I would imagine that a later stage would be no later than next week
21 Thursday, because I heard Mr. Milovancevic saying? We lose this afternoon
22 and tomorrow, that might save us a lot of time later. So I would -- from
23 that, I infer that later stage means Thursday. I am saying, if this
24 witness testifies on Thursday, and you, Mr. Whiting, have indicated that
25 he would probably finish his evidence by tomorrow if he started today,
1 then there is no reason for him not to finish by the 27th, and the
2 following week, 30th, 31st, without a long break, he would be
4 MR. WHITING: That would be acceptable to the Prosecution.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was the suggestion of the Defence.
6 MR. WHITING: I apologise. I had not understood that to be their
7 suggestion but that's certainly acceptable.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that acceptable?
9 MR. WHITING: Of course, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. In that event it looks like
11 we have an adjourn now.
12 MR. WHITING: I'm afraid so, Your Honour, because we don't have
13 another witness available.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. Okay. That will satisfy the
15 Defence. That was the suggestion of the Defence. Am I right, Mr.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I agree with
18 your proposal. If I'm given the floor, let me just be brief and say this:
19 I think that Mr. Whiting owes us another explanation. If they informed us
20 in writing that the witness will testify about facts, viva voce, and that
21 this witness gave a statement, then according to the Rules, the statement
22 has to be disclosed to us. We were informed three or four days ago, that
23 in addition to being an expert witness, this witness will also be a fact
24 witness, testifying about some facts that witnesses from UNPROFOR and
25 UNHCR were supposed to testify about. I just want to avoid any problems
1 in that sense and this is what I'm pointing out to the Trial Chamber. I
2 hope you understood me. I hope I was clear enough. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I hope the Chamber understood you and I hope
4 you understood Mr. Whiting when he said they have not taken a statement
5 from this witness, that is why they have had nothing to turn over to the
6 Defence. If they had taken a statement on the facts, they would have
7 tendered that statement to you and he says this is standard practice. If
8 it comes to you as a little addendum to an expert testimony that he also
9 testifies on the facts so there was nothing according to Mr. Whiting to be
10 turned over to the Defence. Okay?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 Before we adjourn, then, one or two points on housekeeping.
14 Yesterday -- I beg your pardon. On the 16th, on Monday, there was
15 an arrangement that the parties work on the agreed facts reflecting the
16 two corrections discussed on that day, on the 16th of January. The
17 parties promised to do so. The Chamber would like to find out from the
18 parties how far they've gone on that point.
19 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we have had discussions. I think it
20 will be resolved very quickly and my understanding is that the Chamber
21 expects us to file a new version of the agreed facts and we can certainly
22 do that and have that done by next week. I don't see any difficulty
23 whatsoever in having that done.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I do not think it's necessarily a new version, it's
25 just maybe to deal with throws two items and say whether you agree or
1 disagree on them.
2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, I misunderstood your legal counsel, then
3 I thought he wanted us to file a new version. But we can do it that way
4 if that's easier.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think it's easier and quicker and shorter.
6 MR. WHITING: That's fine, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to make sure it doesn't go to the back
8 burner and gets forgotten. That's why it will be raised now.
9 MR. WHITING: I think there is just one little detail to discuss
10 furthers with counsel. I don't see any difficulty in resolving it.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
12 You confirm that, Mr. Milovancevic?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [No interpretation]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The next point the Chamber would like
15 to discuss is in terms of the new courtroom calendar distributed, we are
16 supposed to sit on Friday, the 3rd of February, from 9.00 a.m. to 13.45 in
17 this courtroom. Is that convenient for all parties? Mr. Whiting?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
19 MR. WHITING: Yes. Yes. That's fine, Your Honour. And then
20 we're still sitting the next week, on the 6th and the 7th.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: That has not been removed.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the president, please.
23 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I think your
24 microphone is off.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. Well, then, the Chamber will then sit
1 in addition to the days that have already been allocated, we will also sit
2 on the 3rd of February, from nine in the morning to quarter to two.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I had forgotten ask my colleagues. In
5 that event, that brings us to the end of the proceedings for today and the
6 matter stands adjourned until next week, Thursday. In which court?
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I don't have the courtroom number.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is at 9.00 in the morning. Can somebody remind
9 me to which court it is? Courtroom III, the same courtroom, and that will
10 be at nine in the morning.
11 Thank you very much. The court will adjourn.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.50 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of
14 January, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.