1 Thursday, 8 November 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 [The accused Milan Simic not present]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case IT-95-9-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has noticed that Mr. Milan
12 Simic is yet to come, and we have been informed that Defence counsel have
13 agreed that the proceedings can continue and he will join us later.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, with all due respect, the waiver
15 is on our client. Yesterday I talked to him and he said we will meet
16 today in the Court. So I really -- I don't think that we can really state
17 in his name whether he's waiving his right again to be present in this
18 courtroom during the trial today or not. That is my position.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: We've been informed that he's on his way.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. He will be here in ten minutes. That's what
21 we heard from the guards.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So since we are continuing with
23 cross-examination of Mr. Tihic, what is your decision? We continue?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I mean, Your Honours, this is just a matter of
25 principle. We -- of course, we don't have anything against this, that if
1 the Trial Chamber decides to go along with Mr. Tihic, because he will be
2 here in ten minutes. But as a matter of principle, I believe it should be
3 better that we wait ten minutes and then start with --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, I think there is a measure of
5 reasonableness in everything that has to be done.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree with you, Your Honours, a hundred per cent,
7 but it is just the matter of a principle when -- I haven't been able to
8 talk -- this is something I never expected to happen, and I haven't talked
9 to my client about this situation. If I had any kind of guidance in this
10 particular --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Nobody knew that this will happen this morning.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So there is no question of you having had
14 guidance from --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, and that is why, because I haven't
16 consulted with my client, I cannot really state that we agree to go on
17 with the proceedings without him being present. That is the point.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The Trial Chamber decides that we shall
19 continue with cross-examination of Mr. Tihic. If, at the end of the
20 cross-examination, Mr. Tihic -- Mr. Simic is not here, we will stop the
21 proceedings at that point.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I mean, just for the record, I will
23 have to object to that.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Wow. Yes, all right. The Trial Chamber will
25 continue. The proceedings will continue.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, on a different topic, just
2 a very brief matter, if I may raise it.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Mr. Dagovic is here. He arrived, in fact, last
5 night but was involved in a motor accident last night, not a serious one,
6 I'm glad to say, and he will be able to give evidence. But the result of
7 the motor accident was that Mr. Weiner, who is going to lead his evidence,
8 has only been able to start proofing him this morning. If Mr. Pantelic's
9 predictions yesterday are correct, and he takes all morning, that,
10 together with re-examination, I hope, I hope, will provide Mr. Weiner with
11 quite enough time to proof the witness and simply bring him on and start
12 straight away.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, I have not had an opportunity to speak to
15 Mr. Weiner a lot or extensively this morning other than to ascertain what
16 happened last night, and I don't know how the proofing is going. I know
17 that the Trial Chamber has indicated that it does not wish the -- to have
18 any adjournments in between witnesses, and I might say that I am not
19 saying at this point that I will be applying for an adjournment, making an
20 application to the Chamber for an adjournment to enable proofing to
21 finish, because I'm hopeful that it will be finished by the time
22 cross-examination is finished and that we can move seamlessly and smoothly
23 into the next witness, but circumstances may - I don't know -
24 circumstances may force the Prosecution into seeking an adjournment of a
25 short period of time, maybe an hour or two, if that process hasn't
2 I don't know what reception the Prosecution will have to such an
3 application, but I just wanted to foreshadow it's possible that that
4 application may be made. I'm hoping it won't be made, and Mr. Weiner is
5 doing all he can to make sure that we aren't forced into a position of
6 having to make that sort of application, but I just wanted it raise that.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There is also the point of your having
8 instructions from Mr. Tihic over the documents --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: The documents which are -- which Mr. Pantelic wanted
11 the witness to discuss.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes. Would Your Honour just bear with me for
13 one moment?
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, what I propose is that we approach
17 Mr. Tihic during the morning break and use that time to get instructions.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, good morning, Your Honours.
22 WITNESS: SULEJMAN TIHIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tihic.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Unfortunately, Your Honours, I don't have the --
2 sort of official transcript of yesterday's hearing. I have only a draft
3 version, so I don't have paging in this version, so I'm referring now to
4 page 93 of yesterday's transcript, provisional transcript, line 9, until
5 -- well, there is also mix-up, 11, 12, 13, 14, and then 11, 15, 16.
6 There is some problems in the numbering here. Anyhow, this is the last, I
7 would say, paragraph of page 93 of this rough version of transcript. And
8 now I am referring to this part.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, yesterday, we talked about the number
10 of Serbs who voted in the plebiscite, if you remember?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. My question was the following:
13 [In English] "And to follow on from what we are saying, do you
14 know that 1.350.000 citizens of Serb ethnicity took part in the
15 plebiscite, yes or no?"
16 Your answer was:
17 "Well, that is a propaganda that is not true."
18 Question: "Thank you."
19 Answer: "There weren't that many Serbs in Bosnia at all so how
20 could they take part in the voting, that many?"
21 Then you tried to expand your answer and tried to stop it.
22 [Interpretation] So Mr. Tihic, yesterday after our sitting, I
23 looked at various documents and I think that this is a good opportunity to
24 clarify this situation, because this is a matter of facts, not propaganda;
25 isn't that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I have the report of the State Institute of Statistics of the
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina related to the census from 1991, and that
4 report was compiled in Sarajevo in 1993, that is to say during the war.
5 The number of this bulletin is 234. In that report, the total population
6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the census from 1991, is
7 4.377.033. According to this census, there were 1.902.958 Muslims.
8 According to this census, there were 1.366.104 Serbs. As for Croats, it's
9 not very legible --
10 A. 700.000 something.
11 Q. 780.000 something. As for Yugoslavs, there were 242.682. As for
12 the rest, there were 104.439. On the basis of this brief survey, although
13 both you and I are laymen for this particular subject matter but this is a
14 precise document, we will agree, won't we, that the figure I mentioned
15 yesterday, yet from another source, was not propaganda. It was based on
16 facts, wasn't it?
17 A. Pure propaganda. If you want to, I can explain it. I think the
18 Trial Chamber will understand too. Out of 1.366.000 Serbs, there can be a
19 maximum of 900.000 voters who are of age, so therefore there certainly
20 could not be that kind of a vote, because out of those 1.366.000, there
21 must have been children as well, so if you look at those two figures, you
22 will see that it is impossible for the turnout of the vote to be what you
24 Q. My next question would be the following. Can we agree with the
25 possibility that in the territory under the control of the Bosnian Serbs,
1 or rather at that time - I stand corrected - this was November, 1991, so
2 there was no war on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in total then,
3 can we agree that Muslims, Croats, Serbs and the others could have taken
4 part in that plebiscite, yes or no, theoretically, yes or no?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 [The accused Milan Simic entered court]
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we continue, the Trial Chamber wishes to
9 notice the presence of Mr. Milan Simic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Milan Simic, your counsel objected to the
12 cross-examination continuing in your absence. The Trial Chamber ruled
13 that the cross-examination will continue in your absence.
14 The Registry is requested to provide the transcript for the
15 cross-examination that went on in your absence in a language you can
17 Please continue.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before you proceed, Mr. Pantelic, the Trial
21 Chamber has been informed that perhaps the Registry will give Mr. Milan
22 Simic the audiotape --
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: -- and the videotape, so he can listen to that part
25 of the cross-examination where he was absent. So that would be fine.
1 Would that satisfy you, Mr. Zecevic?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Please proceed.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, yesterday you did not agree with me
6 with the assertion that when the Serb MPs walked out, they being the
7 representatives of one of the constituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina actually ceased to exist; isn't that right?
9 A. I did not agree with you, yes.
10 Q. We will agree now that after the elections in 1990, at the level
11 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a presidency was formed, a presidency of the
12 Republic, on the principle of the tripartite [as interpreted]
13 participation of all three peoples; isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I said, actually, three constitutive people;
16 not tripartite, but three constitutive people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 Q. [Interpretation] That was my question, wasn't it?
18 A. [No interpretation]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter notes that there was no audible
21 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer was not -- the previous question, the
22 answer was not picked up by the interpreters. I think the witness may be
23 sitting a bit far from the microphone.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please move your chair up a bit and
25 speak into the microphone.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Well, in fact, Your Honour, page 8, line 5, the
3 answer was yes. I just -- my intervention was just with regard to the
4 notion -- I said three-partied constitutive nations, people in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was not in my -- registered in my question. So
6 that was my intervention. But the witness said yes on my question.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. All right. You proceed.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Beg your pardon, Mr. Tihic. We just need to
10 clarify these technical matters.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. On behalf of the Muslim people, or rather, the party that won the
13 election, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic was elected to the Presidency; isn't that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Along with him, Mr. Fikret Abdic was elected?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He's also a Muslim, isn't he?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Representing the Serbian people, Mrs. Biljana Plavsic was elected;
21 isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Also representing the Serb people, professor Nikola Koljevic was
24 elected, the late Nikola Koljevic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. On behalf of the Croat people, Mr. Franjo Boras was elected; isn't
2 that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Also representing the Croat people, Stjepan Kljuic was elected;
5 isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Ejub Ganic, a Muslim, was elected the seventh member of the
8 Presidency; isn't that right?
9 A. At that time he was registered as a Yugoslav in the category that
10 was entitled "The Rest." It was the Jews, Albanians, Montenegrins. I
11 don't know. He was elected to represent that category, not as a Muslim.
12 And he considered himself to be a Yugoslav. That's what it said by his
14 Q. All right. And now tell me, was Mr. Ejub Ganic a member of the
15 SDA at that time?
16 A. I don't know. I don't think he was. I really don't think he was.
17 Q. Was he later?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When did he become a member? Do you remember? Do you happen to
21 A. I can't remember.
22 Q. Before he was a Yugoslav --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic --
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: For clarification, when you say such-and-such was a
1 member of a political party, how do you define "membership of a political
2 party" in the context of --
3 MR. PANTELIC: In the context, yes.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: -- these proceedings?
5 MR. PANTELIC: My basic approach is there were three national
6 parties: SDA, Muslim party; SDS, Serbian party; and HDZ, Croatian party.
7 So within these three parties, I try to establish my foundation with these
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Okay. What, in your view, would you
10 consider -- what does a person have to do to be said to be a member of a
11 political party? I'm not talking about holding posts. Those are
12 obvious. But ordinary people. The reason I'm asking is one of the
13 witnesses we had did discuss how he joined a political party and resigned
14 from the political party and the steps he took. That's why I'm asking
15 this question.
16 MR. PANTELIC: That was exactly my point, actually, to
17 become -- theoretically, if one would like to become a member of political
18 party, he has to be registered in that party, in this particular party,
19 and then have activities, more or less. And then --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: If he decides to resign --
21 MR. PANTELIC: If he decides to resign, he goes to party and sign
22 a kind of document in the secretary -- in the administrative office of
23 that party, saying, "I don't want to be a member of your party."
24 JUDGE MUMBA: So there are actually some steps that are taken to
25 join a political party and to resign.
1 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, formal steps.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Do you agree with me, Mr. Tihic?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. I'm interested in the following: Mr. Ejub Ganic, before he was a
5 Yugoslav, do you know how he declared himself, from a national, ethnic
6 point of view?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Since he was a Yugoslav, as you said - and then it remained a bit
9 unclear - what did he declare himself as later on?
10 A. After Yugoslavia fell apart, most Yugoslavs declared themselves
11 either as Bosniaks or Serbs or Croats. It depended on who they belonged
12 to, where their roots were, and he probably declared himself as a Bosniak,
13 or rather, a Muslim, as it was before.
14 Q. I fully understand what you are saying. I imagine that we will
15 agree with the fact that in 1993, practically the notion of Bosniaks was
16 introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Of course, I don't want to initiate a debate in this respect.
19 This is just a fact. We have been operating with some different
20 categories here, until 1993, that is; that is to say, without any
21 intention of -- I mean, please do not think that I mean to offend anybody
22 in an ethnic sense. This is just the way these debates have been carried
23 on. So practically, later, he declared himself as a Muslim.
24 Very well. So in that Presidency, we had two Muslims, two Serbs,
25 two Croats, and one Yugoslav, who later declared himself as a Muslim;
1 isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Will you agree with the fact that in the period after the
4 Republika Srpska was proclaimed, the members of the Presidency of the BH,
5 Mrs. Biljana Plavsic and the late Professor Nikola Koljevic left the
6 Presidency of the BH?
7 A. I don't think they did immediately. I think it was somewhat
9 Q. Do you remember when?
10 A. First they walked out of the parliament.
11 Q. Excuse me. We're talking about the Presidency.
12 A. But I think that this was the order of the moves that were taken:
13 First they left parliament, and then they would come to meetings of the
14 Presidency and then they would not come to the meetings of the
15 Presidency. They stayed in government. So these are different periods.
16 I can't say now whether this was after the proclamation or whether a
17 couple of months had passed in the meantime.
18 I think that a couple of months had passed in the meantime until
19 they ultimately left the Presidency, but you can check this out exactly,
20 because after them, other Serbs were elected who were on the list. And
21 when this exactly happened, you can check this out. This can certainly be
23 The next Serbs on the list who got the largest number of votes --
24 Q. Excuse me, I didn't hear you.
25 A. The other Serbs came, instead of them, to the Presidency, those
1 who were next on the list, in consideration of the number of the votes
2 they got, so then that can be checked out.
3 Q. My thesis is the following: A certain number of representatives
4 of one of the constituent peoples leaves the assembly, the Serb people;
5 that is the first stage. The second stage: The Serb representatives
6 leave the collective presidency, and I assert that from a constitutional
7 and legal point of view, Bosnia-Herzegovina did not exist as a state. Do
8 you agree with me, yes or no?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Tell me, please, is it correct that Mr. Fikret Abdic won the
11 largest number of votes in the election in 1991?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was he supposed to be president of the Presidency therefore?
14 Wasn't that the system?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Thank you. [No interpretation]
17 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not getting interpretation in English.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Can I repeat the question?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear this microphone, please?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can. Yes, we can hear.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Can I repeat the question?
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can repeat the question.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can we agree with the thesis that when we see the breakdown of the
1 SFRY, we also saw the breakdown of its organs and institutions?
2 A. The institutions of the federal state, yes, I would agree there.
3 Q. That's what I was thinking of, yes. In the process of the state's
4 disintegration, following that logic, the JNA disintegrated too, did it
6 A. Well, it was still there as a sort of entity, predominantly Serb.
7 It was no longer a Yugoslav component.
8 Q. Well, that brings me to my next question. From the JNA, the
9 representatives of other nations stepped down, officers, and so on, down
10 the chain of command?
11 A. Yes, gradually. It was a process which was to last over a longer
13 Q. Very well, thank you. You will agree with me, will you not, that
14 a former officer of the JNA - I don't know what his rank was, but he
15 became a general later on, and I'm talking about Mr. Sefer Halilovic, a
16 former officer of the JNA - joined the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I think you'll also agree with me when I say that --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you proceed, I would like to know what period
21 he left and joined the other.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] You heard Her Honour's question. You heard what
24 the Presiding Judge, Judge Mumba asked. Could you specify, what period
25 was this? When did Mr. Sefer Halilovic step down, leave?
1 A. As far as I know, Sefer left the JNA in 1991, and the army of the
2 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was established sometime in April or May of
3 1992. So in that period, since he left, until the formation of the army,
4 he worked in a certain way on defence preparations in Bosnia, but the army
5 did not exist until April. I'm referring to the army of the Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was established only in April.
7 Q. I think that Mr. Sefer Halilovic was a Muslim -- an ethnic Muslim,
8 was he not?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And a former officer of the JNA, another one, Mr. Rasim Delic, did
11 he also leave the JNA and join the armed formations of the army of
13 A. Yes, at the beginning of the war, he did that, yes.
14 Q. Can we say then that that was in 1992?
15 A. Yes, May, April or May, 1992.
16 Q. Very well, thank you. I have a factual piece of information that
17 General Jovan Divjak also moved to the BH army.
18 A. General Divjak first of all joined the staff of the Territorial
19 Defence and then he moved on to the army when it was set up. He was a
20 Serb by nationality.
21 Q. So the process was a similar one that -- in relation to Croatia
22 and their organisation of the HVO in Bosnia, this transition, this
23 transfer of former JNA army officers into the newly established army
24 formations; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And this process took place with the army of the Republika Srpska
2 too, didn't it? It followed the same process of the former JNA officers
3 I'm referring to?
4 A. Well, 90 per cent of the former JNA remained in the army of
5 Republika Srpska.
6 Q. So that means that the Bosnian Serbs liked to be soldiers so --
7 they liked the profession of soldiers, so there were a lot of them, it
8 would appear; is that right?
9 A. Well, yes.
10 Q. Let us now go back, Mr. Tihic, to one point and the proverb that
11 birds of a feather flock together. Is that right?
12 A. For the most part, yes.
13 Q. We can then agree that in the period from 1990, and practically
14 speaking throughout the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, on the territory
15 controlled by the central government, the Muslim government in Sarajevo,
16 to all intents and purposes, several paramilitary units were set up such
17 as the Patriotic League; isn't that right?
18 A. No. It was the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina; it wasn't the
19 Muslim government.
20 Q. Very well. Was it the Patriotic League? Was that organised as an
21 armed formation, an armed unit?
22 A. I think the Patriotic League as an armed formation was organised
23 after the proclamation of independence on the 1st of March, 1992, when it
24 was no longer a paramilitary formation because it was all part of the
25 Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1 Q. But you will agree that preparations ran before that? It wasn't
2 in one day. The process of preparation was an ongoing process, was it
4 A. Probably.
5 Q. Within the framework of those armed formations, we see the Green
6 Berets. They were part of the Muslim armed formations, weren't they, the
7 Green Berets?
8 A. They were never Muslim formations. They were formations of the
9 army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and a formation of the
10 Territorial Defence. The Green Berets were part of those units. And then
11 later on, everything became the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and they were
12 no longer called the Green Berets.
13 Q. Thank you. Well, then we can agree with the thesis that - and I'm
14 speaking of those formations - that the same pattern was followed by the
15 Croats, they too had formations of that kind that were legal, semi-legal,
16 quasi-legal, or legal, let's say they were legal, ultimately?
17 A. Well, the Croats had greater reliance on Croatia. That was the
18 difference. It was the HVO, as far as I know.
19 Q. Yes, but let's narrow the question down. I'm talking about their
20 existence. Can we agree that they existed in fact?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And finally, the same situation happened to the Serbs. They also
23 had their own formations functioning there on the territory of the
25 A. They had the JNA. They didn't have need of any formations.
1 Q. So they had no paramilitary formations. Thank you.
2 A. They did have some. That is to say along with the JNA, various
3 paramilitary units did come in, such as the Grey Wolves, the Sivi Vukovi.
4 Q. Thank you. Volunteers from Serbia came, didn't they?
5 A. Yes, they were mercenaries, volunteers, what you like to call
6 them, looters and pilferers.
7 Q. And from Croatia as well, they came, these volunteers, and they
8 were placed at the disposal of the Croatian Defence Council, were they
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And some volunteers probably came in from the Arab states, some
12 mujahedin, to be members of the BH army, wasn't that true, too?
13 A. A negligible amount, yes.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 [In English] Your Honours, can I have just a second?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. PANTELIC: For a short conference?
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: You can proceed.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Tihic, does the name Nihad Halibegovic ring a bell?
24 A. Yes. I said that I knew the name yesterday.
25 Q. May we agree that Mr. Halibegovic, with his group of associates,
1 established the first staff of the Patriotic League, the regional staff of
2 Sarajevo, on the 31st of March, 1991?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, Mr. Tihic, will you not, that
5 it was a little unusual for a political party, any -- whatever nationality
6 it was - I'm speaking in general terms, in principle - to take active
7 participation in the procedure of the arming and formation of armed
8 units? Wasn't that a little strange?
9 A. For normal states, yes, and for normal situations, yes, but given
10 the prevailing conditions in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, nothing was
12 Q. All right. So practically speaking, as I understand those
13 processes, the political party was a sort of guiding light in the
14 organisation of establishing armed force, party forces, patriotic forces,
15 or whatever you like to call them. It was the sort of guiding light, the
16 political party was, I mean. That was the situation, you've just said so,
17 haven't you?
18 A. Well, the party was one of the protagonists of the defence
19 preparations within the framework of the system of defence for the
20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that system was Territorial Defence.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, now I would like to introduce as the
23 evidence -- this document was provided to the Prosecution. The title of
24 this document is "Letter from SDA party headquarters Sarajevo," and the
25 title is "Information on full readiness of connection and following of
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Dated?
3 MR. PANTELIC: Dated 20th of September, 1991. These documents
4 consist of two pages of letters, and attached is one, two, three,
5 four -- some kind of additional information.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: In what language?
7 MR. PANTELIC: In B/C/S language. And I have also English
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Confirmation from the Prosecution?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the document was provided
12 to me some two days ago, and there is a translation. I don't know if it's
13 an official translation or not, but it certainly is a translation. The
14 position of the Prosecution is that at this stage it doesn't object to its
15 being marked for identification, but in the absence of any further
16 evidence, it would object to its full admission into evidence at this
17 stage, but certainly not from the point of view of marking it for
18 identification and putting it to the witness. He may say things that make
19 it admissible at a later point, but that's the --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Are you saying you haven't had time to investigate
22 MR. DI FAZIO: No.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that your reason for objecting?
24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's one of the reasons, yes, because we know
25 nothing about the document, given the fact that it was given to us two
1 days ago. So it's in the same -- it is, so to speak -- two or three
2 documents that we've received from Mr. Pantelic during the course of his
3 cross-examination --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: On this document alone. So your position is that it
5 can be marked for identification. You will inform the Trial Chamber
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Of our position in respect --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, after getting --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- of full admission --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.
11 The usher can assist counsel to distribute the document.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Also, Your Honour, I have original of this document
13 in B/C/S language, and I'm of intention to provide the document to the
14 witness so he can maybe give us some explanation. And then I will tender
15 it as an original document --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In fact --
17 MR. PANTELIC: -- in B/C/S language into the --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In fact, the Trial Chamber prefers having
19 original documents.
20 MR. PANTELIC: This is the original, Mr. di Fazio, B/C/S version.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number first?
22 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked Defence Exhibit -- or
23 Defence document D20/1 ter ID and D20/1 ID.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Tihic, would you take a look at that document, and take your
2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, something occurs to me just
3 before Mr. Pantelic starts questioning on this document.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: We haven't got instructions on this document from
6 Mr. Tihic. We haven't spoken to him about it. It's in the same -- we're
7 in the same position in respect --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: With yesterday's --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- of this document as in the other documents that
10 have come through. We haven't spoken to Mr. Tihic yet. And as I
11 indicated --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Isn't this the one you received two days ago?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: This one we are discussing?
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. But I haven't spoken to Mr. Tihic. He's not
16 my witness at this stage, and he's being cross-examined. I haven't
17 approached him or spoken to him. Yesterday we got permission from the
18 Trial Chamber to speak to him in respect of another document --
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that was given to us.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, I would propose to, as I said, at the morning
23 break, to approach Mr. Tihic and ask him about all of these documents --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: -- not just the one that was given to us
1 yesterday --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: And this one.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and which the Trial Chamber said -- permitted us
4 to go and speak to him.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: So I'd like to make it clear that with the
7 permission of the Trial Chamber, that I intend to approach the witness --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and ask him about all of these fresh documents
10 that have come to us. Now, that will mean that we'll be asking him about
11 this after we've heard the cross-examination on this particular document.
12 That doesn't bother me, but it certainly is -- I don't know if
13 Mr. Pantelic has got any concerns. I raise that and indicate that that's
14 the intention of the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You will be allowed to get instructions from
16 Mr. Tihic on this document --
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: -- during the break or whatever time will suit you,
19 before your re-examination.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Because I take it it's for purposes of clarifying
22 whatever the cross-examination may raise.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, exactly.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.
25 MR. PANTELIC: So now I think the original document can be
1 provided to the Registry, or maybe - I don't know - maybe --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Let's go ahead. The witness has got a
3 copy. You can go ahead with your cross-examination.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, would you prefer to see the original?
6 MR. PANTELIC: The original. Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Can we agree, Mr. Tihic, that this letter was
8 compiled in the SDA party at its headquarters in Sarajevo? Is that
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. In the upper left-hand corner, we see the name of the party, the
13 A. Yes. I can't say that it was compiled at the SDA headquarters,
14 because I can't recognise the signature, especially as it said "for," it
15 was written on behalf of somebody, and there is no stamp, and everybody
16 could have got the letterhead and the writing paper.
17 Q. Yes. Well, we can ascertain that in due course.
18 Mr. Tihic, tell me, please: As this is an unofficial translation,
19 could you read out the title, where it says "subject," so that the
20 interpreters could translate this better.
21 A. "Information on full alert for communications and monitoring of
22 the SDA."
23 Q. We have had a problem with the English translation. Could you
24 read the date and number, if you see it, when the document was compiled.
25 A. The number was 105/90 something - I think it's 91 - and the date
1 was the 29th -- the 20th of September, 1991.
2 Q. Would you turn the page, please, and would you read who signed the
4 A. It says here "for" the acting secretary, and I don't know who
5 signed it.
6 Q. What does it say after "secretary"?
7 A. Secretary of the SDA. So somebody signed for the secretary of the
8 SDA, and I don't know whose signature this is.
9 Q. And what's the name?
10 A. The name of the secretary is Hasan Cengic, but he didn't sign it,
11 because it says "for the secretary." The word "for" is there.
12 Q. Was Hasan Cengic the secretary of the SDA, in fact, at that time?
13 A. I'm not sure. Possibly, but I wasn't in the party leadership to
14 know exactly.
15 Q. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Hasan Cengic was involved in
16 the process of procuring weapons in Slovenia and transferring them to
17 Bosnia for SDA purposes? Yes or no? If you don't know, it doesn't
18 matter; say so.
19 A. Well, I learnt of this through the media, afterwards, after the
21 Q. That he took part in that; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The essence of the document, the meaning of the document - and put
24 me right if I'm wrong - is that the SDA party should organise a certain
25 service for information and intelligence; is that right?
1 A. Yes. That would be the basic meaning of this document, if that is
3 Q. Thank you. You can give the original back to the usher, because
4 we have finished with an analysis of this document. Thank you.
5 Mr. Tihic, we're discussing the period round about October 1991,
6 and I'm sure you'll agree that on the political level, there was a
7 coalition between the SDA party and the HDZ against the SDS party. That's
8 right, isn't it?
9 A. No, we can't agree there.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we leave this document, D20/1 ter ID and the
12 English one, the English translation is obviously with faults.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So we shall need a formal English translation
15 at a later stage.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: One can see that right from page 1.
18 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, I was not in charge for translation,
19 so ...
20 JUDGE MUMBA: So you will get the official translation.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. We shall provide it to the Translation
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Because what strikes me is the date on the
24 Serbo-Croat when whatever is being said in this statement was being
25 stated, yes.
1 MR. PANTELIC: And therefore I asked Mr. Tihic just to clarify
2 that issue. Right, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 Q. Therefore, Mr. Tihic, at a local level in Bosanski Samac, can we
4 agree that a certain political coalition existed between the SDA party and
5 the HDZ party against the SDS party; yes or no?
6 A. It was not -- it's not -- I can't just give a yes or no answer,
7 like the question you asked before. Officially, it did not exist, but
8 sometimes those views were the same and were coordinated and dovetailed,
9 but there was no official coalition.
10 Q. All right. If it wasn't an official coalition, there was an
11 unofficial coalition at the level of Bosanski Samac, the local level,
12 between the HDZ and SDA. That would be true, wouldn't it?
13 A. It's difficult to say. It's not as simple as that. I can't give
14 a simple yes or no answer. We agreed on some issues, and we didn't need
15 to dovetail anything, because we had similar opinions on certain issues.
16 Now --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. May I give instructions to the witness?
18 It is very important that you explain what according to you was
19 the situation, because this area of the cross-examination is important in
20 this indictment, all right? So it's very important for you to explain.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain, but I cannot explain
22 it through yes/no answers.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Please give a broader explanation. I absolutely agree with that.
25 I didn't interrupt you. Please go ahead.
1 A. As for informal coalitions - I said that there was no formal
2 coalition - there weren't -- there wasn't an informal coalition either.
3 But these two parties, the HDZ and the SDA, with regard to certain
4 political matters, such as resolving the crisis in Yugoslavia and
5 arranging matters in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they had rather similar ideas.
6 They were not identical but the views between the SDA and the HDZ were
7 closer than the views between the SDA and the SDS.
8 The difference between us and the HDZ were in the following. The
9 SDA wanted Yugoslavia to be preserved, though somewhat different, and the
10 HDZ was in a hurry to get out of Yugoslavia. So that was the difference
11 between us. Therefore, it cannot be called a coalition.
12 The SDA wanted -- the SDS wanted Yugoslavia to remain but perhaps
13 even more different, a unitary type of Yugoslavia. We were in favour of a
14 referendum, the declaration on sovereignty, like the HDZ, and that is
15 where we had these points in common. But we differed in respect of the
16 following: We and Izetbegovic, we tried to preserve Yugoslavia. However,
17 neither Milosevic nor Tudjman wanted that.
18 Q. Thank you. So we can conclude that actually the SDA as a party
19 had more sympathy for the HDZ than the SDS, bearing in mind everything
20 that has been said. This can be sort of a small conclusion, right?
21 A. When these political issues were on the agenda, then, yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic --
23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I have to make short reference to the
24 -- I would say work of Mr. Tihic, in order to facilitate this
25 communication. Just -- I can pose a question, no problem, but I think
1 that it will be better that --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one is that?
3 MR. PANTELIC: This is the memoirs.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: We discussed that yesterday, and you get the
5 extracts you want and ask questions.
6 MR. PANTELIC: In order for him to better follow this.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Is it okay? Mr. Usher, please.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: I would object to the use of the memoirs for Mr.
10 Tihic to better follow whatever it is that Mr. Pantelic wants him to
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think I need to repeat what I said
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Mr. Pantelic wants to put a proposition to --
17 that he has found or extracted from the memoirs, let him put the
18 proposition without reference to the memoirs to the witness, and if the
19 witness agrees, he's made his point, and if the witness doesn't agree, he
20 can then point out the inconsistency from the memoirs. Now, that I
21 suggest is the right approach rather than picking up the memoirs
22 immediately and presenting them. Put the idea to the witness. He can say
23 yes or no. If he's in disagreement with something he said previously,
24 Mr. Pantelic has his memoirs to confront him.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, no problem with me. In order to
2 speed up proceedings, that was my intention, but I will proceed along
3 these lines. No problem with me, no problem at all.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: We have to follow the correct procedure.
5 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: No matter how much time it takes.
7 MR. PANTELIC: I'm always in certain -- so you can understand my
8 position, thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we talked about the relations between
10 the SDA and the HDZ at the level of Bosanski Samac, and you agreed with
11 me, and you practically gave the following assessment, that at that time,
12 the HDZ pursued a policy which coincided with the policy of the SDA; isn't
13 that right?
14 A. It did not coincide. The HDZ wanted to get out of Yugoslavia as
15 soon as possible, and we didn't want that. It did not fully coincide.
16 There were similarities, but it did not coincide.
17 Q. However, Mr. Tihic, you said this on page 5 of your memoirs. Do
18 you want to read that yourself?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel can read that.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Can I read? Good.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Slowly.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Slowly, of course.
23 Q. [Interpretation] On page 5 of your memoirs, you said the
24 following: "A great hindrance in their government was the head of the
25 public security station, Vinko Dragicevic, who pursued the HDZ policy
1 which then coincided with the policy of the SDA in the B and H."
2 Do you agree with this?
3 A. As far as security measures are concerned in the municipality of
4 Bosanski Samac, we agreed there, security on the bridge, security and
5 safety in general. That's where it did coincide. So on certain points,
6 we did coincide. On others, we didn't.
7 Q. Thank you. We will agree with the fact that you mentioned, during
8 the cross-examination by my colleague Mr. Lazarevic, that the SDA and the
9 HDZ in Samac practically organised the Territorial Defence; isn't that
11 A. The commander of the Territorial Defence headquarters and the
12 Minister of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina issued a document establishing
13 the Territorial Defence. In terms of appointments, the HDZ and the SDA
14 took part. Whether other parties participated in that, Mato Nujic,
15 president of the municipality, should be asked about this.
16 Q. However, we will certainly agree that there is a procedure based
17 on the statute of the municipality and how things are done; isn't that
18 right? You are a legalist.
19 A. There always has to be a procedure.
20 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, Mr. Tihic, that as president
21 of the municipal committee of the SDA in Bosanski Samac, were involved in
22 sending your members for anti-sabotage training in Bosanski Samac, right?
23 A. Alija Fitozovic was involved in these activities. I knew that
24 there were people who were being sent to some kind of training, but that
25 was done by Alija Fitozovic.
1 Q. Was Alija Fitozovic a member of the SDA?
2 A. Yes. And was he president of this commission for defence and
4 Q. Did you decide this at party level or was this an individual
5 decision to send these trainees for sabotage training?
6 A. I don't know whether it was actually sabotage training. It was
7 training for defence preparations or something like that.
8 Q. Thank you. Let me jog your memory a bit. On page 7 of your
9 memoirs, you said the following, speaking about arming: "People from SDA
10 headquarters came from different regions, and they acted more in an
11 advisory capacity and offered professional assistance. Professional
12 seminars were organised. So we from the municipal committees sent people
13 for sabotage training. Among these people from Sarajevo was Sefer
14 Halilovic as well. We from Bosanski Samac did not greatly believe in this
15 defence from Doboj, in view of our position, so we turned to a greater
16 extent to cooperation with the HDZ and Slavonia."
17 Do you remember having written this?
18 A. You will see in the very introduction of these sentences that
19 these were seminars, more of an advisory nature, counselling. So this
20 does not go together with the other part that speaks of sabotage training.
21 Q. Let's turn it the other way around. I do apologise.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, do pause. Do allow the witness to
23 complete his answer. If you don't agree with the answer, you know what to
25 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.
1 Q. Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, can we put it this way: These were
2 seminars for improvement in sabotage skills; is that right?
3 A. No, because there was no practical improvement in training in this
4 way. As far as I was informed, it was mostly talk.
5 Q. So let's move on to this other sentence. Then you turn to the HDZ
6 and Slavonia and cooperation in that respect. Slavonia is in Croatia,
7 isn't it?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. As for Mr. Alija Fitozovic, I conclude, on the basis of the papers
10 I have here, that your position with regard to him is that he is a rather
11 extremist sort of person and fond of alcohol, isn't he?
12 A. He was a bit more radical, and he did not think sufficiently. He
13 was rather rash, and he did get drunk from time to time.
14 Q. He was inclined to the Croats, wasn't he?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At that time, it wasn't that bad either from the position of your
18 A. We made an effort to have the same kind of relationship with the
19 Serbs and the Croats. It's a different thing how much some people pushed
20 us, through their own actions, towards others, but we made an effort to
21 have equal relations with both Serbs and Croats.
22 Q. However, this --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to be clear with the timing because your
24 questions -- your questions contained "at that time." Then you continued,
25 and the answer was given. I would like the witness to give us the time
1 period to which his answer is related.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's 1991-92. That's the
3 time that we were speaking about.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. My recollections pertain to the period up to the 14th of August,
7 1992, from 1990 until the 14th of August, 1992.
8 Q. In the context of Alija Fitozovic, I would like to remind you that
9 on page 7 of your recollections you said about him: "He was considered to
10 be a bit more extremist, inclined towards the Croats, which at that time
11 was not that bad."
12 So that is all the things that you said, that you had some
13 sympathies towards the Croats, that you were sort of inclined towards
14 them. That's what you meant, didn't you?
15 A. It wasn't that bad, because that meant that he could carry out
16 cooperation with them, because the other side did not want to cooperate.
17 Q. This cooperation, I assume, related to the following field that I
18 wish to ask you about right now. As a party, you established a Crisis
19 Staff, didn't you?
20 A. This is this commission for protection and security.
21 Q. Very well. Also, as a party, the SDA formed its own military
22 command; isn't that right?
23 A. That was this commission, all of that. There was no military
24 command. What would you command?
25 Q. As the SDA party, you also made a war plan, didn't you?
1 A. I don't know. Make a war plan? Perhaps there was some kind of a
2 plan for these defence preparations.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I would kindly ask the Registrar to
4 provide us with -- actually, two documents, D3/4 ter and D2/4 ter. These
5 are documents related to municipality military headquarters, and it was
6 admitted, I don't know, is it ID or exhibit?
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. They are identified only.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: These were numbered for identification only, yes.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, could you be so kind to put on the ELMO
11 English version of document with the title "Municipality Crisis Staff"?
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, do you recognise this document?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Would you please read out who the president of this municipality
15 Crisis Staff is?
16 A. President Sulejman Tihic.
17 Q. Would you please explain to me what this number is to the right of
18 your name?
19 A. This is my home telephone number.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Mr. Usher, would you please be so kind
21 to put on the ELMO the other document, "Municipality Military
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in this document, the "Municipality
24 Military Headquarters," will you read out the first name on the list of
1 A. Sulejman Tihic.
2 Q. And on the right-hand side, what is that?
3 A. The telephone number.
4 Q. Do you recognise this document?
5 A. You will really have to ask Alija Fitozovic about these documents,
6 because I really do not know enough. And this military headquarters --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please don't overlap the witness. I know it's very
8 tempting because you're speaking the same language. Do remember that the
9 answers have to be completed and interpreted.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, I tried to
11 speed up things and proceedings. Mr. Tihic would like to explain
12 something. I said no, I am speaking just about this document, end of
14 JUDGE MUMBA: But you have to remember that the record has to make
16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The record has to make sense. So allow the
18 answer to be completed and interpreted before you stop him. You wait, and
19 if you don't want that answer, you know what to do. But always avoid
20 overlapping, please.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I will take that in mind.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tihic. Mr. Tihic, let us recall
23 with regard to this subject, you say on page 7 of your recollections, the
24 following: "At the same time, in the party we established a Crisis Staff,
25 a command, and we established the necessary documents such as the war plan
1 and the like."
2 Do you stand by this?
3 A. All of this was on paper. Alija compiled these papers, but then
4 you did not have people, you did not have weapons to back this up. All of
5 this was on paper, you know. The Crisis Staff looked into the political
6 situation. Alija made these papers concerning some kind of military
7 staff, but you didn't have the people and you didn't have the weapons, and
8 you have to know that. Because he was some kind of a reserve officer, and
9 then he made these plans, just like this advice came from Sarajevo, by way
10 of advice. But specifically, nothing. Specifically, zero, nothing.
11 Q. I think that your headquarters in Sarajevo and the high leadership
12 of your party, and I'm specifically referring to Mr. Alija Izetbegovic,
13 president at the time -- that is to say that the top leadership of the
14 party absolutely knew and practically organised and supported this arming
15 of party units; isn't that right?
16 A. No. We made an effort to have all of this go through the staff of
17 the Territorial Defence, especially where this was possible, and in most
18 municipalities, this was possible. Where it was not possible, these
19 crisis staffs were established that were supposed to take things into
20 account. In Samac, Serbs were armed to the teeth, and Croats were getting
21 weapons from Croatia, and we were there on our own. There were 7 per cent
22 of us in Samac. We were sitting there. We were establishing some kind of
23 crisis staffs, working out some papers, but there was no force behind
24 that, no military organisation and no weapons, you see. We were 7 per
25 cent there, Serbs were 41 per cent, and Croats were 44 per cent.
1 Q. Very well. Then, Mr. Tihic, let me remind you that on page 36 of
2 your recollections, you said the following: "Truth to tell -- "
3 Actually, you were talking about what happened in 1991 in Igman: "On that
4 occasion, Alija Izetbegovic tacitly agreed with local party arming." You
5 said this on page 36.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. It is too fast
7 for the interpreters.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, slow down. The interpreters have to
9 interrupt what you are reading.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, interpreters, I'm
12 Q. [Interpretation] On page 67 of your recollections, in the context
13 of this event, you said the following:
14 "In a certain way, he said" - you were referring to Alija - "that
15 we should carry out preparations, but he did not say anything specific
16 about how this should be carried out, nor did the party have the right
17 kind of organisation in this direction. However, after a few meetings at
18 the regional board, I realised that certain activities were underway.
19 However, all of that was at a rather low level and mostly individual."
20 Did you write that?
21 A. Yes, I wrote that, and that's the way it is. However, I have to
22 tell the Trial Chamber as well -- you see, these recollections were
23 written in an abbreviated form, in a vocabulary that does not sufficiently
24 explain things, because these recollections were not made for a court of
25 law. Had I known that I was doing this for a court of law, I would have
1 been very careful with the wording; I would have paid attention to each
2 and every word and sentence. So some of the wording is rather harsh and
3 does not involve the kind of finesse in terms of how things really
4 happened. So please, let us not stick to this, to these recollections, as
5 if it were the holy gospel. That's basically the way things were, but
6 this requires quite a bit of explanation.
7 Q. Rest assured, Mr. Tihic. This is precisely an opportunity for you
8 to explain it, and that's why I'm asking these questions. Don't think
9 that anybody is abiding by this as by the holy gospel, as you had put it.
10 A. That's why I have this need to speak a bit at length.
11 Q. That's all right. Just go ahead.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, don't be rude to the witness.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: And may I remind the --
15 MR. PANTELIC: It was not my intention, Your Honour, absolutely.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: I've been reminded by the Registry that the
17 documents D2/4 ter and D3/4 ter, and their English translations, were
18 actually admitted into evidence on the 17th of October, and this is
19 important to note, especially for the answers that were given.
20 You can proceed.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
22 Q. [Interpretation] And now in this stage of local party arming, it
23 was my understanding that you organised yourselves from a political and
24 military point of view, or rather, your organisation did; isn't that
1 A. Well, that's the way it's written.
2 Q. Thank you. So to that end, you had certain contacts with the
3 representatives in Slavonia, the representatives of Croatia, with regard
4 to this arming; isn't that right?
5 A. Some people did conduct talks in Slavonski Brod with regard to the
6 general situation, and I described that there, how these talks went on and
7 what the result of these talks was.
8 Q. The essence is that activities were underway and that arms were
9 being brought in; yes or no?
10 A. The way it says over there.
11 Q. Thank you. And explosives were being brought too; right?
12 A. Yes. Yes, and it was not used, as far as I know.
13 Q. Do you remember approximately how much of explosives?
14 A. I can't really remember, and it probably says so there in the
15 recollections, that I was against explosives being brought in, but they
16 were brought in nevertheless.
17 Q. Was it a hundred kilogrammes or something like that?
18 A. Actually, you have to take a look at this.
19 Q. Mr. Tihic, I'm not looking at your recollections; I'm looking at
20 your witness statement dated the 22nd and the 23rd of September, 1994, and
21 the 31st of October, 1994. In the B/C/S version it is page 9, and in the
22 English version -- [In English] English version, there is no ERN number.
23 It's page 8.
24 [Interpretation] You said the following to the Prosecutor in that
1 "On one occasion before the war, Izet Izetbegovic and Alija
2 Fitozovic had been talking to some commanders in Slavonski Brod. The next
3 day they said they were expecting 100 to 200 kilos of explosives."
4 And then further on you said the following within the same
6 "Fitozovic got the explosives from the Croats and he signed for
7 the receipt of these explosives."
8 Do you abide by the statement you made then?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. PANTELIC: It is almost time for a break, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's 11.00.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I have another three lines of questioning, so maybe
14 it's a good time to have a break. Thank you.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take our break and resume the
16 proceedings at 11.30 hours.
17 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, you're continuing.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: You have half an hour.
22 MR. PANTELIC: You mean more?
23 JUDGE MUMBA: You tell the Trial Chamber.
24 MR. PANTELIC: You mean net or gross? Because we have to
25 introduce some evidences.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yesterday, you said you needed maybe two hours.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Net. I have it in translation. In transcript, two
3 and a half, maybe three.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, no, no.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I know the page.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yesterday?
7 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. It was day before yesterday.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, because when we first calculated the dates, I
9 was generous to say seven hours in total.
10 MR. PANTELIC: But my friends were a little bit shorter, so I use
11 their time.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: But we have already got eight hours actually in
14 MR. PANTELIC: But, Your Honour, gross or net, without all these
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Continue, Mr. Pantelic.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. First of all, if you permit me, there
18 is a small intervention in the transcript. It's page 38, line 21.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Instead of 67, reference to the page, it should be
21 page 6 and page 7, just for the record.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we left off discussing armaments and
25 arming. I should like you to tell me whether you agree with me that there
1 was a certain type of agreement between the political structures in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the JNA with respect to arming, that all illegal
3 arming should be suppressed and so on. Did you know that?
4 A. Well, there were various agreements.
5 Q. I'm asking you about this particular agreement, if you remember.
6 A. I don't know. I'm not sure.
7 Q. Do you happen to remember a situation or incident linked to an
8 agreement between the republican MUP and the JNA with respect to the
9 organisation of a joint control of checkpoints, manning of checkpoints and
10 so on? Do you remember that?
11 A. Well, I do remember there was some kind of agreement.
12 Q. All right. You, as the SDA party in Bosanski Samac, were you
13 opposed to the stationing of JNA units and the republican MUP as a mixed
14 control at the Uzarija point, yes or no? Were you in favour or were you
16 A. We were against. We did not wish the JNA units to be stationed
17 there, but we were in favour of having the republican MUP stationed there.
18 Q. If I may, Mr. Tihic, I should like to remind you of this event.
19 In fact, it's an event which you describe on page 12 of your
20 recollections, and you're talking about those checkpoints, and you state
21 the following: "We said that we had nothing against having them in
22 Crkvina because, ultimately, that already existed, according to the
23 agreement between the republican MUP and the TZB JNA, while we were
24 against the stationing at Uzazrija. The reason for this was the reaction
25 of the Croatian side, which could close off the bridge, and for Bosnia,
1 that is its only way out into Europe."
2 And then you go on to state: "In fact, the real reason was that
3 we knew full well that weapons were being transported across the bridge to
4 Bosnia, so that a checkpoint at Uzazrija would prevent the import of
6 That's what you wrote, didn't you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you clarify one point? When you say "we," who is that
9 "we"? What do you mean by "we"? Who are they?
10 A. I knew, not in detail, of course, and not fully, but as all the
11 bridges across the Sava had been blown up, that was the only bridge by
12 which something could be introduced into Bosnia, brought into Bosnia, and
13 among other things, weapons, too. That was common knowledge. The JNA
14 knew that. Everybody knew that that was the only way you could get into
15 Bosnia, because everything else had been destroyed, all the bridges had
16 been destroyed. That was no secret. It was common knowledge. Trucks and
17 so on. Now, why the JNA insisted upon that point is that they knew that
18 it was via that bridge that weapons and other logistics were being brought
19 into Bosnia, that way. And Bosnia was full of soldiers of the JNA. So
20 everything coming in was restricted, because there -- and limited, because
21 there was only that one bridge at Bosanski Samac across the river Sava.
22 Q. Well, my question was a simple one: Who did you mean when you
23 said "we"?
24 A. Well, I don't know what I said --
25 Q. You said "we."
1 A. Well, we, everyone. I'm speaking in the plural. So we from the
2 SDA and the SDS and the HDZ, all of us knew; we knew that the bridge was
3 used for those purposes as well.
4 Q. Let me remind you of one point. On page 11 of your recollections,
5 you stated the following:
6 "For the most part, we would pull the wool over each other's
7 eyes. The only concrete demand and proposal was that we, that is to say,
8 the SDA, should agree that the army be stationed at the Crkvina checkpoint
9 and at Uzarija."
10 And then we come to the second passage that I read out, where you
11 say, "We had nothing against it being in Crkvina.".
12 A. Now, you've just reminded me that it was the meeting in Obudovac,
13 so the "we" there are Izet and myself. You extracted it, pulled it out of
14 its context. But quite obviously, it was the Obudovac meeting with
15 Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic. So when I say "we" in that context, I mean
16 Izet and myself, because we were the only two there, so I mean the two of
17 us. But other people were aware of that as well.
18 Q. Yes. We heard about that. But as you said "we," the SDA, I
19 wanted to clarify that point. This brings me to my next question. At the
20 time you were president of the SDA, that's right, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And what position did Mr. Izetbegovic hold in the party at that
24 A. He was my deputy.
25 Q. So to all intents and purposes, this means the two leading people
1 of the SDA party in Bosanski Samac; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. [No interpretation]
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 MR. PANTELIC: He got an English translation.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: We also didn't get the interpretation in English.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English now properly, on the
8 proper channel?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could you listen to what you wrote on pages 14 and 15 with respect
12 to the organisation of the TO in Bosanski Samac and the process with
13 respect to the contacts with Mr. Jerko Doko, the minister at the time, and
14 the procedure, and how the TO was actually organised in Bosanski Samac.
15 That's my next question. And you state the following:
16 "Within the preparations for defence, it is important to stress
17 that we, that is to say, the HDZ and SDA (Mato Nujic, Filip Evic, Izet
18 Izetbegovic and myself), sent a proposal for the formation of a TO staff
19 for Bosanski Samac. And then the Defence minister, Jerko Doko, and Hasan
20 Efendic, issued a decision on relieving of duty the existing commander and
21 appointed a new one, Marko Bozanovic, and the Chief of Staff, Alija
22 Fitozovic. This move on our part caused dissatisfaction on the Serbian
23 side, because we did it without holding any meeting. We did it at our own
25 Do you remember having said that and do you stand by it?
1 A. I remember it.
2 Q. Do you stand by it?
3 A. Yes, I stand by it.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. There was no meeting, because Mato held further consultations. He
6 was president of the Municipal Assembly, so ask him that. It was our aim
7 to set up a Territorial Defence staff and headquarters. The Bosniaks and
8 others that had these illegal weapons, that it come under the control of
9 the TO, because there was the danger of having these weapons abused.
10 Q. Thank you. We heard about that. But I wanted to know about this
12 Mr. Tihic, this brings me to another question at this point. You
13 are a highly respected lawyer, you have a great deal of experience, and
14 your professionalism means that you were a legalist, were you not?
15 A. Yes. That is why I insisted that a staff and headquarters of the
16 Territorial Defence be set up.
17 Q. And like any other legalist, you would put forward the thesis and
18 idea that within the frameworks -- within legal frameworks, according to
19 the constitution and the law and rules and regulations, everything must be
20 within those frameworks if a country wishes to call itself civilised; is
21 that right?
22 A. Yes. Of course, bearing in mind the prevailing conditions and
23 situation, and you choose the lesser of two evils in a situation of that
25 Q. Aha, I see.
1 A. I thought it was beneficial for Samac to have a Territorial
2 Defence so that the forces, being Croatian and Bosniak, should be under
3 the cap of the TO staff as a legitimate organ of the Republic. And the
4 Territorial Defence staff was a constitutional category, in fact.
5 According to the agreement, according to the agreement between the SDA and
6 SDS, the Chief of Staff should have been a Croat, because that position
7 should have been given to a Croat, because a Serb was the national defence
9 Q. That was not my question, Mr. Tihic, so let's move on. This means
10 that you were willing to give up your principle of legalism if the goal
11 justified the means. So were you a machiavellist; yes or no?
12 A. Well, I can't say yes or no.
13 Q. Well, if you say you were not in favour of a legal procedure but
14 wanted a pragmatic approach, then I can conclude that sometimes you are a
15 legalist, at other times you are not.
16 A. It wasn't up to me to decide; it was up to the president of the
17 Municipal Assembly.
18 Q. Thank you. May we agree, then, that the situation in Samac,
19 Mr. Tihic - and I'm speaking about April 1992 and onwards - was very
20 difficult, in view of the war, the combat action, and the circumstances
22 A. Yes, it was exceptionally difficult.
23 Q. I think we can also agree that Samac, in fact, was under siege,
24 under an encirclement. Was that right, in a wartime encirclement?
25 A. Well, Vukovar was close by, there was fighting going on, there
1 were incidents in Brod, so this general atmosphere and currents around
2 Samac, the conflicts and so on. Samac was in the middle somewhere.
3 Q. To assist the Trial Chamber, would you please -- and I need the
4 usher's assistance. Could you take up your pointer, please, Mr. Tihic,
5 and change your headsets and use the other microphone so that we can
6 demonstrate to the Trial Chamber how this looks, geographically speaking?
7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have no objection to the
8 line of cross-examination here --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio?
10 MR. DI FAZIO: As I said, no objection to the line of
11 cross-examination, but I think the Chamber would be assisted if
12 Mr. Pantelic were to be a bit more specific about this wartime
13 encirclement of Samac. If he were able to specify if he's talking about
14 the town, if he's talking about the municipality, if he's talking about
15 the night of the 16th and 17th, and if he's able to specify who is
16 encircling the town, then that might be of assistance, too, to the
17 witness, because at this stage it seems to me that the questions are
18 somewhat vague, and if this evidence is to be useful, we have got to know
19 precisely what period of time we are talking about, who is doing the
20 encircling. Is he talking about the town or the municipality as well?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Because, of course, they are crucial features of
23 the evidential scenario, and it's not appropriate at this stage to speak
24 in generalities.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber agrees, Mr. Pantelic.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Me, too.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Please particularise as asked by Mr. di Fazio.
3 MR. PANTELIC: I agree, too. Thank you, my friend, for these
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, can you hear me? Excellent. We are
6 discussing the period from April 1992, as I've already said, onwards. So
7 we are focusing on 1992 and the Samac municipality, not the town, the
8 municipality of Samac, and it is under an encirclement. Around it we have
9 the HVO units, the Croatian army from Croatia, the BH army, and other
10 military and paramilitary units. So all around Samac. Opposite we have
11 Slavonia, Croatia. To the left, we have Brod, Odzak and that whole
12 region, Modrica, Gradacac on the south.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: May we have what are the other military formations?
14 MR. PANTELIC: Paramilitary formations.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So that's what we are talking about. So could
16 you please indicate, to the best of your knowledge and recollections, what
17 the situation was like? Could you please point out the Samac
18 municipality, to begin with, and then tell me who was where, to the best
19 of your recollections?
20 A. First of all, it is not correct that Samac was encircled.
21 Gradacac, the BH army, Orasje, the HVO forces, Odzak. I have to stress
22 that. But it is true that Samac was full of JNA soldiers, the whole
23 municipality was full of the Yugoslav People's Army. But it is true that
24 opposite Samac, we did have the Croatian army. The Croatian army was
1 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber what region that is?
2 A. Bosanski Samac is the confluence of Sava and Bosna River. And
3 there was the Croatian army opposite, across the river, but all the rest
4 was the JNA, no other armies, no paramilitary units, nobody else but the
5 Yugoslav People's Army. On this side of the Sava River, we did have the
6 Croatian army and all their formations and units, but on the Bosnian side,
7 there were no other paramilitary units.
8 Q. Well, I'm in a real predicament here. First of all, you say that
9 it was a very difficult situation, fighting on all sides. Was the JNA
10 fighting against itself?
11 A. Well, when I said the situation was difficult, I meant the general
12 situation. There was mining in town, out of town. I'm talking about
13 Vukovar, which was 50 kilometres away, 70 or -- to Samac where the war had
14 flared up. Then there was Bosanski Brod. There was a war there. That's
15 what I was thinking.
16 Q. Who was at war in Bosanski Brod, for example?
17 A. Well, the Yugoslav People's Army on the one hand, and on the other
18 side, the HVO and probably the HV.
19 Q. Could you point out the Bosanski Brod region on how far west is it
20 from Samac?
21 A. I think it is 55 kilometres away, west of Samac.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, remember pausing, please.
23 MR. PANTELIC: This is a war situation, so I'm really focused on
25 JUDGE MUMBA: This is not a battlefield. This is a courtroom.
1 And the interpreters are stressed. Please.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
3 Q. [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Tihic. Tell us about Doboj.
4 Were there any military operations in Doboj at that time? Had the war
5 reached Doboj in April 1992?
6 A. As far as I know, no, not before the attack on Samac.
7 Q. What about Modrica?
8 A. In Modrica, there had been some things going on there. The JNA
9 entered Modrica, as far as I recall, with their tanks, and then later on,
10 they left, they withdrew, but there wasn't any --
11 Q. Who did the JNA fight with there, which units?
12 A. As far as I know, they just entered the town of Modrica.
13 Q. There was no war in Modrica?
14 A. As far as I remember, there was no shooting.
15 Q. What about the Gradacac region, south of Samac? Were there any
16 military operations there?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What about towards Brcko? Any operations there?
19 A. As far as I know, no.
20 Q. Thank you. You may resume your seat. I have other questions for
21 you. Mr. Tihic, can you hear me now?
22 A. I hear you.
23 Q. Very well. Do you know about the corridor military operation? It
24 was called "corridor"?
25 A. Well, I heard something about the name of "corridor" under
1 different notions.
2 Q. I'm asking you about the military sense, in the military sense,
3 the military war operation called "corridor"?
4 A. I know that the Serb side wanted to have this corridor, to
5 establish this corridor with Serbia, Krajina and Posavina to Serbia.
6 Whether it was a military operation and what its name was, I can't say,
7 but there was always a war around the corridor.
8 Q. So can we agree that the army of Republika Srpska organised a
9 military action, military drive, called "corridor"?
10 A. I don't know. What time do -- what period do you have in mind?
11 Q. I'm talking about the summer of 1992.
12 A. Well, I don't know. I was in a camp then.
13 Q. Did you hear after you left the camp?
14 A. I did hear that it was a large battlefield and that there was
15 fighting going on all the time. At one point, it was the JNA, then the
16 Army of Republika Srpska, but there was fighting over there all the time.
17 Q. Very good. Excellent. What did you hear? Who was the Army of
18 Republika Srpska fighting against at that time, if you heard? If you
19 didn't hear anything about that, doesn't matter, no problem.
20 A. The Yugoslav People's Army at the time was fighting from the Sava
21 area. There were the HVO and HV units, as far as I knew -- know, and on
22 the other side, there was the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
23 but that was the time when the army had already been established. It
24 could have been June, July, as you say, the summer. And the whole --
25 during the whole war, the fiercest fighting was precisely there.
1 Q. Thank you. That's precisely what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Could I have a second, please?
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, go ahead.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in your professional experience, while
7 you were a judge, was anybody able to influence you in making a court
8 decision? Were you independent as a judge?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: What has this got to do with these proceedings?
10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely in two questions, you will see my point.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: He won't answer that question. It won't be allowed.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, in the legal system, the president of
14 the municipality, can he call a judge and tell him what kind of judgement
15 to come up with?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Can the president of the municipal assembly call a prosecutor and
18 say, "You are to make such and such a decision with respect to detention,
19 setting a term of detention"?
20 A. No.
21 Q. In Samac, in April 1992, a municipal court existed, did it not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And there was the public prosecutor, was there not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And an investigating judge?
1 A. Within the frameworks of the court.
2 Q. And the court functioned?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. In April 1992, members of the paramilitary units
5 arrested you, that's right, isn't it?
6 A. I was arrested in April. It was a special forces man and one
7 wearing a police uniform, a reserve police uniform or whatever, I'm not
8 quite sure, the two of them.
9 Q. You are talking about the presence of a certain number of
10 paramilitary units from Serbia; is that right?
11 A. Yes. They were units of the Yugoslav People's Army. In fact, I
12 don't know if they were paramilitary units.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. Because they acted jointly together.
15 Q. Thank you. Within the framework of the members of those forces,
16 there were real criminals, weren't there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. One of the main objects -- objectives of criminals in war is to
19 loot and plunder; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In your statement, your September and October 1994 statement to
22 the OTP, you said that you were taken to an office, they didn't know what
23 they would find, they were looking for valuables but couldn't -- weren't
24 able to assess what valuables were. They asked for money and you gave him
25 a total of 6.000 Deutschmarks; is that right?
1 A. That's what they found when they searched.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we proceed, I want a clarification.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: You asked in the paramilitary forces, there would be
5 criminals, something like that, and then you said that -- you asked him,
6 "Within the framework of the members of those forces, there were real
7 criminals, weren't there?" The witness answered yes. "One of the
8 objectives of criminals in war is to loot and plunder." Now, what I want
9 clarification on it, because the forces do include criminals, is it the
10 objectives of those who form such forces, including criminals, for their
11 criminals to loot and plunder, or is it that the criminals on their own go
12 and plunder?
13 MR. PANTELIC: I will pose that question. I will clarify that.
14 Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So you have heard the intervention of the
16 presiding judge. My question was focused on these individuals who went
17 into war as mercenaries or volunteers, whatever you want to call them, but
18 basically these individuals have an individual goal, to plunder; isn't
19 that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Is that enough for clarification?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] During your detention, you must have heard from
25 other compatriots and co-citizens of yours that many of them were
1 plundered, they took their valuables, gold, jewellery, et cetera?
2 A. My brother had to bring an additional 15.000 Deutschmarks so they
3 would release me. They kept interrogating me all the time and asking me
4 for more money, things like that. They asked me to say which people would
5 give money for me.
6 Q. You just mentioned that your brother gave some 15.000. To who and
7 on what occasion?
8 A. When I was in prison, I talked to Lazar Stanisic, and he said to
9 me then that with 20.000 Deutschemark that would be given to someone from
10 these paramilitaries, I think to Crni, that that could make it possible
11 for me to be released. And then I said to him, "Call my brother." And he
12 was in Tisina. That's where he was. And he called him, and then he said
13 to him 15.000, not 20.000, and my brother brought 15.000 to Gradacac.
14 Teodor Djukic, a neighbour of mine, came to Gradacac, took this money,
15 gave it to Lazar Stanisic. Lazar confirmed this to me after the war that
16 he accepted this money, but to no avail. I have known this Lazar, because
17 he was my client when I was a lawyer.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, can I just pose a question to my
20 learned friend from Prosecution to ask him about did they achieve the
21 checking of these documents in the break, so I can proceed with the
22 introduction of this document, or no?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. My colleague was able to proof Mr. Tihic
24 during the morning break in respect of the three documents.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right. So Mr. Pantelic, you can proceed.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Madam President.
2 Q. [Interpretation] You speak about certain activities in Samac: on
3 the one hand, the 4th Detachment, on the other, the SDA, the military
4 formation, and the HDZ. The situation there is very difficult, and you
5 say that there are some members of the Muslim ethnic community from Samac
6 who are members of the 4th Detachment, and that because of that
7 affiliation with the 4th Detachment, certain measures were taken in order
8 to brand them, in a way, in this community; isn't that right? Do you
9 remember that? Do you remember that specific situation?
10 A. We condemned the fact that these people joined the 4th
11 Detachment. We did not believe that this was a good thing. We tried to
12 talk them out of this, because some of them came and talked about what was
13 going on in the 4th Detachment. That's why I can say this to you, what
14 happened at some meetings. They said, well, weapons were distributed, and
15 they were saying this and they were saying that. Because, you see,
16 Muslims were Yugoslav-oriented to a considerable extent and they could not
17 just change overnight. For them, the JNA --
18 Q. What do you mean, they could not change? What do you mean?
19 A. They could not change in terms of turning against Yugoslavia.
20 Q. Who was against Yugoslavia?
21 A. In order to simplify things, the question was whether somebody was
22 for or against Yugoslavia.
23 Q. Thank you. We'll come to that, Mr. Tihic.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Overlapping. Overlapping. Whether or not you don't
25 like the answer, Mr. Pantelic, it has to be interpreted. Please, stop
1 overlapping the witness.
2 MR. PANTELIC: I like these answers, believe me. The answers are
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour pleases, I can't tell from the
5 transcript, but listening to it, the exchange, it seems to me that some
6 answers are not being finished as well, and that's another question that's
7 concerning me.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Otherwise I'm going to be burdened with
10 re-examination that's not going to end, and I want to avoid that. If the
11 witness can finish his answer, very often I won't have to re-examine on
12 it, so ---
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is clear.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Tihic, that's right; it did not enter the transcript here.
16 When we were talking about this, when I asked you who was against
17 Yugoslavia, and you started your answer and then there was this
18 overlapping with the interpretation. So then who was against Yugoslavia?
19 Let me help you. Was it perhaps the SDA and the HDZ?
20 A. The SDA was not against Yugoslavia, you see. Slovenia and Croatia
21 were in favour of getting out of Yugoslavia.
22 Q. I do apologise, but we're speaking about the 4th Detachment.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, I think I'll put in some rules. You
24 face the Bench, and the witness should also face the Bench. I think that
25 will stop the exchange.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much. Your Honours --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Because we have microphones, so ...
3 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, please be so kind. We were talking
5 about the 4th Detachment; we were not talking about Slovenia or Croatia.
6 Please be so kind, just within this activity in Samac, and in relation to
7 the 4th Detachment, please tell us: In this community, in Samac, in the
8 community in Samac, who was against Yugoslavia? Please.
9 A. In town, in Samac itself, there were very few people who were
10 against Yugoslavia. The SDA was not against Yugoslavia, but it was
11 against that kind of Yugoslavia that attempts were being made from Serbia
12 to impose through the JNA, and it was the 4th Detachment in Samac that was
13 an extended arm of Serb policy and of the JNA. That's the way we took
14 it. We were not against Yugoslavia.
15 Q. Very well. Please, Mr. Tihic, since this is how you took this in
16 Bosanski Samac, there were certain condemnations of Muslims who were
17 members of the 4th Detachment, and in that respect certain leaflets were
18 made, and they were distributed in town and also they were posted in
19 various places.
20 A. I am aware that there were some leaflets.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I have a leaflet here with the list
23 of domestic traitors. I have original here. It will be good -- I
24 provided these documents to the Prosecution. The original can be put in
25 front of the witness, just to --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one? Is it the ones we had already or is that
2 a new document?
3 MR. PANTELIC: New document, yes. There is enough copy for Trial
4 Chamber and also for the rest.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: May I also see the original, please?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. Excuse me. Excuse me, my friend.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I notice that the
8 translation doesn't include -- there's a little bit of brief handwriting
9 on the back. I don't know what that means, but perhaps Mr. Pantelic could
10 assist us with getting the witness to identify what's written in
11 handwriting on the back.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: That is on the original?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: On the original.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Because -- of the Serbo-Croat?
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is. It's just --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the copies we have don't have any
17 writing on the back.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: It's handwriting on -- I don't know if you can see
19 from here, but it's handwriting on the back of the document. It's just
20 two lines. I don't know what it means, but if that could be clarified.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps Mr. Pantelic can explain whether the
22 handwriting at the back should be excluded, if you can look at the
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Maybe it's not a bad idea. Let me check. I
25 also don't know what's on the back.
1 Well, it should be excluded. These are the list of medicines, you
2 know, against the headache and one -- the other is for the injuries.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you cross it out, yes, with pen?
4 MR. PANTELIC: Can I --?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, at the back.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I don't know who --
7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, before that occurs --
8 MR. PANTELIC: I don't know who --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: -- we don't know what the -- I've received this
10 document just a few days ago.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Did it have the writing at the back?
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't know. I got a copy of it --
13 MR. PANTELIC: This is original.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: -- some days ago, and I don't recall seeing, on the
15 copy that I had, any handwriting on the back. It may be that it's
16 completely innocuous material, the handwriting on the back, but I think we
17 should preserve it, because the Prosecution position at this stage is
18 this: We've been supplied with a document. We have no evidence at all as
19 to the origin of the document, where it comes from, how it was created.
20 For all I know, that little bit of handwriting might be important. It's
21 most unlikely, but it might be. So I think it would be safer -- the safer
22 course would be for us to just preserve the original as it is.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: As it is. Okay. We will have it marked for
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And I'd ask -- that brings me to
1 another point. Because of these considerations, I would ask that it
2 simply be marked for identification at this stage rather than --
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because we are having this problem almost all
4 the time. The translation itself into English is not official. This case
5 went on at pre-trial stage for a long time. Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I know
6 that your client --
7 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, absolutely, you're right, but you
8 know, it's an ongoing process, you know. I can assure that there are not
9 so many documents, but still, from time to time it rises.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but it is important to comply with the Rules,
11 that the documents must be translated in one of the official languages,
12 and where the Trial Chamber is using one or the other in the official
13 language the Trial Chamber is using.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Because, you see, the problem here is this is
16 evidence we're dealing with, and the Prosecution are entitled to have it
17 in its entirety. Because it's no use the Prosecution having the proper,
18 the formal translation long after the witness has left. What do they do?
19 They will recall the witness? We can't have that. It will cause
20 confusion in the proceedings.
21 MR. PANTELIC: I agree. I agree.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will stop any document which does
23 not have official translation in English, all right? This is the last
24 one. It will be marked for identification only, subject to what the
25 Prosecution will say after they are fully informed about the document, and
1 that is getting the official English translation.
2 MR. PANTELIC: That brings us, Madam President, to another
3 problem. We, as Defence, we don't have official Translation Service here
4 within the Tribunal. So what we can do, we can make an official draft and
5 then we can provide an official Translation Unit with the documents, and
6 then, according to the, you know, schedule here, they can give us back.
7 More or less, it takes at least one month, up to two. So that's really a
8 serious situation.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but this is a case which has been in pre-trial
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but -- absolutely. But this is a short
12 document which is only with several -- so sometimes it's more practical --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not the point. The point is not that it's a
14 short document. At what stage was the document obtained, and what steps
15 have the Defence taken to have it officially translated? Have they
16 informed the Prosecution of their problem of having it officially
17 translated and their intention of using it in the proceedings?
18 MR. PANTELIC: Well, maybe that's a good idea. We could approach
19 to Prosecution, in our way of cooperation, give them, actually, B/C/S
20 version, because they have a better --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. You see --
22 MR. PANTELIC: And then we can --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. Let me stop that before it goes
24 anywhere. It is not the duty of the Prosecution to translate documents of
25 the Defence; strictly, it's not. So you follow the procedures, you have
1 problems at pre-trial stage. There was a senior legal officer, there was
2 a pre-trial Judge. Always bring these problems to the attention of the
3 Trial Chamber so that we avoid delays during the trial. The reason we
4 have pre-trial stage is to make the trial go smoothly.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Everybody knows what the evidence is from each side,
7 everybody knows what documents will be used in the proceedings. Any other
8 document which has no official translation will not be used in these
9 proceedings --
10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: -- except those which we have already discussed and
12 talked about and we are waiting for official translation. Any new
13 document from now on. And this goes to all the Defence counsel. It is
14 getting out of hand. The proceedings will not be fair to the
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. PANTELIC: Can I have a second to confer, Madam President?
18 Can I have a second just --
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And when you are consulting, you should also
20 tell the Trial Chamber when you came across this document.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Good. Thank you.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honours, the situation is as follows:
24 We were obliged to give the Prosecution a list of our evidences which we
25 want to tender into evidence during the course of trial. We complied with
1 that. The ongoing procedure about the translation is more or less here.
2 I mean, there is a lot of documents. But in specific case when the
3 Defence is in possession of a newly discovered document --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 MR. PANTELIC: -- that's another problem, because in this
6 particular situation, we are in, I would say, position not to have enough
7 time to obtain official translations from the Translation Unit, in this
8 specific and unique situation. So what I would respectfully suggest: We
9 could go from case to case to explain what actually was this
11 That brings me to the answer to Your Honour Judge Williams that
12 Defence obtained virtually this document last week, last week. So that's
13 something which is absolutely new for the Defence. And given the fact
14 that we have a certain lines of questions and ideas, you know, we decided
15 to use that for this cross-examination. So that's the basis of the
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Provided that for any newly discovered
18 document, the Prosecution is informed immediately.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Pending whatever steps you are taking to have it
21 formally translated.
22 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I understand.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have another problem
2 here with these documents. We have a problem with the order in which the
3 Prosecution witnesses are taken. If we find out on a certain day, or a
4 day or two earlier, about a certain witness -- for example, such a witness
5 was not in the monthly schedule at all, so the prepared documents that we
6 have already disclosed to the Prosecutor have to be prepared in terms of
7 the translation as well. So that's an additional problem, like the
8 problem we have with the current witness today. We find out only a day or
9 two before the witness is actually called, and this has -- for example,
10 these documents were already provided to the Office of the Prosecutor, but
11 they were not translated yet. For example, we give them to the
12 Translation Service 15 days earlier. So please bear that in mind, in view
13 of the documents that have already been disclosed to the Prosecution a
14 month or two or three ago, or even a year ago.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is an exception to the Rule, of course.
16 Because, like I said even earlier on, that if you have them in
17 Serbo-Croat, you disclose them to the Prosecution and inform them that you
18 are making your efforts to have them officially translated. That is
19 fine. Because then the Prosecution will be able to confirm. They've
20 had -- then, you know, the problem is not there. And then we wait for the
21 official translation. Because one hopes that once the Prosecution have
22 got a document, they will use their own efforts to understand that
23 document, to get instructions from the relevant witnesses before the
24 witness comes on the -- comes for cross-examination, at least.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree with you, but I hope
1 that the OTP will understand us, that they do not complain that we give
2 them translations so late. And we submit the documents in the original,
3 but then it takes time to have them translated.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the Prosecution is listening to all this
5 conversation. They know what the problem is.
6 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, I would like a
8 clarification, because I am obviously misinterpreting you.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: This is the situation. When Mr. Hasan Bicic - I
11 don't know whether you remember that particular incident, let's call it
12 like that - when Mr. Hasan Bicic was brought here, I informed the
13 prosecutors that I have obtained some statements of Hasan Bicic and other
14 witnesses. It was almost a month ago, 25 something days. At that
15 particular moment, I did the unofficial translation because the time was
16 very short, and I explained that to this Honourable Trial Chamber. At the
17 same day, I gave all the statements for the official translation. I
18 received them just two days before yesterday -- the day before yesterday,
19 and I have given them to the Prosecutor.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: The situation is this. So I have complied
22 immediately with the Rules. The moment I received it, I gave it to the
23 Prosecutor in a Serbo-Croatian version. I gave it for the official
24 translation, but 25 or one month has elapsed. Within that time, some of
25 the witnesses have been here.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: If I correctly understood Your Honours, you are
3 right now -- you are not -- you're right now not giving us the opportunity
4 to use such documents if they are not officially translated.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: No, if they were not disclosed to the Prosecution.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. That is what I misinterpreted. Thank so
7 much. I'm sorry.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: We all know about the delays in the translation of
9 the documents. The unit is quite overloaded. But diligent steps should
10 be taken.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that. Thank you, Your Honours.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we proceed.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, I would like to give you original to
15 give it to Mr. Tihic, please, of this document.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has agreed that the words at
17 the back will not be crossed out for the points raised by the Prosecution.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the numbers, please, for identification
21 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be D21/1 ter ID and the English
22 translation will be D21/1 ID.
23 MR. PANTELIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you may proceed.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Tihic, are you familiar with this document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the author of this document?
4 A. Possibly. It was the people -- our people from the SDA who did
5 this. This was more on the propaganda side.
6 Q. Will you agree with me that the persons who are on this list -- or
7 let's take it one by one. Topcagic, Fadil, was he a member of the 4th
8 Detachment, to the best of your knowledge?
9 A. I think all of them were.
10 Q. Oh, I see. All of them were. Could you please give me your
11 comment on these nicknames? Could you please read the nicknames? Maybe
12 they are not nicknames. Maybe they are descriptions about these persons
13 that were written by your people from the SDA. Could you please read
15 A. First of all, by these names we have the real nicknames of these
16 persons. For example, Topcagic, Fadil, nicknamed Brada. Djuheric, Avdo,
17 nicknamed Coc. So those are their real nicknames. That is what they were
18 called in town. And now they added this, the rest. Basically they were
19 overdoing it, exaggerating it.
20 Q. Would you please read this to me, what your people from the SDA
21 wrote for these people, wrote about these people?
22 A. Topcagic, Fadil, Chetnik duke, Vojvoda. Djuheric, Avdo,
23 first-class butcher.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't know if Mr.
25 Pantelic wants to ask this question from the point of view of emphasis,
1 but is there any need for the witness to read it out? We all read. We
2 can see what it says, and the defendants can see what it says.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: I think he wants to emphasise a point.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. If that's the point of it, then I'll
5 withdraw my objection in those circumstances.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So Mr. Tihic, you don't have to read the names. Let us just speed
9 up the process. Please just read what the people of your party wrote what
10 they called them. Chetnik duke, Vojvoda, you read that. First-class
11 butcher, you read that. Just read those, okay? And then let's proceed.
12 A. Second-class butcher, sniper, assistant butcher, fool,
13 hand-grenader, machine-gunner, ideologue, carnivores.
14 Q. And the text below?
15 A. "The list of other traitors of the Muslim people will follow in
16 the next announcement. We invite all the misguided members of this unit
17 to quit the detachment by the 6th of April, 1992, at the latest, because
18 after that, they will be tried by the Bosnian people. Free Bosnia."
19 Q. Thank you. Can we agree, since you say that this was done by your
20 people from the party -- or, actually, let me ask you before this: Do you
21 know specifically who did this from your party?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Very well. Can we agree that the appearance of this kind of a
24 leaflet in town actually was a serious reason for concern and anxiety
25 among the people who are mentioned here, in terms of their own safety?
1 Can you agree with me in this?
2 A. No. I could not fully agree on that.
3 Q. Thank you. So for you, actually, this is a benign joke?
4 A. For me, it is a misguided joke. It is not benign, but it's
5 misguided and also it's an exaggeration.
6 Q. But I understand that at the end of this pamphlet there was a
7 direct threat.
8 A. Well, not as direct as all that. It says that they will be
9 judged, sentenced. Doesn't say that they -- tried. That they would be
10 tried, and not that they would be harmed.
11 Q. Can we agree with the following: That bearing in mind the general
12 atmosphere at the end of March and beginning of April and the inflammatory
13 atmosphere, where passions were high, that pamphlets of this kind would
14 fan the flames and lead to an even worse situation? Can we agree with
16 A. No, we can't.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher. You can get this original
18 for the registrar and also the other ones.
19 Can I have a second? Sorry.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Tihic, let's move on to another area of work of your party.
24 You confirmed yesterday that there were certain contacts that took place
25 at the level of the main board of the SDA party with respect to the
1 international activities and a solution to the crisis in Bosnia, and I
2 have in mind the Lisbon agreement, first and foremost.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Furthermore, I think we can agree with the fact that there were
5 some party activities at the level of the region, the district, in Doboj;
6 is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I have a document here. I don't know who the author of it is and
9 whether it has anything to do with you, so I should like to ask you to
10 take a look at it, to comment, and then we can see.
11 MR. PANTELIC: That was a document that yesterday I practically --
12 my intention was to deal with. So I have only, almost illegible
13 handwriting in B/C/S, and I have original document. So I would like --
14 probably my friend from Prosecution discussed about this document with the
15 witness. So also I --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Which documents are these? You're saying you
17 provided them.
18 MR. PANTELIC: These are the minutes, handwriting document, and
19 they probably discussed that during the break. I have the original here,
20 so they can inspect this original.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes, yes, if the Prosecution can
23 MR. PANTELIC: These are the copies.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I wanted the Prosecution to see them first and
25 then confirm with the Trial Chamber that these are the documents we are
1 dealing with.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. We've received copies. I've seen the
4 JUDGE MUMBA: And these are the ones on which you got instructions
5 from Mr. Tihic?
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Again, our position is that we would object
7 to their full admission into evidence at this stage. Certainly, being
8 marked for identification is another matter.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I also should point out that -- perhaps for the
11 benefit of my learned friends from the Defence, that one of the concerns
12 of the Prosecution is the origin of these documents, not just this one
13 that is now being put in front of the witness but, for example, the
14 list-of-traitors document. It may be that they will have further evidence
15 to provide to the Prosecution that could go some way to defusing the
16 situation and making it easier for us to lift our objections to the full
17 admission of these documents. So that's a general matter. More
18 specifically, we don't have any actual English translation for this
19 particular document at all. I don't think the Chamber has one either.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: No. We don't have that. That's a problem. And the
21 point of -- the point pointed out by the Prosecution, the authors, the
22 origins, because this criminal trial isn't just going to use any piece of
23 paper picked from anywhere.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Pantelic.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, the chain of custody, as usual, the source
1 and the report, like they are obliged to provide us with a report about
2 the variant A and B. So we are very well aware.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Now, on this particular document, the one in
4 longhand writing, where do you say you obtained it from? Where did you
5 obtain it from?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Through my Defence team, through my investigators
7 on the field. Yes, we can give the report. It's no problem.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. It's because the Trial Chamber is
9 supposed to know before the document is used in the proceedings. This is
10 why I am asking.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, they were on the field in Bosanski Samac, and
12 I was supplied with this document but, as I said, I cannot be 100 per cent
13 sure that this document is related to Mr. Tihic. So it's a kind of
14 clarification and identification. If he says, "It is not my handwriting,"
15 so what, no.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Why do you want to use it? Because you don't know
17 where it came from, apart from saying that your investigators gave it to
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In fact, this is my conclusion, my
20 understanding that relating to the original board of SDA Doboj, might be
21 in some way be in relation with this witness, and also, the other document
22 about the main board of the SDA relating to the Lisbon agreement. So that
23 was my general idea.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the numbers, for
25 identification purposes only, for the one in longhand?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document D22/1 ter ID.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead with your questions.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, first of all, would you please take a
5 careful look at this piece of paper, the document? It is the minutes of
6 something, I assume. Is it familiar to you?
7 A. This is no document at all. This is my handwriting, probably torn
8 out of some notebook which I carry to meetings with me and which I use to
9 make my own notes when I attend certain meetings. This is a page that I'm
10 being shown, and it speaks of a meeting of the regional board with respect
11 to the referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they are my own personal
12 notes on the different items on the agenda of that meeting. It's not an
13 official document. It's not the minutes from the meeting or anything like
14 that. Like any of us like to take a notebook to a meeting and like to jot
15 down some things, I did the same.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a part of your personal diary?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All of us who go to meetings usually
18 have a sort of notebook to jot down what happened at the meeting. And
19 that's what I used to do. And this is one of my -- one of the things I
20 noted down. It's not an official note of any kind. It's not even
21 chronological. I write what I consider to be important. What I don't, I
23 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's clear that it is your personal diary.
24 Therefore, it cannot be discussed in these proceedings.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, allow me to say this thing.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has made a ruling.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Can I have a short submission, please?
4 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I comply. Can I use my right to appeal
6 to this ruling?
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead. In the meantime, you proceed
8 with the other -- with cross-examination.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Would you prefer to hear my submission now about
10 that, or I just follow the rules?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, if you insist, you can put it on record.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, please. Madam President, assuming, arguendo,
13 that this is some kind of part of personal notes of Mr. Tihic --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: But in your submission, I will not allow you to
15 quote anything from it.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the ruling is that this is a personal
18 diary. It's not going to be used in these proceedings.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Even if certain facts are related to a political
20 activities and general issues? Even then?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. You know very well, if you have
22 information which you want to put to the witness, you can go ahead and use
23 it. What the Trial Chamber is objecting to is to have this personal diary
25 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is aware that maybe, since you can
2 read the language - this is another problem - besides it being a personal
3 diary, maybe you have information which is also in this diary, but the
4 Trial Chamber will not allow this personal diary to be used in the
6 MR. PANTELIC: I understand.
7 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, if you have some general questions to
8 put to him regarding something, without reference to this document, well,
9 test him and ask him first.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I don't have any choice.
11 JUDGE SINGH: But you have the ruling here.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, okay.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, are you familiar with the fact --
14 aware of the fact that you were at the regional board of the SDA in Doboj
15 on the 18th of February, 1992? Were you there?
16 A. I attended several meetings, so I suppose I was there on the 18th
17 of February, too. I can't say.
18 Q. Very well. On that occasion, at that meeting, did you discuss
19 preparations for the referendum?
20 A. According to this note, yes, I did.
21 Q. No. Let's forget that note, as if it didn't exist.
22 A. All right. But one of the meetings was used to discuss the
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe to make it easier, the usher should collect it
25 and give it back to Mr. Pantelic. It's been marked. Give it back to the
1 registry. The witness can repeat the answer.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, please.
3 Q. [Interpretation] The referendum was discussed, wasn't it, at the
5 A. At the meeting of the regional board, discussion was held about
6 important political issues, and one of them being the referendum.
7 Q. At the meeting of that regional board, did you discuss the
8 organisation of military operations and sabotage by the SDA meeting in the
9 Samac region, yes or no?
10 A. No, never.
11 Q. Could you please give me a few names, who was present, if you
12 remember? Who attended the meeting of the regional board from the SDA
14 A. I can tell you who would usually attend. Now, who was actually at
15 that meeting, I don't know, but usually there would be the presidents of
16 the municipal organisations of the Doboj region, or rather members of the
17 regional board.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, do you happen to remember a meeting at the
19 main board of the SDA at which, apart from members of the main board of
20 the SDA, the members of the deputies club and ministers in the government
21 attended, as well as other respected citizens, influential citizens?
22 A. I spoke about that yesterday with respect to the Lisbon document.
23 I did attend that meeting of the main board, and we discussed that
24 particular document. The ministers, the president, Izetbegovic, was
25 there, and everybody else, if that's what you're interested in.
1 Q. Was Mr. Cengic there, Hasan Cengic?
2 A. I don't know whether Hasan was there. I think Muhamed, Muhamed
3 Cengic, attended.
4 Q. What about Mr. Behman?
5 A. I can't remember the names. Probably Omer was there because he
6 was in Sarajevo. He was in the party leadership, so I can only assume he
7 was there, yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, if your memory serves you, at that meeting, did
9 the SDA discuss its platform at Lisbon between the SDA and HDZ as a sort
10 of coalition against the SDS? Was that discussed at the meeting?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. It was a meeting after Lisbon, after the Lisbon meeting.
14 Q. That's what I'm asking you. Did you discuss negotiations that the
15 SDA and HDZ delegations had in Lisbon concerning the attitude as a sort of
16 small alliance against the SDS, yes or no?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, how long have you known my client, Dr.
19 Blagoje Simic?
20 A. Before the war? I knew him perhaps for three or four years
22 Q. How old was Dr. Blagoje Simic when you met him first?
23 A. I don't know exactly, but he was a young man. I knew his father
24 too, and his brother. His brother is a neighbour of mine. I knew Blagoje
1 Q. Well, if we take it that the war began in 1992, you have known him
2 since about 1988. Are you a close friend of Dr. Blagoje Simic?
3 A. No, I'm not.
4 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Dr. Blagoje Simic, at the end of
5 1991 and until the first few months, including April and May of 1992, was
6 doing his professional medical specialist training? Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. I'm sure you know that Dr. Blagoje Simic performed his functions
9 as vice-president of the municipality of Bosanski Samac on a volunteer
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm sure you also know that Dr. Blagoje Simic is married, with
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And that he was in 1992 as well.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So I'm sure you know that a young man who was doing his specialist
18 training, who had volunteer work, who had his obligations in the health
19 clinic and had a family, had very little time to associate and socialise
20 with others, other people.
21 A. Well, that depends on the man.
22 Q. In other words, you at the time were a lawyer in Bosanski Samac,
23 weren't you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You moved around town, you would frequent restaurants and cafes;
1 is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In other words, you had a dynamic social life?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would you see Dr. Blagoje Simic in those same cafes and
6 restaurants that you frequented at that time?
7 A. Rarely.
8 Q. I think that I can understand from what you said that your
9 contacts were limited to official meetings within the municipality, when
10 you would discuss municipal business, because you were municipality
11 functionaries, deputies of some kind, weren't you?
12 A. I think that Blagoje came to see me as a lawyer once with
13 respect to an apartment of his, and then after meetings --
14 Q. That's not what I asked you. Could you answer my first question,
15 what I asked you before that, and that was that the character of your
16 contacts were within the -- on an official level, within the municipality?
17 A. Yes, mostly.
18 Q. But when you mentioned that you represented him, did he give you
19 his power of attorney?
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Pausing, please.
21 A. I can't quite remember now.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Pausing, please.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember or don't you?
25 A. I don't remember. He came to see me about a matter of that kind,
1 but I don't remember.
2 Q. Thank you. You see, I would like us to ascertain this fact and
3 not to ramble on. In preparing to defend my client, I checked out some
4 things in the field, I saw some people in Samac, and collected a certain
5 amount of information and data. Tell me, do you know Dragan Lukac?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. My information tells me that the people in Bosanski Samac saw him
8 as -- he's a Croat by ethnicity, is he not?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Anyway, my information tells me that the people in Bosanski Samac
11 saw him as somebody who was imitating Tudjman. Did you hear about that?
12 A. No, I didn't hear about him imitating Tudjman.
13 Q. Were you aware of that general opinion?
14 A. No.
15 Q. All right. But we can say that people have their own views. It
16 doesn't have to be correct, but everybody is entitled to his own opinion.
17 A. Well, I didn't hear of anything like that.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, this is a discussion, if Your Honours please.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 MR. PANTELIC: It is not discussion, Your Honours. This is a very
22 precise question, because I'm referring to the statement of this witness
23 before this Trial Chamber. So please allow me to finish my
24 cross-examination. This is not discussion.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Let the Prosecution state what they want to
3 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Okay.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, it is. It's very clear what
5 Mr. Pantelic was seeking to elicit from the witness, that Lukac was some
6 sort of Tudjman imitator or adherent. The witness says no, he
7 doesn't -- he never saw that. And then Mr. Pantelic asked him about the
8 general opinion of others in that regard, and Mr. Tihic said no. And then
9 there's questions about people having their own views and so on, and
10 that's the objection. It was that latter question that I was objecting
11 to, and that's what I say was discussion. He can ask him about
12 Mr. -- whether Lukac or not was a Tudjmanophile, but once he's got his
13 answers, that's the end of the matter, surely.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: You've understood what the Prosecution is saying.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also received information --
19 JUDGE SINGH: What do you mean by "imitating"? I mean, is it in
20 jest? Seriously? It's a big word.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe I wasn't so clear, or maybe it's a problem
22 with translation. I will clarify that.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I said that I had been told not that he was imitating Tudjman, but
25 he left the impression, he gave the impression that he sort of resembled
1 Tudjman in a way; not physically, but by his behaviour, conduct, his way
2 of thinking, that kind of thing.
3 A. Dragan didn't like Tudjman, so I don't know.
4 Q. Thank you. I'm repeating the impression that other people got,
5 some other people. And some people gave me their personal opinions that
6 you yourself resembled, in your attitudes and in your life and behaviour,
7 that you resembled Alija Izetbegovic. Can we say that those people were
8 correct in assuming that, in saying that?
9 A. Well, I don't know. I'm just hearing this from you here and now.
10 Q. But can we agree that people had different opinions? They don't
11 have to be correct.
12 A. Well, people can think whatever they like. I don't know what to
14 MR. PANTELIC: I'm going to the point.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Because this witness said that my client --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wait for me?
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: When a matter has been raised and you have been
20 directed as to how you should handle a witness, you must listen and
21 abide. What's the name of your co-counsel? I can't remember it right
23 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Vukovic.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Vukovic, would you please stand.
25 Mr. Pantelic, would you please sit down.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, Mr. Vukovic. You are co-counsel.
3 MR. VUKOVIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: At any stage if this impudence continues, the Trial
5 Chamber will order that you continue with the proceedings.
6 MR. VUKOVIC: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, please continue.
8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Before this Trial Chamber, you said that on one occasion you were
10 together with Blagoje Simic and that it was your own personal impression
11 that Dr. Blagoje Simic was imitating and had certain similarities with
12 Slobodan Milosevic; is that right?
13 A. [No interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, may we touch upon some other details. When
15 you mentioned my client -- but in those statements, I don't think that
16 there was anything actually relevant to this case, in the sense of the
17 conditions that are necessary with respect to the practice of this
18 Tribunal, so I won't be asking you any more questions. I have concluded
19 my cross-examination. Thank you for having come and for giving your
21 MR. PANTELIC: I've finished cross-examination. Thank you so
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Krgovic.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just something with
25 respect to the transcript. After Mr. Pantelic's question, the witness'
1 answer was "yes," but that did not appear in the transcript.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Where it is written "no interpretation," yes.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Line 14.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Where Mr. Pantelic was talking about Mr. Blagoje
6 MR. PANTELIC: Actually, yes. This is at page 86, line 14. The
7 answer was --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The answer was "yes," actually, because I
9 heard the "yes."
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you are through with --
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's all that I -- thank you
13 so much. And it's 1.00.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it is.
15 How long does the Prosecution think it will take in
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it would definitely finish today, and in fact
18 I'm hoping that we'll start with Mr. Dagovic today. I can't say exactly
19 how long.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just wanted to have an indication, roughly,
21 whether it would be possible.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not a question of dragging it on into tomorrow
23 or anything like that. I'm very hopeful of starting Mr. Dagovic today.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: And I think that's a realistic hope.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll adjourn for lunch. The proceedings
2 today will start at 1530 hours up to 1700 hours.
3 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 3.30 p.m.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Re-examination by the Prosecution.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. My re-examination will be
5 relatively brief, I hope. There will be a few further questions asked by
6 my colleague also as part of the re-examination.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Dealing on one aspect of Mr. Pantelic's
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
12 Re-examined by Mr. di Fazio:
13 Q. Mr. Tihic, I just want to ask you a few brief questions about your
14 evidence from today, from this morning. You were asked some questions
15 about a body, I believe, within the SDA called the commission for
16 protection and security. And I think it was likened to a Crisis Staff.
17 Can you tell us when that body was formed, approximately when it was
19 A. It was formed sometime around the end of 1991.
20 Q. All right. And do you know whose idea it was? Was it a general
21 party idea or was it pushed by any particular individual?
22 A. The commission for security was formed according to the
23 instructions pertaining to the entire party.
24 Q. Do I take it from that answer that it was an instruction from
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. What was its function?
3 A. You see, all political parties had their own commissions for
4 security respectively, the League of Communists beforehand and these newly
5 established parties as well. The function of the commission was to look
6 into security issues in the territory of the municipality of Bosanski
7 Samac, in the context of developments in the municipality itself, beyond
8 the border, and generally speaking, to see what could perhaps happen and
9 what we should do in order to reduce the lack of security and to have the
10 security problems resolved in a peaceful manner.
11 Q. Thank you. You say that this body was -- existed in all parties,
12 including the League of Communists. Now, I think it's generally agreed
13 that the League of Communists had existed for many years in Yugoslavia.
14 Given that, my question is this: Was the commission for protection and
15 security a ubiquitous thing, something that occurred in common to all
16 parties, and had a long history in Yugoslavia, or was it the product of
17 the special crisis in the early 1990s? Do you understand?
18 A. It did exist before, too, invariably. There was always this
19 commission for security, in the League of Communists, in all the parties,
20 in state organs. It was called the council for security. Before that,
21 this commission existed for the protection from internal and external
22 enemies, you see. That's what it was called then.
23 Q. Was the function -- was its functioning within the SDA conducted
24 in secret or was its activities known to others, to the public?
25 A. Public, transparent. There was no reason for any secrets. These
1 are political assessments of the situation on the ground related to
2 security, political measures that should be taken in order to overcome
3 this, also taking a stand with regard to these matters, a political stand,
4 things like that.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you give the Chamber an idea of the sorts of
6 issues it was dealing with in the months, the few months, leading up to
7 April of 1992?
8 A. Well, if we're looking at it on this level, certain incidents were
9 looked into: for example, when the bridge was mined, and also when some
10 other facilities were mined; possibly some ethnic related conflicts, if
11 they did happen, how this was reflected elsewhere. And then also it went
12 beyond that a bit: the situation in Croatia; in Vukovar there was a war;
13 and also some of these units came to Samac, both one and the other, Serb
14 and Croat. Sometimes some people went across. So this was analysed, this
15 situation, it was followed. Then also the mining of some kiosks.
16 Q. Thank you. I have an idea now. Thank you. Can I just ask you if
17 the commission that we have just been talking about maintained any
18 relations with the police and other security organs, or was that done on
19 an ad hoc basis?
20 A. Well, it was a commission only for the needs of the party, for our
21 political needs.
22 Q. Thank you. You were also asked this morning whether the SDA sent
23 its members to Slavonia for anti-sabotage training --
24 A. No.
25 Q. And --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honours. To the best of my
3 recollection, the question was not formulated as someone was sent to
4 Slovenia for anti-sabotage training. It was rather different, so perhaps
5 maybe our learned friend could help us during the redirect with some
6 references on the transcript, and then we can follow easily.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll try and assuage Mr. Pantelic's concerns. I
8 don't think I'm misquoting the evidence. May I just very briefly have a
9 look at the --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 JUDGE SINGH: May I just seek a clarification from you,
12 Mr. Tihic? This is just before April 1992, so the SDA has its commission
13 for security, and I suppose the other two parties also have their
14 commissions and they put up assessments and security reports. So how is
15 the coordination done? I mean, do you have --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE SINGH: -- different bodies, three different commissions
18 with reports, assessments?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the level of the municipality,
20 there was a council for security and a council for national defence, and
21 that is where the parties brought together their political views and
22 discussed them; that is to say, within the municipality there was a
23 council for security and a council for national defence. And every party
24 considered, within itself, the political situation and the
25 security-related situation, and then it was debated further at municipal
2 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.
3 MR. DI FAZIO:
4 Q. Yes, Mr. Tihic. I think Mr. Pantelic's objection was right, but
5 only just. You were, in fact, asked -- the question that was put to you
6 was that the municipal committee of the SDA in Bosanski Samac was involved
7 in sending members for anti-sabotage training in Bosanski Samac, and you
9 "Alija Fitozovic was involved in these activities. I knew there
10 were people who were being sent to some kind of training, but that was
11 done by Alija Fitozovic."
12 Now, that's what you said, and I quote from the transcript.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, that was a mistake in transcript. My
16 question was not anti-sabotage, but sabotage units. And then, if you
17 follow the other part of my questioning, I was making a reference to the
18 memoirs of Mr. Tihic, where exactly he said that they were training for
19 sabotage, command, or whatever. It's not anti-sabotage. It's a big
20 difference. So that was my intervention about the transcript, in fact,
21 and then --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: So you have corrected what --
25 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct. It is --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: -- what you wanted to say.
2 MR. PANTELIC: This is page 32, and the line 6.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Of this morning's proceedings?
4 MR. PANTELIC: Of this morning. And then, in order to clarify
5 that, if you see after this particular question, you will see that I make
6 a reference on exact words of Mr. Tihic. So maybe that's a problem with
7 the translation. But my question was very precise. These were the
8 members, party members, sent to sabotage, command, whatever. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: I see the reference to "sabotage" alone in later
10 questions and answers, but the record says "anti-sabotage." That's what I
11 read in one of the sentences and in the sentence that I quoted. Now, that
12 isn't going to matter much for my purposes. If there's to be any
13 amendment to the transcript, if Your Honours please, perhaps the
14 interpreters could attend to that and --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The audio people would give us the
16 correct -- what was actually spoken.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. But whether it was "anti-sabotage" or
18 "sabotage" is not what I'm concerned with, so can I please proceed?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you can proceed.
20 MR. PANTELIC: If you allow me --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: We will get the transcript from the people who
22 listen, and then they will give us the part of the transcript so that
23 everybody can see what was said.
24 MR. DI FAZIO:
25 Q. In fact, Mr. Tihic, later in your evidence, you said you didn't
1 know if it was actually sabotage training, it was just training for
2 defence preparations or something like that. Now, what I'm interested in
3 - and Mr. Pantelic asked you this as well but I don't think you gave a
4 very clear answer - was whether this activity of sending -- of people
5 going to Slavonia for this military training of whatever nature, was
6 conducted under SDA auspices, under SDA approval. Now, was that ever
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Again, Your Honour, could I have a second, just to
10 check this portion of transcript, please?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, go ahead.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I think I catch the problem. Slavonia
13 is the region in Croatia which is just across the river from Samac, and
14 Slavonia was mentioned in context of arming. That's one problem.
15 Probably my friend is mixing, you know, because it's very similar, these
16 terms. And Slovenia is the former republic of Yugoslavia. And my
17 question with regard to Slovenia was whether Mr. Cengic, one of the
18 prominent figures within the SDA party, was involved in armaments from
19 Slovenia to headquarters of SDA in Sarajevo. So we have now three
20 different aspects, actually. So in order to help my friend, I mean, there
21 is not any mention about Slavonia and military training.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
23 Q. All I'm really interested in, Mr. Tihic, is just a simple thing.
24 Did you send -- did the SDA send people off for training outside of
25 Bosnia? That's all I want to know.
1 A. The SDA did not send people anywhere to Bosnia or elsewhere,
2 either for sabotage or anti-sabotage training.
3 Q. Thank you. And this activity of Alija Fitozovic for sabotage or
4 anti-sabotage in Slovenia or Slavonia, was it conducted under the auspices
5 of the SDA or was it something that was his own action?
6 A. This was not done within the SDA, nor was it done by Alija
7 Fitozovic. Anything that had to do with sabotage or anti-sabotage units
8 or training was not done by Alija or the SDA, not in Slavonia, not in
10 Q. Thank you. Okay. You also mentioned today in your evidence in
11 cross-examination that a meeting -- that there was no meeting to set up
12 the TO but that Mato Nujic had, and I quote, "further consultations on
13 this issue." What further consultations were those?
14 A. You see, I said that Mato Nujic talked to us from the SDA and from
15 -- with the HDZ about the establishment of the Territorial Defence
16 headquarters and the names of persons who are supposed to be proposed for
17 that. Whether he talked about this any further with other political
18 parties, I don't know. And that's what I said. Also, I said that no
19 special meeting was held of the municipal assembly or something like that,
20 where this issue was discussed. But Mato Nujic should explain this,
21 whether he talked to someone else, apart from the SDA and the HDZ.
22 Q. Thank you. You were asked, in the course of your evidence, about
23 plundering and looting.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, please, may I have a reference of the
1 page and line so that we can follow on which part of today's transcript my
2 learned colleague is referring so that we can, you know, easy follow
3 that? I mean, because obviously he's making some reference, so would it
4 be fair to know?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think that is the procedure here - we are in
6 re-examination - that counsel has always to cite the page of the
7 transcript. That's not the procedure.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: No, it's not. And I might be able to assist
9 Mr. Pantelic, by coincidence, because I happen to have it here for this
10 morning, but for the other stuff, from the other days, I have not got that
11 and I simply can't do that. So if it's any assistance to Mr. Pantelic in
12 this particular question, I can tell him it's at lines 56 and 57 but I --
13 with respect, I agree with what the Chamber says. I'm not obliged to
14 point it out.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: And it's up to Mr. Pantelic to follow, to remember
16 what the answers were, and things like that, and unless he's challenging
17 that that never arose in cross-examination, that is fine.
18 MR. DI FAZIO:
19 Q. Now, you were asked by Mr. Pantelic about plunder and looting on
20 the part of paramilitaries and Her Honour Judge Mumba asked you whether
21 the forces or criminals who loot and plunder do so on their own
22 initiative, so to speak, and Mr. Pantelic adopted that question and posed
23 it to you, and asked you whether these -- such individuals had an
24 individual goal to plunder, and you said yes. Can you rule out any joint
25 intention to plunder?
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour, obvious speculating,
3 speculating question. And we are getting beyond the issue of redirect.
4 That's my objection.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Speculating, yes, I agree.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: But with respect, as my learned colleague points
7 out, Your Honour's question is that whether it was the objective of those
8 who form such forces.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Forces, yes, to include criminals.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: To include criminals.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: So that the criminals could go and plunder and do
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Now, that part, that aspect of the question,
14 wasn't put by Mr. Pantelic. He merely focused on individuals.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can ask him.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm asking whether there was a joint -- he can
17 comment on a joint intention on the parts of those particular individuals
18 to plunder and loot.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Put it to the witness because what arose there was
20 something like forces, the forces that were formed, the armed forces that
21 were formed, included criminals, right? And those would go and plunder
22 and loot. And I asked whether it was the objective of those people who
23 formed those forces to include criminals for that purpose or were the
24 criminals plundering and looting on their own accord.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. In that case, Your Honour, I will adopt
1 your question and put it.
2 Q. You heard Her Honour's question, I believe. Was it translated to
4 A. I cannot claim with certainty what the intention was of those who
5 established these forces when they included criminals in them, whether the
6 intention was, in addition to fighting, to have them plunder as well.
7 However, the rule was, after the fighting, after territories were taken,
8 these forces would loot these territories. It was some kind of a rite of
9 theirs which belonged to them after the successful outcome of the battle.
10 Q. You were asked about, for want of a better description, the list
11 of traitors. The exhibit is D21/1 ter ID. I don't need to show you that
12 document. I think you recall it from this morning, don't you? It was the
13 list of --
14 A. Yes, yes, I remember.
15 Q. You said that it originated -- or the effect of your evidence was
16 that it originated somewhere in the SDA. Do you know who the actual
17 author was?
18 A. I said that I didn't know, you know. But it was not a big volume
19 that was involved, as far as this leaflet is concerned. It was just typed
20 out. It wasn't in hundreds of copies. Perhaps it was about 10 or 20.
21 But that is not a serious -- it was not done in a serious way.
22 Q. I'm not suggesting it was. But what I'm interested to know is
23 that -- clarify for the Chamber this, this issue: You say it originated
24 with someone in the SDA. Was it in any way an official document, or did
25 it in any way represent the position of the SDA in Bosanski Samac?
1 A. I said that I assumed that it was some of our people from the SDA
2 who did it. And this was not an official stand, you know. It was more of
3 an individual thing, the individual thinking of some people who in that
4 way wanted to provoke, and there was no sign of the SDA there, no
5 letterhead, whatever.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, let's turn to your --
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. Will the Chamber just bear with me for
8 one moment?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be provided with D3/ter ID [sic].
11 D3/2 ID. I'm sorry. Could also the English be placed on the ELMO,
13 Q. Now, your evidence -- and I am here referring to evidence that you
14 gave in response to Mr. Zecevic's questions on the 6th of November. Your
15 evidence in respect of this document was that you don't recall issuing it;
16 you considered that it was unlikely that you would have done so; that you
17 had no reason to issue Hasan Bicic with such a document; and that you only
18 ever issued one such document, but that was to Jasenica, Fuad.
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: -- for the purposes of clarification and fairness --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: -- the witness has stated that he gave one document
25 to Jasenica, Fuad and Ibrahim Salkic.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: You forgot your -- my learned colleague, you forgot
3 to say "Ibrahim Salkic." You just said "Jasenica, Fuad."
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. My apologies. That
5 document plainly refers to Ibrahim Salkic as well, the other document.
6 I'm sorry. I wasn't deliberately concealing that.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. Do you understand, Mr. Tihic, that the other document that I
10 referred to and that I'll be drawing your attention to shortly related not
11 just to Jasenica, Fuad but also to Ibrahim Salkic, okay?
12 Now, let's turn our attention back to this document here,
13 please. Just assuming for the moment that this was a valid document,
14 where would it normally be stored or kept? Assuming for a moment that it
15 was in fact your document, where would it normally have been kept?
16 A. In the archives of the party.
17 Q. Was that --
18 A. The protocol in archives.
19 Q. Would that --
20 A. The office of the party, and that's where it was.
21 Q. Yes. I see. And back in the early 1990s, in 1991 and 1992, was
22 it the practice -- tell us, if you can: Was it the practice to use carbon
23 copies or make photocopies? How did you keep records of material that
24 you -- documents that you sent out?
25 A. Well, the mechanical machine was used. There were electrical
1 typewriters too, but I think that this was a mechanical one, and it would
2 be typed out in two copies, three copies, a document, depending on how
3 much was necessary, using a carbon, a carbon copy. And then it would be
4 typed out and I would sign, as president. And the party might be given a
5 copy, a carbon copy, and one would remain in the archives.
6 Q. As a matter of general practice, back in 1991 and 1992, early part
7 of 1992, did copy documents that you kept in the SDA, copy documents that
8 you signed - I'm not referring to the original that was used or sent to
9 someone, but the copy document that was kept in the SDA and that you
10 signed - would they have had your signature on them, either copy signature
11 or original?
12 A. Yes. There had to be a signature on the copy, not on the stamp;
13 not stamp, but copy -- but signature, sorry.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I've done with that document. May the
16 witness now be shown D9 -- it's now D9 -- Exhibit D9/2, sorry.
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic asked you questions about this document on Wednesday
18 morning, and you said that you recall the episode that the document
19 referred to but that you weren't certain about the authenticity of this
20 particular document, and you commented that the document had no logo, no
21 letterhead, was unsigned, didn't say "president" at the bottom. My
22 question is: Can you explain the absence of those features from this
24 A. I don't see that this document has a protocol number either. I
25 don't know if this is the logo type of the machine or not, whether it was
1 different from the previous one. I said that I cannot assert, confirm,
2 the authenticity of the document. I would rather say it was not, but I
3 don't know. But I did say that I told my secretary to write a document to
4 this effect and to bring it to me to sign. This isn't signed. It
5 wouldn't say "Municipal Board Bosanski Samac." It would say "president"
6 first. Then there would be "Sulejman Tihic," my name, and I would sign
7 it. So I don't know how come we have a certificate like this one here.
8 But as to the contents, yes, I did agree to have my secretary write a
9 piece of paper to that effect.
10 Q. Thank you. I now want to ask you some questions about the actual
11 episode that D9 purports to refer to, okay, the actual factual matters
12 relating to Mr. Fuad and Mr. Ibrahim and the acquiring and receipt of
14 In your evidence, you said that Ibrahim Salkic was a member of the
15 SDA. Can I ask you this? Are you aware of Ibrahim Salkic ever having
16 left the SDA?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Thank you. Why did Mr. Jasenica, Fuad, approach you with the sort
19 of proposal that you discussed? And I'm referring of course to the going
20 to Croatia for the purposes of acquiring weapons.
21 A. Jasenica contacted me because we are distant cousins, and he said
22 that he had some people in Croatia, as far as I remember, who would be
23 able to give him weapons, but that he needed a certificate of some kind to
24 support his request. But I didn't believe he'd do that. I didn't believe
25 he'd actually go ahead with it, because he was a man who liked to
1 exaggerate and to make himself look more important than he was. So I
2 never thought that anything would come of that, of that certificate, and
3 all of rest of it. But later on, he told me that he didn't actually hand
4 over the certificate, that he didn't need to, and that they gave it to him
5 even without the certificate.
6 At the time, judging by the date, if it was the 14th, if the date
7 is correct here, then the staff had just been formed that day or perhaps
8 the day before.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. Maybe that's why he came to me, because he didn't know of the
11 existence of the TO staff and headquarters, that they had actually been
13 Q. Mr. Zecevic asked you questions about Mr. Jasenica, and then asked
14 you, "Mr. Tihic, what kind of equipment are we talking about here?" And
15 you answered, "Well, the two of them, or one of them, I think Fuad came
16 and said he had a connection of some kind in Croatia and said that he
17 could procure some weapons, that he would need a certificate to prove that
18 he was there on behalf of someone." In your answer, you started to say
19 that the two of them approached you and then you said, "or one of them,"
20 and then you said you think it was Fuad. Can you say with any degree of
21 certainty whether or not Ibrahim Salkic approached you as well? That's
22 what I want to know. I'm only talking about the approach. I'm not
23 talking about the whole episode. I'm only talking about the approach. Do
24 you want me to reread your answer?
25 A. No. I know what you're asking me, but I can't remember whether
1 Ibrahim came to me or whether it was just Fuad Jasenica.
2 Q. Thank you. You then went on to describe the result of their
3 venture and you said - and this is part of the same answer - and I quote,
4 "And not much time went by, perhaps a day or two, and I received
5 information that they had brought in, I think, 50 automatic rifles, and I
6 told them to take them off to the Territorial Defence headquarters in
7 Bosanski Samac, which had been set up two or three days prior to that. So
8 that those weapons were taken there straight away, and I assume that they
9 were distributed later on in part or at least."
10 What I want to know is this: Did you actually see Fuad and/or
11 Ibrahim Salkic at the time of the arrival of the weapons in Bosanski
12 Samac, or did you simply issue instructions as to what was to be done with
13 the weapons?
14 A. I think Fuad came to my office and said -- I asked him, "Where is
15 it?" And he showed me -- pointed out a kombi van and he said, "Over
16 there." The van was over by the embankment. And I said, "Take it to the
17 Territorial Defence headquarters and hand it over there." He did that --
18 sorry, he did that, and I know that it was issued -- later on the weapons
19 were issued to members of the Territorial Defence. I think that when
20 Samac was attacked, some of the weapons stayed on in the warehouse.
21 Q. Can you say with any degree of certainty if Ibrahim Salkic was
22 present on this occasion when you issued instructions to Fuad as to what
23 he should do with the weapons? If you can't say so, please let us know.
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Thank you. Mr. Krgovic asked you some questions on the 7th of
1 November, also in the morning, and he asked you about Mr. Miroslav Tadic,
2 and asked you about the episode where you saw him in the TO. You gave
3 evidence that he was there for about five minutes. In that time, would he
4 have been able to see the condition of the men who were in, inside the
6 A. Well, it was the first or the second day, because later on, I was
7 transferred to the SUP building, to the prison in the police station.
8 Now, whether he could have seen or not, at that particular moment, well,
9 there weren't that many people who were beaten on that first or second
10 day. People looked not too bad, if I can put it that way. Some had been
11 beaten but not that badly yet. So whether he did see them, he could have
12 seen them, but as I say, there were not that many people. Had he come on
13 day ten, we were all -- they were all black and blue, everybody had
14 injuries. But on the first and second day, there were fewer people, and
15 fewer people who were injured and bruised. If he came across them, he
16 could have seen them. If he went the other way around, he might not have
17 seen them. So I can't really say. But had he come ten days later,
18 everyone had visible injuries.
19 Q. Thank you. You described an episode involving a gentleman named
20 Senad Memic and the transportation of weapons on behalf of the SDA. This
21 episode involved a truck breaking down in Bosanski Samac and the taking of
22 20 rifles. Where were those weapons destined for?
23 A. Well, he was driving weapons with a truck with Ljubljana [Realtime
24 transcript read in error "Lubana"] number plates, and then they
25 transferred it to the van belonging to the veterinary station, and then as
1 remuneration, he gave them a box with 20 rifles, and those rifles were
2 given there, but he distributed them among our guards and things like
3 that, the watches that we kept and so on.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Madam President, in the interest of justice
6 maybe it would be good to see this Ljubljana plates were from which state
8 JUDGE MUMBA: To do what?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe we could hear from which state Ljubljana
10 plates are belonging, simply as that.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see, the plates on the motor vehicle.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Plates on the truck, yes.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Region or state, thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honour just bear with me for a moment?
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. DI FAZIO: I thought I had my geography wrong but Ljubljana is
18 the capital of Slovenia, unless I'm wrong.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that so?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, because in transcript it's "Lubana," which is
21 a little bit unclear.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, it's the spelling.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Spelling. It's not Lubana. It is
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
1 MR. PANTELIC: It's not Lubana. It's Slovenia, of course.
2 MR. DI FAZIO:
3 Q. These were Slovenian plates, were they?
4 A. Yes, yes, they were.
5 Q. All right. And yes, thank you. Mr. Lazarevic asked you a number
6 of questions about the 4th Detachment. And he asked you if the arming of
7 the 4th Detachment was a public exercise. You said that arms were
8 distributed to members of the 4th Detachment, they took their weapons in
9 their cars to the homes of other members of the 4th Detachment. In your
10 experience, in the former Yugoslavia, was it the practice for army
11 soldiers to take their weapons home?
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, as a matter of clarification, as I
14 remember, Mr. Tihic stated that the weaponry was delivered in the
15 facilities of Mladost, if I remember correctly, of Samac industry of
16 textile, actually, that it was delivered there to the members of the 4th
17 Detachment, and also delivered in the houses of the members. Just a
18 matter of clarification.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: I was wondering what the difference was.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: All I'm interested in is the use -- the keeping of
21 weapons at home by members of the 4th Detachment. How the weapons
22 originally came into Bosanski Samac is not my concern. My concern is the
23 fact that 4th Detachment members, members of the JNA, taking their guns
24 home, keeping them with them. That doesn't seem to me to be soldierly
25 practice. Now, I just want to know if that was the case --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And in any case, Mr. Lazarevic has cleared
2 what he wasn't sure about, so --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not trying to misquote the evidence, but --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: You can proceed.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that's not what I'm interested in at all.
6 Q. Mr. Tihic, you may have had that exchange translated to you. You
7 understand my question. What I want to know is this: In the former
8 Yugoslavia, did soldiers take their guns home, keep them at home? I'm not
9 talking about officers or generals; I'm talking about the usual soldiers.
10 A. As far as I know, no. Only at the military training sessions.
11 And when they came back, they would leave it at the headquarters. They
12 wouldn't take them home. No, you wouldn't take weapons home.
13 Q. Thank you. You were also being asked questions by Mr. Lazarevic
14 in relation to the 4th Detachment, and you were asked -- yes. You were
15 asked whether it was by order of the commander of the 17th Tactical Group
16 that the 4th Detachment was formed, and you said, "I think it was
17 precisely through that order. However, we thought that was illegal
18 because this is a form of Territorial Defence." And counsel then said,
19 "You have already presented your point of view while giving testimony."
20 I want to hear what your point of view was on the illegality of the 4th
21 Detachment. What were you about to say at that point?
22 A. We consider that this form of organisation of the JNA was not in
23 conformity with the law and that units of that kind can only exist within
24 the frameworks of the Territorial Defence and at no events within the
25 JNA. The Yugoslav People's Army and their units, and its units, imply the
1 existence of barracks, uniforms, and life and work organised in the
2 barracks, whereas units in the field, people sitting in their homes and
3 going about their daily business, that can only be the Territorial
4 Defence. And that's why we consider that the JNA came under the
5 competence of the Territorial Defence and that it was an illegal act to
6 form the 4th Detachment and the other similar ones. That was our
7 opinion. That's what we said to Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic at the
8 National Defence Council, that he had no authority to set up units of that
9 kind, according to the law, because units of that kind could only exist
10 within the Territorial Defence and not within the JNA.
11 Q. Thank you. Mr. Lazarevic also asked you about the meeting in Prud
12 where discussion of a joint HDZ and SDA crisis staff occurred. You gave
13 evidence that that meeting did not produce any agreement for a crisis
14 staff, for such a crisis staff, and that you took a strong stance against
15 it. He then asked you about a second meeting at a place called - and I'm
16 not sure of the pronunciation. It's either Grebnice or Grebnica - I'm not
17 sure, where the same subject was discussed.
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the witness'
20 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters didn't hear what the witness said.
21 Can the witness repeat what he said?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I think the witness was giving the proper, correct
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Of what?
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Of Grebnice.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Proceed.
2 MR. DI FAZIO:
3 Q. Now, the same subject was discussed, but you weren't asked whether
4 at that second meeting any agreement was reached on a joint HDZ or SDA
5 crisis staff, and that's what I want to know. What was the result of the
6 second meeting?
7 A. I didn't attend that second meeting, but a joint crisis staff was
8 not set up.
9 Q. I have already touched upon this issue earlier in this
10 re-examination, but Mr. Lazarevic also touched on the issue, and that is,
11 namely, the proposal endorsing Bozanovic and Alija Fitozovic as TO
12 leaders, and that proposal being sent to Sarajevo. In your evidence, and
13 in answer to questions by Mr. Lazarevic, you said that that procedure that
14 you adopted was the correct procedure but that no meeting was ever held to
15 discuss those proposed appointments with the Municipal Assembly. My
16 question is this: Was there ever time for a meeting to be held before the
17 hostilities began and for the Municipal Assembly to consider that very
19 A. Had they been in agreement, they would have found the time, and
20 Mato Nujic probably thought that there wouldn't be agreement. So perhaps
21 because of that, he didn't convene the meeting, realistically speaking.
22 Because the ratio of forces was roughly 50/50, it was difficult to take a
23 decision. And Mato made use of his right to propose that, but, at the
24 same time, responsibility if he had made a mistake, doing it without the
25 Municipal Assembly.
1 Q. Thank you. You were also asked this question and this answer, and
2 I need to quote it, and I'd ask that you listen carefully to the question
3 in particular:
4 Q. Can we agree that members of the 4th Detachment took
5 the right banks of the Sava and Bosna rivers,
6 respectively, in order to prevent the HVO from
8 A. As far as I know, yes, and on the bridge on the
9 Drina and on the Bosna.
10 So in that question there were two questions: First of all,
11 whether the 4th Detachment took the right banks of the Sava and Bosna
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. My learned colleague has just
15 mentioned river Drina, and it has nothing to do with Samac. I mean, it's
16 river Sava, I believe.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'm grateful to my learned friend.
18 It's not a matter that's going to be of particular significance. If
19 there's a -- I've got "Drina" here in my transcript. I see it here:
20 D-r-i-n-a. But whether it's Sava or Drina matters not for my purposes,
21 and I'm sure it won't trouble Mr. Lazarevic when he hears my question
22 asked in full. Because I'm not interested in what the names of the rivers
23 are. It's the two-barrelled question that I'm interested in.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think his concern was that one river is in
25 another region and the other one is in a totally different area, I think.
1 Yes. So he needed to have that corrected. So he has corrected it
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Well, perhaps I'll put in "Sava," the
4 word "Sava," substitute the word "Sava."
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. After that, I just want to go back and
7 I want you to understand the question clearly. I'll just quickly read it
8 for you again.
9 Q. Can we agree that members of the 4th Detachment took
10 the right banks of the Sava and Bosna rivers,
11 respectively, in order to prevent the HVO from
13 A. As far as I know, yes, and the bridge on the Sava,
14 on the Bosna.
15 Now, there are two questions there. One, did they take those
16 banks; and two, was it to prevent the HVO from penetrating? You seem to
17 agree with the proposition. I want to know your answer to both aspects of
18 the question, and in particular, whether it was to prevent the HVO from
20 A. As far as I know, members of the 4th Detachment took -- assumed
21 positions on the right bank of the Bosna, on the embankment that was by
22 the river. I don't know about the Sava. I don't know them taking up
23 positions on the Sava bank. Now, why they had done that, I said probably
24 to prevent reinforcements from coming in to town from the village of Prud
25 and the HVO and the rest. Probably because of that.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: The re-examination isn't complete, but my
3 colleague, Ms. Reidy --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Is continuing with Ms. Reidy, yes.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- has a few questions on another aspect of
6 Mr. Pantelic's questions.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 Re-examined by Ms. Reidy:
9 Q. Mr. Tihic, my question, or series of short questions, just goes
10 around one part of Mr. Pantelic's examination in cross.
11 MS. REIDY: And while I don't want to set a precedent,
12 Mr. Pantelic, in case you want to follow me closely, it's on page either
13 3753 to 3754 of the official transcript or pages 124 to 128 of
14 yesterday's, depending on which numbering system you're using.
15 Q. And what that questioning was about was about whether or not the
16 central government in Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled all the territory.
17 And you had answered that it could not control the entire
18 territory because the Yugoslav People's Army did not allow them to do that
19 as well as various paramilitary formations, et cetera. You were then
20 asked to point out on the map, which for the record is Prosecution Exhibit
21 P15, which areas were under the control of the central government, et
23 And Mr. Pantelic concluded that part of his statement by saying,
24 "Let the record show that the witness explained on the Exhibit P15 the
25 regions under the control of the central government of Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina in the period from mid-April 1992 and the other years."
2 Now what I want to clarify is in fact, while you did indicate a
3 lot of areas, Mr. Pantelic never at any time tied down the time period
4 which went hand in hand with the areas that were controlled. So I
5 understand you began by pointing out the areas which were under the
6 control of the central government in April 1992. Can you tell me whether
7 there was a significant change in the area in May 1992?
8 A. There were changes in May and the month of June and later,
9 throughout the war, there were certain changes. But the central
10 government controlled central Bosnia, Tuzla, the Tuzla canton, so to
11 speak, down towards Mostar and Mostar, Krajina, Bihac, and that area of
12 the Bihac Krajina, actually. They kept that under their control all the
13 time. That didn't change. As for the other towns, it depended on when
14 they would fall. Some fell in April, some fell -- I don't know. Let's
15 take Srebrenica, that was 1995. It was lost from under their control.
16 And Zepa.
17 Q. My question --
18 A. And then later the territory was enlarged again and Sanski Most
19 was liberated, and Kljuc was liberated and then Donja Vakuf was liberated.
20 Q. On the basis of that, can you say was there a dramatic increase in
21 the control of the territory enjoyed by the central government of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina between 6th of April, 1992, and the 23rd of May, 1992?
23 Or if not, is there even a decrease in the amount of territory that the
24 government controlled?
25 A. The territory was decreased between the 6th of April and the 23rd
1 of May, the territory under the control of --
2 Q. And just my last question again, between May and, say --
3 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer was not completed.
4 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry, I apologise, I didn't hear.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: I didn't hear the interpretation.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The witness broke off.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the witness, I think, broke off. Can the
8 answer be completed, please? The answer was, "The territory was decreased
9 between 6th of April and the 23rd of May, the territory under the control
10 of -- " Can the answer be completed?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory under the control of
12 the central government was decreased, and the central authorities of the
13 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
15 MS. REIDY:
16 Q. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't realise I was interrupting you. Then
17 my last question would be, again, between May 23rd and, say, the beginning
18 of 1993, was there again a dramatic increase in the effective control
19 enjoyed by the central government, in terms of the amount of territory?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously leading, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes?
22 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously leading question, so please let my
23 learned colleague rephrase that.
24 MS. REIDY: With respect, Your Honour --
25 MR. PANTELIC: The witness should give his answer to the best of
1 his knowledge and without this kind of question. Maybe it's appropriate
2 for cross but not for redirect. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't appreciate, because this is re-examination.
4 Anyway, Ms. Reidy, you can do your best to satisfy Mr. Pantelic.
5 MS. REIDY: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Tihic, between May -- the 23rd of May, 1992, and let's take
7 the beginning of 1993, can you say whether there was any change, increase
8 or decrease, in the territory which the central government of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina enjoyed?
10 A. I think that until the end of 1992, there was a small decrease in
11 the territory.
12 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much. That's the end of my questions.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that the end of re-examination?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is, if Your Honours please.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
16 Questioned by the Court:
17 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Tihic, I just want to get a clearer picture on
18 the Territorial Defence. Now, before the formation of the 4th Detachment,
19 can you please tell us very briefly what was the framework and the extent
20 of the framework for Territorial Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
21 particularly in your area, and who participated in it?
22 A. The Territorial Defence is a constitutional category of the
23 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of the
24 constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is also a legal category. That is
25 the legal framework. All the nationalities of Bosnia-Herzegovina took
1 part in it: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and others.
2 JUDGE SINGH: Now, the next thing you said was that the 4th
3 Detachment can only exist within the framework of the Territorial Defence?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE SINGH: So in 1992, the 4th Detachment was formed through
6 the 17th Tactical Command?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE SINGH: So what does that mean? Were they trying to replace
9 Territorial Defence through Territorial Defence units?
10 A. You see, the Territorial Defence was under the control of the
11 presidency of the -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is to say, that it was
12 headed by Alija Izetbegovic. The JNA was under the control of the General
13 Staff, Slobodan Milosevic, and that team from Belgrade. It did not suit
14 them to have Territorial Defence units established, you see, so the JNA
15 established something that it was not in charge of. It established a unit
16 that did not belong to it, that had to be within the command of the
17 Territorial Defence and the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That was
18 the reason why they established this, you see, because they did not want
19 this to be under the control of the presidency -- the command of the
20 presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina but under the control of the General
21 Staff of the JNA.
22 JUDGE SINGH: So did the Territorial Defence units at the end
23 become ineffective?
24 A. In view of the fact that weapons were taken away from the
25 Territorial Defence, that the JNA took weapons, they became inefficient or
1 how shall we -- ineffective in Bosanski Samac, and in other places.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Out of the answers from the questions from the
3 Bench, any clarification? The Prosecution?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, thank you.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: The Defence?
6 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour, on behalf of all defence team,
7 thank you.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Tihic, for giving evidence to the
9 Trial Chamber. You are now released. You can go.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 MR. PANTELIC: In the meantime, Your Honours, could we follow the
12 practice of the swap of the position of the defendants because there is a
13 new witness coming?
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Before the witness comes, all right, yes. What
15 would you suggest?
16 MR. PANTELIC: Let the Registrar give a proposition.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought you would like to say which seats.
18 MR. PANTELIC: I don't have any particular -- let's be quick.
19 Maybe Mr. Zaric can come here and Mr. Blagoje Simic can go to the other
20 place so that we don't waste so much time. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can proceed. The Prosecution -- I hope the
22 usher is coming with the witness.
23 MR. WEINER: Before the witness arrives, can we go into private
24 session for one minute?
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. Can we go into private session?
1 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 JUDGE MUMBA: The Defence counsel, I take it, since we shall
13 proceed tomorrow morning, you would like the setup of the accused to be
14 the same tomorrow morning as it is now?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, that is correct. Thank you.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The witness can be brought in.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
21 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 WITNESS: ESAD DAGOVIC
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, please sit down.
25 Yes, Mr. Weiner, you can proceed.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
2 Examined by Mr. Weiner:
3 Q. Would you please introduce yourself to the Court?
4 A. I am Esad Dagovic.
5 Q. Could you tell us how old you are?
6 A. Thirty-three.
7 Q. What's your date of birth?
8 A. The 28th of May, 1969.
9 Q. Are you married?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you have any children?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How many?
14 A. One, seven months old.
15 Q. Boy, girl?
16 A. Girl.
17 Q. Where were you born?
18 A. In Gradacac.
19 Q. And are you a member of any ethnic group, sir?
20 A. I'm a Bosniak Muslim.
21 Q. Thank you. Where did you go to school?
22 A. In Bosanski Samac.
23 Q. What did you study?
24 A. In Samac.
25 Q. And what did you study there, in high school?
1 A. I would like to correct you. It was a vocational secondary school
2 for electrotechnical engineering.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. April of 1992, could you tell us where you were
5 A. I lived in Bosanski Samac.
6 Q. How long had you lived in Bosanski Samac?
7 A. From when I was born.
8 Q. Did you have any other family members that were living with you in
9 Bosanski Samac?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Who is that?
12 A. My mother, my father and my brother.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe he should be helped to get closer to the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.
18 MR. WEINER:
19 Q. Sir, were you a member of any political party?
20 A. Yes, I was a member of the SDA.
21 Q. Were you an active member?
22 A. An active member? Yes, I was.
23 Q. Okay. Did you own any weapons?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What did you own?
1 A. I owned a pistol, Crvena Zastava 9 millimetres, and I had a permit
2 for it.
3 Q. Where did you get that permit?
4 A. I got it from the Ministry of the Interior in Samac.
5 Q. Sir, where did you work?
6 A. I worked at the pizzeria called Rendezvous in Samac.
7 Q. What did you do there?
8 A. I was a waiter.
9 Q. And how long had you worked there?
10 A. About three or four years.
11 Q. Do you know who owned that pizzeria?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who?
14 A. Hasan Bicic.
15 Q. Did any of the other Bicics work there?
16 A. Yes, his brother, Muhamed Bicic worked there.
17 Q. And what was your relationship with the Bicics?
18 A. We had an excellent relationship. We were like brothers; perhaps
19 I should put it that way.
20 Q. And how was the Bicic family viewed or considered in Bosanski
22 A. Well, they were a well-respected family of means.
23 Q. Sir, you talked about their families being of means. Could you
24 describe the means of your family, the wealth of your family, prior to
25 April 18th, 1992?
1 A. Well, let me tell you. My family was relatively a middle-class
2 family, but my grandfather was a Beg. "Beg" is a title among Bosnian
4 Q. And what is a Beg? Could you please describe it to the Court.
5 A. Beg was a title among the Bosnian Muslims. It meant
6 that -- along with it went a large portion of property. He had a lot of
7 shops, real estate, both houses and arable land.
8 Q. How long had your family lived in Bosanski Samac?
9 A. My family lived in Samac from its very inception, that is to say,
10 after they were expelled from Uzice in Serbia.
11 Q. Now, sir, did you own any homes? Did you and your family own any
12 homes in Bosanski Samac?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How many?
15 A. We owned my father's house and we owned my grandmother's house,
16 that is to say, my father's mother's house; namely, two houses.
17 Q. And where were they in relation to each other? Where were they
19 A. In the street of Pere Bosica, that is to say, in the centre of
21 Q. And were the two houses near each other?
22 A. Yes. They were within the same courtyard.
23 Q. Did you own any vehicles or have any vehicles?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And could you tell the Court what you had?
1 A. I had a Ford Capri, and I used a vehicle that was given to me by
2 Hasan Bicic. That was a Suzuki Jeep. How should I put it? I had it with
3 me all the time, except that it was not owned by me.
4 Q. And where did you store that Jeep?
5 A. I kept it in my yard, or sometimes in a garage that Hasan Bicic
6 had near his house.
7 Q. And sir, where did you and your family members store their money?
8 Did you use banks or did you keep the money at home?
9 A. In view of the poor situation of our banks and the prevailing
10 insecurity, we did not keep money in the bank; we kept money at home. We
11 did have a bank account, though, but there was very little money in it.
12 Q. Sir, having lived your whole life in Bosanski Samac, or up to 1992
13 your whole life in Bosanski Samac, I'm going to ask you if you know
14 certain people. Do you know a man by the name of Simo Zaric?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I'd ask you to look around the courtroom, and could you tell me if
17 he is in this courtroom at this time?
18 A. Yes. The gentleman is over here, at that first table, and he has
19 grey hair and a chequered suit.
20 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Milan Simic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell if he's in this courtroom at this time?
23 A. Yes. He's the first sitting on the left-hand side, in a blue
25 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Miroslav Tadic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you see him in the courtroom at this time?
3 A. Yes. He's sitting in the middle.
4 Q. And do you know a man by the name of Blagoje Simic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And can you tell the Court whether he's sitting in this courtroom
7 at this time?
8 A. Yes, he is. He is sitting on the right-hand side. He's the man
9 with the beard.
10 MR. WEINER: Your Honours, may the record reflect that all four
11 defendants have been identified by the witness.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. WEINER:
14 Q. Sir, I'd like to go to April 16th, the evening of April 16th, the
15 evening just before the attack. Could you tell us whether you were
16 working on that evening?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where were you working?
19 A. At the pizzeria.
20 Q. And could you tell us what sort of crowd you had on that night.
21 A. Since I was used to seeing customers of all ethnicities, that
22 night I did not see any clients of Serb ethnicity, and that is to say that
23 there were very few customers in the pizzeria, generally speaking.
24 Q. As a result of the very small number of patrons, did you do
25 anything? Did you close early? Did you -- what did you do?
1 A. Normal working hours were until 12.00 or perhaps until 1.00 at
2 night; however, that night I closed at 11.00 in the evening.
3 Q. After you closed, what did you do?
4 A. After I closed the pizzeria, I went home. Since it was too early
5 for me to go to bed, I watched a movie.
6 Q. Sometime around 2.00, 3.00 in the morning, did something happen?
7 A. Yes. I heard shooting in town.
8 Q. What did you do?
9 A. What did I do? I waited for a while and then I went out into the
10 yard, or rather, in front of my house, into the street, to see what was
11 going on.
12 Q. And while you were outside, did you see anything?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What did you see?
15 A. I saw military vehicles that were moving in all directions.
16 Q. What did you do next?
17 A. Nothing. I went back into the house.
18 Q. Later that morning, did you go anywhere?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Where did you go?
21 A. I went to the owner of the pizzeria in order to hand him in the
22 money earned the previous day.
23 Q. And who was that, the owner?
24 A. The owner was, as I had previously said, Hasan Bicic.
25 Q. And did you go to the Bicic home?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And where was the Bicic home in relation to your home?
3 A. It was halfway from my house to the pizzeria, that is to say, 50
4 metres away from my house.
5 Q. After you gave the Bicics the money, did you return home?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did you see the Bicics again later that morning?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How did you come to see them?
10 A. Since their mother and the wives of Hasan and Muhamed Bicic, they
11 came to my mother's for breakfast and coffee.
12 Q. After you had breakfast, what did you do?
13 A. After breakfast, since there was shooting in town, we decided, my
14 father and my brother and I, to clean up the basement a bit, and also to
15 put bricks on the windows so that we would have a shelter in case there
16 was shelling.
17 MR. WEINER: Pardon me. Your Honours, since it's 5.00, would you
18 like to break at this moment, or should I continue?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will adjourn and resume our proceedings
20 tomorrow morning at 0930 hours.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.00 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of November,
23 2001, at 9.30 a.m.