Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5274

1 Monday, 14 January 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon. Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav

9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before we proceed with the witness, the Trial

11 Chamber has noticed that there is an application for a certificate by the

12 Defence, and there is also an application for -- before the Appeals

13 Chamber for leave to appeal, and there is also the decision of the duty

14 Judge on the matter. So the Trial Chamber wants to know what the Defence

15 has decided to do.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours, and Happy New Year to

17 all colleagues present here.

18 The position of the Defence is that we don't have any particular

19 interest to follow one or the other way. If this Trial Chamber will grant

20 our application for a certificate, obviously it will be in the interest of

21 the speediness of this trial and proceedings, which means that, in that

22 case, we are not -- we shall not be in situation to wait for the decision

23 of the bench of three Judges in Appeals Chamber, and then we could proceed

24 with the appeal because this specific issue is, from our point of view, is

25 very important, because we are facing certain limits and problems with

Page 5275

1 regard to the testimony of today's present witness and the other witnesses

2 with regard to the amendment of the indictment.

3 So in short, we would prefer, based on our application, that this

4 certificate will be given. Thank you.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: In that case, then, are you going to withdraw your

6 application for leave to appeal?

7 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct, because we shall appeal directly

8 to the Appeals Chamber, in accordance with Rule 73, I suppose, (D).

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the matter does not appear to be clear, Mr.

11 Pantelic, because if you look at 73(C) and (D), they are not alternatives

12 to one issue. They are separate provisions. So if your decision is that

13 you are going ahead with your application for a certificate, that is

14 73(C), and you are withdrawing the appeal, then you have to file the

15 notice for withdrawal before the Appeals Chamber.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, that would be a logical

17 step. Of course, we are ready to file this notice, but you can understand

18 this specific situation where we were obliged to act in a time limit of

19 seven days. So in order not to -- not to go beyond this time limit, we

20 decided to file both applications according to Rule 73 Sub-rule (C), which

21 is a certificate, and also (D) Sub-rule (ii)(E).

22 JUDGE MUMBA: But you appreciate that this appeal you're trying to

23 get on is an interlocutory appeal.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, this is interlocutory appeal, yes.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Which, if you look at 73(C), interlocutory appeals

Page 5276

1 are not allowed except if they fall under, as provision (C) provides,

2 where you need the appeal decided if it concerns evidence of procedure and

3 is appropriate for the continuation of the trial.

4 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct. Our understanding is that the --

5 this particular situation is falling under the ambit of this Rule, because

6 first of all, interlocutory appeal is allowed if the issue is related to

7 general importance to proceeding before the Tribunal or International

8 Court, which I would not say it's our case, but we are focusing to the

9 general -- the issue of general importance to the proceedings before this

10 Tribunal. And then we think that this certificate will allow us to file

11 our appeal directly to Appeals Chamber, dealing with these particular

12 issues, which are also related to procedure, because in

13 Sub-rule (C) of Rule 73, we have -- we have practically twofold issues,

14 which is the evidence or procedure, and we think that we are dealing with

15 procedure here.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. In that case, then, the Trial Chamber

17 will wait for your withdrawal of the appeal, once you've filed the notice

18 of withdrawal, and then we'll hear your submissions on your application

19 for certificate under (C) and then we can make our decision.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, with all due respect, I think it

21 would be, to some extent, dangerous for the Defence to withdraw our motion

22 for leave to appeal and then to wait for your decision with regard to the

23 certificate. For example, theoretically, if we shall not be in possession

24 of the certificate and at the same time our application for leave to

25 appeal will be withdrawn, then we shall be --

Page 5277

1 JUDGE MUMBA: But you see, Mr. Pantelic, (C) and (D) are

2 different. The certificate is not intended to aid you to appeal. The

3 certificate can only be granted under different circumstances from (D).

4 Did you read the decision of the duty Judge?

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course, Your Honour, but allow me to say

6 that this -- that was the angle of view of duty Judge. Defence and all of

7 my colleagues, we have the other approach to this issue. So that would be

8 wise if we could clarify.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. In that case, the Trial Chamber's view

10 is you should file your notice of withdrawal under (D), and then we'll go

11 ahead and deal with (C), 73(C). You'll make your submissions then.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Of course, I would kindly ask whichever this

13 appropriate time for the conference, short conference with my colleague

14 during the break this afternoon --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MR. PANTELIC: -- so we could inform Trial Chamber about our, I

17 would say our final position with regard to this issue. Thank you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: So we'll proceed with the witness.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honours. My mistake. If I -- if I

20 could have a few more seconds. We are facing a rather specific situation

21 now, because if I would understand, to the best of my knowledge, prior to

22 the Christmas break, this witness was to give his evidence with regard to

23 the issue which was introduced in the amended indictment.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Our position is the following: Firstly, we have to

Page 5278

1 inform this Trial Chamber that our clients are not in possession of the

2 fourth amended indictment in their language, their native language, B/C/S,

3 which means that that could be a certain obstacle for the further

4 proceedings.

5 Secondly, we are of the opinion that this specific issue with

6 regard to the topics introduced in the -- in the fourth amended indictment

7 are of significant importance for the -- for this trial in general. We

8 think -- and therefore for this reason we filed our motion for leave to

9 appeal.

10 We think that the Prosecution should not be allowed to amend

11 indictment with this particular -- with these particular charges,

12 allegations, of course, because the Prosecution was in possession of all

13 relevant statements and evidences --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you're trying to make your submissions

15 as if we are hearing the appeal. Those are submissions before the Appeals

16 Chamber if you elect to go ahead.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but since we don't have any final answer and

18 response from the Appeals Chamber, we think that it would not be

19 appropriate now to hear this portion of witness testimony related to the

20 allegations -- related to allegations for destruction of the religious

21 institution and so on. And I think that that would be our first, first

22 part of our submission with regard to the -- to this particular issue, and

23 my learned colleagues are in situation to give you additional information

24 which might facilitate these proceedings, if you allow.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Who is going to make submissions? Yes,

Page 5279

1 Ms. Baen?

2 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I think this is becoming confusing because

3 we're trying not to create any problem that displeases the Trial Chamber,

4 and the confusion came in where the motion for interlocutory appeal was

5 filed and 73(C) and (D) were confused because we were trying to not create

6 a huge problem.

7 The position of the Defence is that we don't feel that this trial

8 can continue until this panel that the President appointed gives us an

9 answer on the issue that we filed for -- for which we filed for

10 interlocutory appeal.

11 Rule 73(D) uses a language and issues appropriate for

12 interlocutory appeal if it would cause -- the decision would cause

13 prejudice to the Defence that can't be cured by the final disposal of the

14 trial, including post judgement appeal.

15 The whole point, Your Honour, is we feel like the safer thing to

16 do is to wait until this three-Judge panel makes a decision on this issue,

17 and that would be the safer route to take instead of if we continue to go

18 through the trial and this witness starts testifying about the evidence

19 with respect to destruction of religious property, we get to the end of

20 the trial, and at that point, after -- if the defendants are convicted, at

21 that point the Appeals Chamber says, "Whoa, the Defence may have had a

22 point there. Maybe they should have had some time to address this issue."

23 I think the safer position is to give this three-Judge panel time to

24 answer the issue instead of wait until the end of the trial and waste all

25 the time in the trial, possibly.

Page 5280

1 And I will tell you this also: My co-counsel told me - and I

2 haven't discussed this with the other Defence counsel - but he told me

3 that our investigators have not had adequate time to investigate the new

4 -- these new allegations. They're new to us. I will just tell you that

5 they haven't been investigated by our investigators. The allegations that

6 are mentioned in the fourth amended indictment, about the destruction of

7 religious property, there's a new date that was mentioned and we just got

8 that information on January 9 of this year. The time frame when these

9 crimes were allegedly committed were from September 1991 to December 31st,

10 1993.

11 We just found this information out on January 9th. Therefore, we

12 haven't had adequate time to address this -- these allegations. We're not

13 prepared. And that's all we're saying, is the safer route would be for

14 the Appeals Chamber to answer -- or this panel to answer the question

15 about this issue and then we continue after that decision's been made.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: No. That confuses the earlier submission by the

17 Defence. So are you withdrawing your application for the certificate?

18 MS. BAEN: I will tell you -- on behalf of our clients, we're not

19 withdrawing the interlocutory appeal. I haven't discussed with our client

20 about the certificate because we were waiting to see what the Trial

21 Chamber was going to tell us this afternoon. But at least on behalf of

22 our client, we're not withdrawing the application for interlocutory appeal

23 because that's a huge gamble because then, if Your Honours don't certify

24 the issue, we've lost our right to argue under Rule 73(E).

25 JUDGE MUMBA: But we don't seem to be getting anywhere. You are

Page 5281

1 now standing up on behalf of your client, you are now saying you won't

2 withdraw your application for leave to appeal, we go ahead with the

3 certificate.

4 MS. BAEN: All I'm saying, Your Honour, is on behalf of my client,

5 and I don't know if I speak for the others, we feel that we have to have a

6 stay in the proceedings until this three-Judge panel says whatever it's

7 going to say on this issue that we raised. That's it. And we feel like

8 it's dangerous for the trial to continue. If this evidence comes in on

9 this destruction of religious institutions and then at the end of the

10 trial the Appeals Chamber said, "Whoa, maybe that shouldn't have come in,

11 then all this time is potentially wasted when the safer position is to let

12 them answer the question. It may take two days. That's a lot better than

13 wasting years.

14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering why therefore no one from the

15 Defence made any objections when the Prosecution was showing earlier

16 witnesses the photographs in the bundle. I forget what the Prosecution

17 evidence number is, but we saw those photographs of what appear to be just

18 two grass plots one, one where the mosque was and one where the

19 Catholic church was. There was no objection posed then. Likewise, with

20 at least two of the earlier witnesses, we heard about the issue of -- I

21 believe it was the mosque in Odzak being blown up. There was some

22 controversy, I think, as to who actually did the blowing up, but again,

23 those issues were raised then and there was -- there was no objection.

24 MS. BAEN: I'll tell you exactly why, Your Honour. First of all,

25 they weren't allegations in the indictment. There's been a lot of

Page 5282

1 information, a lot of testimony coming from these witnesses that has not

2 been tied to these defendants as crimes, and I guess we could have

3 objected and say it's not relevant because it's not in the indictment, but

4 this isn't a jury trial. We've got three sophisticated Judges here; you

5 decide what's relevant and what's not relevant. And it wasn't an

6 allegation in the indictment so we didn't feel that they were pointing the

7 finger at us and saying, "These guys are responsible for destruction of

8 those mosques," because that was never said, and that's why we didn't

9 object.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: May I get it clear. So for the Defence --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Defence for Mr. Milan Simic, do I take it

13 you would like to go ahead with your submission on the certificate?

14 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, if I might discuss this with my

15 co-counsel. We have not discussed this yet.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen?

20 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour. On behalf of all the Defence

21 counsel, we withdraw our request under Rule 73(C) for the certificate from

22 the Trial Chamber, but we are not going to withdraw our interlocutory

23 appeal application.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So may I have confirmation that's the

25 position, the application for the certificate under Rule 73(C) is

Page 5283

1 withdrawn.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, on behalf of Mr. Blagoje Simic

3 too.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the Defence

5 of Mr. Miroslav Tadic, we join the request of Mr. Milan Simic.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] On behalf of the Simo Zaric

7 Defence, we support the position of Milan Simic Defence and this is also

8 our position

9 in the situation.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. So the -- so the request for a

11 certificate based on Rule 73(C) filed on December 26, 2001 is hereby

12 withdrawn by all the defendants.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought my mike was on. The request for a

15 certificate based on Rule 73(C) on behalf of all the defendants is hereby

16 withdrawn.

17 There is no stay of proceedings, and the proceedings will

18 continue.

19 Yes. The Prosecution can go ahead.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If Your Honours please, I take it, then, you

21 don't wish to hear from the Prosecution on the issue raised by Ms. Baen.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Namely whether or not this evidence should simply

24 be held over until the appeal is disposed of. The position of the

25 Prosecution, of course, is --

Page 5284

1 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution can make submissions, yes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that you are professional Judges, sitting

3 without a jury, and that you are quite capable, therefore, of excluding

4 from your consideration evidence of damage or destruction of places of

5 worship should it eventuate that the Appeals Chamber decides that it

6 should not have been admitted, and that is the position of the Prosecution

7 on that particular topic. [redacted]

8 [redacted].

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen?

11 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, at the very least, we're requesting --

12 making a formal request that a copy of the fourth amended indictment be

13 served upon the defendants in their language, because we've only received

14 the fourth amended indictment in English, and I believe the defendants are

15 entitled to receive it in their own language. It is the most important

16 document in the trial, and we feel like they also, after they receive a

17 copy in their language, they should be provided an opportunity to enter a

18 plea to the new allegations.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. I would like to ask the Prosecution on

20 the translation of the fourth amended indictment.

21 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. On that -- on that matter, I

22 can only say that we filed the indictment signed in English, and as with

23 the indictment -- as with the previous annexes and draft amendments, we

24 understood that to ensure the consistency of translation, et cetera, it

25 would be dealt within the Registry CLSS after it was filed. So we don't

Page 5285

1 actually have any direct control over that translation, and I should also

2 say we didn't request that it be urgently expedited; we presumed that it

3 would be done as it was filed. But if it would assist in making that

4 quicker, the Prosecution could, of course, request that.

5 I would note that the Defence have had, in their own language,

6 translated all the proposed wording and amendments. I -- because of the

7 terms of the Trial Chamber's decision and specifically because the Trial

8 Chamber requested that we be more particular with respect to dates and

9 specific buildings in our wording, it would be the case that the

10 defendants will not have seen that precise wording but they will have seen

11 the wording of our proposed amendments. To be honest, I think if it's a

12 matter of a date or that, it could be something that the counsel could

13 confer and get instructions from their clients on as I believe they did

14 prior to filing their response in general to the amended indictment, but

15 that's all I can say --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the thing is to have the amended indictment

17 read to them, then it could be simultaneously interpreted and then you can

18 go ahead.

19 MS. REIDY: I'd be happy to do that if you wish me to do it, or

20 the registry. And the only other thing, the Prosecution would object to

21 any formal re-entering of a plea, as Ms. Baen has suggested, because as is

22 our position and as I understand from the Trial Chamber's decision, these

23 are not new charges. It is not a question of a new indictment about where

24 charges -- where a plea should be entered pursuant to the Rules and I

25 wouldn't like that to be done in case there's any confusion as to the

Page 5286

1 nature of the amendment.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's just the new particulars that will come

3 into the fourth amended indictment. So there are no new charges at all.

4 So it's a question of having those parts of the indictment read so that

5 the accused can hear them in their own language or in a language they

6 understand.

7 MS. REIDY: Would Your Honour prefer me to read that out or a

8 member of the Registry?

9 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's usually the Registry. It's actually the

10 additional paragraphs. If the -- yes. If the Prosecution can point them

11 out so that -- one at a time, and then they can be read out and then

12 interpreted.

13 MS. REIDY: Sorry. Would you like me to approach the Registry and

14 point them out?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Go ahead and read them from where you are. You

16 point out the paragraphs.

17 MS. REIDY: Certainly. And, Your Honour, could I just clarify?

18 Would you like me to point out every paragraph to which there's been an

19 amendment or only those paragraphs where the amendment relates to the

20 destruction of religious property, or also the other harmonisation of

21 language amendments so to speak?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, only those ones with destruction of property and

23 the other ones where we have the new capacities of the -- for criminal

24 responsibility.

25 MS. REIDY: The first amendment comes in, I believe, paragraph

Page 5287

1 14(F). Do you want to read it?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. 14(F).

3 THE REGISTRAR: "The destruction or wilful damage of institutions

4 dedicated to religion, namely two Catholic churches, one in the town of

5 Bosanski Samac about and between August 1992 and January 1993, and the

6 other in the village of Hrvatska Tisina, about and between April 1992 and

7 August 1992, and two mosques, one in the town of Bosanski Samac, and

8 between August 1992 and November 1992, and the other in the town of Odzak

9 in or about July 1992."

10 MS. REIDY: Paragraph 15, the operative paragraph has been

11 slightly amended to reflect the responsibility of the defendant Blagoje

12 Simic so the words "acting in concert with others" has been added. So it

13 may be necessary to read that out. 15 and 15(G), which is identical to

14 the one you've just read.

15 THE REGISTRAR: "From or on about 17 April, 1992 through to at

16 least December 31, 1993, Blagoje Simic, both prior to and while serving as

17 president of the Bosanski Samac --"

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the

19 interpretation.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Could you slow down.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. " ... of the War Presidency, acting in

22 concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise

23 aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the crime of

24 persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his

25 participation in the following acts or omissions, among others:

Page 5288

1 "(G) --"

2 JUDGE MUMBA: (G) is exactly is the same as 14(F), isn't it?

3 MS. REIDY: Yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: And it runs through which paragraphs?

5 MS. REIDY: Paragraphs 14(F), 15(G), 17(F) and 18 (G) are all

6 identical --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Identical to what was read in paragraph 14 --

8 MS. REIDY: 14(F).

9 JUDGE MUMBA: 14(F), yes, so we don't need to repeat those.

10 MS. REIDY: Certainly not on behalf of the Prosecution, Your

11 Honour.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: That is all, isn't it? Any other --

13 MS. REIDY: No. The operative parts of paragraph, paragraphs 16,

14 17, and 18, which are very similar to 15 but involve each of the

15 individual defendants, they have also been amended so that the same

16 wording that was used in paragraphs -- or in 13 and 14 was reflected in

17 15, 16, 17, and 18.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: So the next one should be 16.

19 MS. REIDY: 16, 17, and 18, just the operative --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Paragraphs. Okay. So we can have paragraph 16,

21 please.

22 THE REGISTRAR: "From on or about 17 April 1992 through February

23 1993, Milan Simic, both prior to and while serving as President of the

24 Executive Board of the Bosanski Samac assembly and as a member of the Serb

25 Crisis Staff, acting in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered,

Page 5289

1 committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or

2 execution of the crime of persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and

3 14 above, through his participation in the following acts or omissions,

4 among others."

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh. Proceed to paragraph 17 -- paragraph 17 and

6 paragraph 18.

7 THE REGISTRAR: 17: "From about September 1991 to at least

8 December 31 -- 31 December 1993, Miroslav Tadic, both prior to and while

9 serving as a member and as chairman of the Exchange Commission and as a

10 member of the Serb Crisis Staff, acting in concert with others planned,

11 instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the

12 planning, preparation or execution of the crime of persecutions as

13 described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his participation in the

14 following acts or omissions, among others."

15 18 --

16 MS. REIDY: Sorry, may I interrupt?

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MS. REIDY: Because there is also an amendment to 17(E), that

19 would be the inclusion of the wards "wanton and extensive," it may be

20 appropriate if, since we're working our way through the indictment, if the

21 registrar reads out 17(E) as well before proceeding to 18.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Yes. So 17(E).

23 THE REGISTRAR: 17(E): "The wanton and extensive destruction,

24 plundering and looting of the property of Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims

25 and other non-Serb civilians, including dwellings, businesses, personal

Page 5290

1 property and livestock"

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Then we go to paragraph 18.

3 THE REGISTRAR: "From about September 1991 to about 31 December

4 1992, Simo Zaric, both prior to and while serving in such various

5 positions as the Assistant Commander for Intelligence, Reconnaissance,

6 Morale and Information of the 4th Detachment, Chief of National Security

7 Service in Bosanski Samac, Deputy to the President of the War Council for

8 Security Matters in Odzak, and Assistant Commander of the 2nd Posavina

9 Brigade for Morale and Information, acting in concert with others,

10 planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the

11 planning, preparation or execution of the commission of the crimes of

12 persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his

13 participation in the following acts or omissions, among others."

14 MS. REIDY: Similarly, there is the same amendment with relation

15 to 18(F); again the addition of the words "wanton and extensive" before

16 "destruction."

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So can the registry assistant please read

18 18(F).

19 THE REGISTRAR: "The wanton and extensive destruction, plundering

20 and looting of the property of Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims and other

21 non-Serb civilians, including dwellings, businesses, personal property,

22 and livestock."

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE MUMBA: That's all, Ms. Reidy?

25 MS. REIDY: No. There remains the amendments to paragraphs 19 --

Page 5291

1 paragraphs 19 and 40. Those paragraphs, again, are the harmonisation of

2 the words "acting in concert with others and together." Maybe for the

3 completeness of the record, we should read them out.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: They could be.

5 MS. REIDY: So 19, 40 and those are the last two.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Paragraphs 19 and 40.

7 THE REGISTRAR: "By these actions, Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic,

8 Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric, acting in concert, together and with

9 others, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and

10 abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of."

11 40: "From approximately 1 September 1991 through 31 December

12 1993, Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric, acting

13 in concert together and with various individuals on the Serb Crisis Staff

14 and other political, municipal and administrative bodies, the police

15 force, and the army committed, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise

16 aided and abetted a campaign of persecutions for the common purpose of

17 ridding the Bosanski Samac and Odzak municipalities of all non-Serbs, and

18 in furtherance of the campaign, committed other serious violations of

19 international humanitarian law directed against the Bosnian Croat, Bosnian

20 Muslim and other non-Serb civilians residing in the Bosanski Samac and

21 Odzak municipalities, in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any

22 reference to the words 'acting in concert together' shall be restricted to

23 Count 1."

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much. We will proceed unless there

25 are other matters. Yes, Ms. Baen?

Page 5292

1 MS. BAEN: Sorry, Your Honour. For purposes of the record, our

2 client, Mr. Milan Simic, does not have a copy of the indictment in front

3 of him. So I just want that to be noted in the transcript.

4 And then --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the indictment in Serbo-Croat.

6 MS. BAEN: Yes. So when they're adding these paragraphs, he

7 doesn't have this to refer to in front of him.

8 Also for purposes of the record --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: But he's listening to the proceedings.

10 MS. BAEN: I'm sure he is, Your Honour. I'm just putting it in

11 the transcript so that it's in the transcript that he doesn't have a copy

12 of the indictment in front of him in his language.

13 Then also, Rule 47(G) says if the accused doesn't understand

14 either of the official languages of the Tribunal, then a translation of

15 the indictment in his language shall also be prepared and shall be

16 included as part of each certified copy of the indictment. So that's just

17 the Rule that I'm just citing when I requested that we receive a copy of

18 the indictment in the language of the defendant.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Rule 47(G) is referring to the indictment

20 after confirmation. That is, the initial indictment.

21 MS. BAEN: I understand, Your Honour, but the indictment -- the

22 initial indictment was the first indictment and the fourth amended

23 indictment serves as the indictment the most important document in this

24 trial, and it stands to reason that whichever indictment you're operating

25 under should be translated, just as the original should be, so that the

Page 5293

1 defendant can understand and see the entire charging document in his case.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But the accused persons have had all these

3 paragraphs translated. They have had the application for the amendments,

4 the decision on the amendments, and they've been following the

5 proceedings. So there is nothing which is strange.

6 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, we're not trying to quarrel. The only

7 thing is I feel like we're getting in a hurry here and the all that needed

8 to happen was just to get the fourth amended indictment translated in its

9 entirety, file it, serve a copy on the defendant, like we always do. We

10 could have done that tonight and start tomorrow, clean, no problems. I

11 just thought we're getting in a rush here, and I know everybody wants to

12 move on, but I'm not quarreling with the Trial Chamber, it's just that if

13 we feel there is some sort of issue we might need to raise for appellate

14 purposes, it's our duty to do so. I'm not trying to offend the Trial

15 Chamber, I'm just trying to do my job.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But I think it must be understood that when

17 we're talking about fairness to the accused or the accused following the

18 proceedings and understanding the proceedings, there has to be a measure

19 of reasonableness, yeah? These are matters not of technicalities. These

20 are matters of substantive -- issues of justice. And if the Trial Chamber

21 is satisfied that the proceedings are being followed by the accused

22 persons, they are able to give instructions to their Defence counsels,

23 these are not new charges, these are not new matters, they've been

24 discussed, they've been followed by the accused persons, then the Trial

25 Chamber is entitled to proceed. It is all right for the Defence counsel

Page 5294

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5295

1 to place their objections on record. There's nothing wrong with that.

2 Yes. The Prosecution.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour. Just before I ask this

4 witness my next question, I should point out that I inadvertently referred

5 to him by his name when I was speaking to you or making submissions to you

6 on the issue of being able to exclude evidence from your consideration,

7 sitting as professional Judges, and the reference to his name should be

8 redacted or removed from the record.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it has been redacted, actually.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Witness, I just wish to remind you that you are

12 still on the solemn declaration that was taken last year and we proceed as

13 before.

14 WITNESS: WITNESS M [Resumed]

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

17 Q. Witness, before I move completely into the topic of -- of any

18 destruction to religious institutions, there's one issue I want to clarify

19 from the -- your earlier evidence. You mentioned that very soon after the

20 takeover, on the 16th and 17th of April, you were attacked in Cafe AS and

21 that you were forced to run in front of a car, with your hands in the air

22 or trying to get your hands in the air, crying out, "Serbia, Serbia." In

23 the car was a gentleman nicknamed Cera, whose other name is, I think,

24 Nebojsa. Was that person a member of the 4th Detachment, to your

25 knowledge?

Page 5296

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like you to turn your attention to another

3 topic that we started to examine last time you were in this Tribunal

4 giving evidence, and that was the destruction or damage to the mosque in

5 Bosanski Samac. You told the Chamber how two gentleman, Perica

6 Krstanovic, and Marinko Stefanovic came to your house, asked to borrow

7 your Hilti drill. You said no, that you didn't have one, which was

8 untrue, but you were concerned about it. You also said next morning that

9 you saw that the mosque had been damaged and that you saw wires leading

10 from the mosque into a department store and that you then went to report

11 for your labour duties, as usual, and there you saw Kemal Mehinovic, who

12 described what had he seen earlier that night. And I'd like you now to

13 tell the Chamber what Kemal Mehinovic told you he had seen Perica and

14 Marinko doing.

15 A. Perica Krstanovic, since he's an electrical engineer, he was

16 connecting some wires, and Marinko was stretching the wires. Marinko is

17 an electrician, and this is what Kemal told me as well. I didn't see

18 this. But I did see wires crossing the asphalt, two wires. One was blue,

19 one was white, and they were crossing -- they were stretched across the

20 asphalt, towards the department store.

21 Q. And just to be absolutely certain, is this the state of your

22 evidence; the wires led from the department store to the mosque or what

23 remained of the mosque?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. As far as you're aware, did the mosque have a supply of water to

Page 5297

1 it in the days when it was still existing; taps and so on?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Following the destruction of the mosque, did you do anything in

4 respect of the water supply?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What?

7 A. I had to go there, find the -- and I had to turn the water off at

8 the main, find the water main and turn it off.

9 Q. Who told you to do that?

10 A. Dzemal Kapetanovic told me that in the morning, when we reported

11 for the work duty.

12 Q. Presumably there was some rubble or material left over from the

13 destruction of the mosque. Can you tell the Chamber if anyone was given

14 the task of clearing that away?

15 A. These were the local municipal workers. They were clearing it.

16 Because I worked in this company, and I knew the people who were clearing

17 it up.

18 Q. When you say "local municipal workers," are you referring to local

19 municipal workers who had been performing that job for a salary prior to

20 the events -- even prior to the events of April 16 and 17 or are you

21 talking about people who found themselves in the situation that you did,

22 doing labour?

23 A. The tractors -- the drivers were from Komunalo, the utility

24 company. These were the Serbs who remained in the company. A part of the

25 people who were assigned to work duty also went and they cleaned up this

Page 5298

1 terrain.

2 Q. Thank you. Was this destruction of the mosque commented upon in

3 the local Serb radio?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you hear it, the commentary?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Who commented and what was said about the destruction of the

8 mosque in Bosanski Samac?

9 A. A comment was read by Mira Lujic, anchor on the local radio, and

10 she said that the Ustashas had blown up the mosque. Later, a day or two

11 afterwards, it was said that a rocket from the Croat side had hit the

12 mosque.

13 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you now to turn your attention to the mosque

14 in Odzak. You gave evidence in December that you spent quite some time in

15 Odzak, performing these labour duties that you've described in detail.

16 Can you tell us if the mosque in Odzak was damaged at all in the time that

17 you were doing labour duties in Odzak or whether it was damaged earlier?

18 A. The day before I left for Odzak, the mosque was blown up. So I

19 wasn't there that day when the mosque was blown up.

20 Q. Can you tell the Chamber if the destruction of the mosque in Odzak

21 was commented upon in the radio, and if so, who said -- who commented upon

22 it and what was said.

23 A. The same thing, that Ustashas had done that, Ustasha -- Ustasha

24 scouts.

25 Q. Thank you. And did you see it with your own eyes that the mosque

Page 5299

1 had in fact been destroyed or damaged?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was there a Catholic church in Odzak?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When you first started -- when you first started doing your labour

6 duties in Odzak, was it standing?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Was it ever subsequently damaged or destroyed?

9 A. Around the 17th of August, it was destroyed.

10 Q. Thank you. Before I ask you to continue with this narrative, can

11 you tell the Chamber, how many Catholic churches were there in Bosanski

12 Samac and in Odzak and how many mosques were there in Bosanski Samac and

13 Odzak?

14 A. There was one mosque in Bosanski Samac. And in the municipality

15 of Bosanski Samac, there was one Catholic church in Samac, there was one

16 in Hrvatska Tisina, one in Hasici, in Korenica, in Prud. Also in the

17 Odzak municipality, it's not mentioned, but there was one in Gornja

18 Dubica, Balic. All those churches were destroyed.

19 Q. Could you tell the Chamber if the Croat villages in the

20 municipality of Bosanski Samac had only one church normally in the little

21 village?

22 A. In Hasici, I think. No, there were churches. There was a

23 monastery in Kornica. That's where the nuns were. This was knocked down,

24 it was burned. There was one church in Hrvatska Tisina. The church was

25 not knocked down in Hasici, only the crosses were changed, but the church

Page 5300

1 itself remained standing.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio, recalling that the fourth amended

3 indictment is restricting us --

4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm mindful of --

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: -- to two Catholic churches, et cetera, we seem

6 to be going broader than this.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that, if Your Honours please. I was

8 merely trying to establish the number of mosques and churches in Bosanski

9 Samac and in Odzak and the fact whether other Croat villages normally had

10 only one particular church. Now, that's relevant, I think, to Tisina and

11 to Odzak and -- Odzak and Bosanski Samac. I wasn't trying to elicit --

12 that wasn't my objective in asking those questions but merely to establish

13 how many -- numbers of churches in those -- and mosques in those places.

14 It will go a long way to any complaints by the Defence to say that they --

15 and addresses any complaint by the Defence that -- of uncertainty if

16 there's only one mosque and only one Catholic church in Odzak and only one

17 mosque and only one Catholic church in Bosanski Samac. So that was the

18 objective of my question, not to elicit evidence of widespread damage and

19 go further than I have been permitted to by the Chamber.

20 But now that I see Your Honour's comment, it brings us fairly and

21 squarely to this issue of the Catholic church in -- in Odzak. I think the

22 amendments that you have permitted only go to the Catholic church in

23 Bosanski Samac and Tisina. My submission is that, notwithstanding the

24 amendments that the Chamber has permitted the Prosecution to make, it

25 still remains relevant evidence of the -- under Rule 93, for a start, and

Page 5301

1 also given the -- given the wording of the Chamber's decision on -- on the

2 amendments.

3 The Chamber said, in dealing with amendments concerning

4 destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise. The Chamber said, in dealing with

7 amendments concerning destruction or wilful damage of institutions to

8 religion, and I refer in particular to paragraph 4 on page 2 of the

9 decision: "The Trial Chamber arrives at this conclusion after carefully

10 considering the arguments of both parties and particularly the argument of

11 the Prosecution that the destruction or wilful damage of institutions

12 dedicated to religion are charged as part of the discriminatory attack

13 against non-Serbs, the institutions being part of their religious identity

14 under persecution as a crime against humanity."

15 Now, I'm mindful of my limitations as set out in the amendments

16 that have been permitted by the Chamber. It's under that heading that I

17 would seek to introduce this evidence of damage to the Catholic church in

18 Odzak, notwithstanding the limitations of the permitted amendments.

19 If you think that that's not to be permitted, then there can be no

20 justification for my continuing this line of questioning in respect of the

21 Catholic church in Odzak.

22 JUDGE SINGH: I think perhaps you may just want to confine

23 yourself with the amendment, the limitation contained therein. All right?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: As Your Honours please. May I just have a moment

25 to confer with my colleagues, because that may rapidly bring me to a close

Page 5302

1 in my examination-in-chief.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

5 Q. Can you tell us, Witness, if there was a Catholic church in the

6 village of Tisina?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In the months following April 16th and prior to your arrest, did

9 you ever have an opportunity of going to Tisina?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you see the Catholic church there?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was it damaged?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you have any idea as to who damaged it or how it was damaged or

16 when it was damaged?

17 A. I don't know the exact date, but when we went to Hasici, we passed

18 through that area because the church is right by the road, and the tower,

19 the spire had been blown up. And a building next to the church was also

20 destroyed and plundered. It was sometime in June, I think.

21 Q. Was it -- the damage or destruction of that particular church

22 reported upon in the -- by the radio, as the mosques had been reported

23 upon?

24 A. Very briefly. There were some comments on the radio, but the main

25 comment was that the Mujahedin from Gradacac did that, that they had come

Page 5303

1 and blown up the church.

2 Q. Was that on Bosanski Samac radio?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Was it the same lady who you mentioned had commented on the

5 destruction of the mosques in --

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown -- can the witness be

8 shown Exhibit P14, which are the photographs, and in particular,

9 photographs number 24 to 26. Perhaps it's P14A.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it's P14A.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Mr. Usher. Perhaps if we could start,

12 just quickly, with P14A, photograph number 24. I don't know, it might be

13 better for the defendants, I think, if it was placed on the ELMO.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The particular photograph which you want to

15 discuss with the witness should be on the ELMO.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Di Fazio, if the usher could make

18 sure that we don't see the list with the numbers and the names of the

19 photographs, which we did get a brief glance of a few moments ago.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Are you asking that they be

21 removed from the view of the witness?

22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. It just appeared briefly on the screen.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: It's been attended to. Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Okay. Witness, what's that a photograph of?

25 A. This is the Catholic church in Hrvatska Tisina.

Page 5304

1 Q. When you saw it, was it in that state?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: And please place photograph number 25 on the ELMO.

5 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what that photograph shows?

6 A. This is the interior of the church in Hrvatska Tisina.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: And now, Mr. Usher, could you please place

9 photograph number 26.

10 Q. Witness, there are two buildings you can see there. I don't think

11 anyone's going to object if I suggest that the one on the right is the

12 church you've just been talking about. What about the other building in

13 the background and on the left? Do you know what that is?

14 A. This is another church building where the priest by the name of

15 Zuparic lived. Later on, Lugar had his headquarters in this house where

16 the priest used to live.

17 Q. When? When did he have his headquarters there?

18 A. Maybe May, June 1992. He was there with his ...

19 Q. I don't think you finished your answer. He was there with his

20 what?

21 A. With his troops, the mercenaries from Serbia.

22 Q. You mentioned a priest who used to reside there. What happened to

23 him?

24 A. He was also imprisoned in the TO building in Bosanski Samac. He

25 was exchanged, and I don't know his present whereabouts.

Page 5305

1 Q. Just repeat again the surname of the priest.

2 A. Zuparic.

3 Q. May I have just a moment to confer with my colleagues, please?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 [Prosecution counsel confer]

6 MR. DI FAZIO:

7 Q. I'm sorry. Witness, did you just try to say something?

8 A. Yes. I just remembered, actually, his name is Puskaric. I made a

9 mistake.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further questions.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination? Yes, Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether I

14 should start with my cross-examination, in light of the break. Could you

15 perhaps tell me now when you intend to have a break?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right. Maybe we can have a break and

17 continue our proceedings at 1615 hours. Then the cross-examination can

18 start then.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. Mr. Di Fazio.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: May I just raise one very brief matter before my

23 friends cross-examine?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: And that is the timing of witnesses. As you know,

Page 5306

1 it is proposed after this witness is called that the next witness be the

2 gentleman who needs to be cross-examined who gave his evidence last year,

3 Mr. Dagovic, and he's available and will be called. The question is

4 precisely when.

5 My learned friends have apparently indicated to my colleague Ms.

6 Reidy that their estimate for cross-examination of this witness is 4

7 hours. That will take us through today and into tomorrow, of course, but

8 the question is how far -- much of tomorrow, and the other witness is

9 waiting in the wings, ready for his cross-examination, and therefore has

10 to be arranged. I, with all due respect to my learned friends and I think

11 four hours is probably fairly optimistic on their part, that we will

12 probably go at least all of tomorrow if not very close to the end of

13 tomorrow. Of course, they know their case better, but even with the best

14 of intentions, estimates are usually underestimates rather than

15 overestimates. Would the Chamber be minded to grant us permission to

16 arrange him for Wednesday morning rather than tomorrow afternoon? He

17 doesn't have to be flown in, he's driving in from somewhere, and it means

18 something to him to --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: -- to have the day, the extra day tomorrow. What

21 I'm worried about is that we finish slightly early and we haven't got a

22 witness waiting in the wings. If that were to arise, would the Chamber

23 give us an adjournment?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can agree that he can drive in on Wednesday

25 morning.

Page 5307

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Wednesday morning. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir. My name is Novak Lukic. I'm an

6 attorney, and I'm the Defence counsel for Mr. Miroslav Tadic, and I will

7 be asking you some questions in my capacity.

8 Before I begin, I would just like to let you know two things.

9 First of all, it's been a month and a half since our last meeting here in

10 this courtroom. During my cross-examination, I will probably have to

11 remind you of some of the sentences you have uttered, although I assumed

12 you remember quite clearly all the things that you said during your

13 testimony a month and a half ago.

14 The second thing I would like to note is I would like to make this

15 -- the proceedings more economical in light of the duration of all the

16 testimonies. I would like to ask you if you could keep your answers as

17 short and as simple as possible. I will try to phrase my questions in

18 such a way that you can answer with yes or no or I don't know or I do not

19 remember. After all, you have been able to answer such -- in such a way

20 to some of the questions asked by my learned colleague from the

21 Prosecution, and I will try to follow his example.

22 First of all, I would like to remind you of what you have said and

23 ask you the following question in this respect: You stated that you had

24 -- that you were a member of the SDA.

25 A. Yes.

Page 5308

1 Q. As far as I was able to understand, you were a member of this

2 party for just a few months.

3 A. Yes.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: The microphone when asking your question, Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. You said that there were some disagreements with the persons who

8 were active members of the party. You quoted that as the reason why you

9 left the SDA.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Could I please ask you to wait for the interpretation of my

12 question and then give your answer, for the purpose of interpretation.

13 Can we agree that you were in conflict with Mr. Safet

14 Hadzialijagic?

15 A. No.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please wait for the

17 interpretation, because we cannot hear his answer clearly.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Let us proceed slowly. I will try to use the same tactics used by

20 my colleague Mr. Pantelic. When you hear my question, count to five and

21 then answer, because in that way we will avoid the problem with the

22 interpretation.

23 I will repeat my question. Were you in conflict with Mr. Safet

24 Hadzialijagic, nicknamed Coner?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5309

1 Q. You were in conflict with him also while you were a member of the

2 League of Communists?

3 A. No.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe I can explain to the witness that if you're

5 looking at the screen, you will notice that when a sentence is completed,

6 there is a black indicator at the end of it and it will flash about three,

7 four times without moving further. That means the interpretation is

8 completed for our purposes. So just observe that and you can give your

9 answer, because the interpreters have to complete the question of counsel

10 before they can interpret your answer.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic, I wonder whether you could

12 clarify from the witness. If you look at line 24, the answer to your

13 question as to being in conflict with Mr. Safet Hadzialijagic is, "No,"

14 and then you ask the same question, line -- page 34, line 7, and the

15 answer on line 9 is, "Yes."

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I noted this

17 as an error in interpretation, and that is why I repeated the question.

18 The answer given by the witness the first time was, "Yes," but the

19 transcript read, "No," and that is why I repeated the question. I think

20 that now we have cleared this whole issue up. He was in indeed conflict,

21 had a dispute with Mr. Safet Hadzialijagic.

22 Q. After doing your national service - you already described this to

23 the Prosecutor - were you in any kind of reserve force? And if yes,

24 where, in which arm of the service?

25 A. For a while I was in the reserve force of the police. As for the

Page 5310

1 arm, I don't know. Just the reserve police.

2 Q. Were you in the reserve force of the police until the outbreak of

3 the conflict or did you change your assignment?

4 A. I changed it.

5 Q. Did you have military exercises?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Were you issued with any kind of weapon as a member of the

8 reserves?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So we can agree that you only knew where your order of war

11 timetable was, but you weren't assigned to any kind of unit?

12 A. We had lectures often. This is what it really was all about

13 mostly, at the old hotel in Samac.

14 Q. But in the army you were trained how to handle weapons?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You also described to us the day when weapons were issued in the

17 TO building. So we -- I would like to clarify some facts regarding this

18 event.

19 First of all, I'm interested in whether you found out from

20 somebody that these weapons were being issued or distributed at the TO or

21 you saw people on the street who were carrying weapons and then you went

22 to the TO. Could you please just clarify this?

23 A. I saw a couple of people carrying weapons.

24 Q. Did you ask them where they got the weapons from, why they were

25 carrying these weapons?

Page 5311

1 A. I did. I think I asked a person. His last names is Coralic. His

2 nickname is Dubcek or Ciko. And He told me that the TO, the Territorial

3 Defence in Samac, was distributing weapons.

4 Q. At that time did you know that a new Territorial Defence was

5 formed in Samac?

6 A. I found out on that day.

7 Q. Did you find out that day that the chief of the TO headquarters

8 was Marko Bozanic and that the commander was Alija Fitozovic?

9 A. I heard about Alija before. I knew Marko personally, and I

10 happened to see him there at the HQ that day.

11 Q. Did you talk to him?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Just one more clarification, if you would. Could you precisely

14 tell us whether you saw Milos Bogdanovic in the courtyard of the TO

15 building on that occasion?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You stated that you saw that only Muslims and Croats were issued

18 with weapons. This is what you said. Is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could anybody receive a rifle who happened to come to the TO

21 building courtyard at that time and ask for a weapon?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Who decided about who could be issued with a weapon and who could

24 not?

25 A. I don't know who made that decision.

Page 5312

1 Q. Was there a list of people who were supposed to be issued with

2 weapons?

3 A. I didn't see that.

4 Q. And you were offered a rifle?

5 A. No.

6 Q. I would like to remind you of your statement which you gave in the

7 month of December. You stated literally that it seemed to you that this

8 was a kind of funny business going on and this is why you decided to

9 leave, and you were not on the list to receive a weapon.

10 A. I've stated a little while ago that I did not see this list.

11 Q. Did you ask for a weapon at all?

12 A. I did not, and I'm sure I wouldn't have received one either.

13 MR. LUKIC: Just bear with me for a moment.

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Could you clarify for me, please, what you meant when you said

17 that it seemed to you that there was some funny business going on there.

18 A. I was watching as they were distributing the weapons at the HQ.

19 The door was open. When I turned to the other side, towards the building

20 of the police station, I could see that Serb police officers were looking

21 out of the windows from that building.

22 Q. According to you, could those police officers clearly see who was

23 bringing out rifles from the courtyard?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You said that that evening, your brother [redacted] came to ask you for

Page 5313

1 a rifle, even though you'd never had one before.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you ask him why he was asking you for a rifle?

4 A. I did ask him, and he told me, "If you do have one, give it to

5 me." And he told me also to stay in the house, not to go out and not to

6 open the door. Since it was possible to buy an illegal weapon at that

7 time, perhaps he thought that I had bought a rifle somewhere, and this is

8 probably why he came.

9 Q. I would like to move to another topic now. You described your

10 forced labour and your trench digging. You stated that you were summoned

11 for work duty in the second half of May, that you received the summons

12 then on the 16th or the 17th of May.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did I hear you properly, that you stated that already the next day

15 you had gone out to dig trenches in Zasavica?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I would now like you to clarify some things about the area we're

18 talking about. You also indicated some of these places on the map. The

19 line of separation at that time was between -- the River Bosna at that

20 time was the line of separation between the HVO and the units of the VRS.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In relation to this line of separation, did something change after

23 Odzak was taken over by the VRS in July of 1992?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like the usher to place the

Page 5314

1 map P9 on the ELMO so that we could clarify some points regarding the

2 location of Zasavica.

3 Q. Could you point out for us the village of Zasavica on this map,

4 please. Once again, please.

5 A. Just one moment.

6 Q. Would it be easier to look on the map itself rather than on the

7 screen?

8 A. [Indicates]

9 Q. Thank you. You also pointed out the line of trenches that you had

10 made during the months of May and June, i.e., in the month of May when the

11 work duty began. Could you please show that to us once more.

12 A. [Indicates]

13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not able to hear the

14 witness.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters say they can't hear what the

16 witness is saying. I wonder if he can be assisted.

17 A. From the village of Zasavica up to the Bosna River, the line went.

18 This is where Prudine are, then it went towards Pisari, even though

19 they're not indicated here.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you. Thank you, you've already marked that. When did the

22 Muslims swim across the Sava River in large numbers? When was this? In

23 which month?

24 A. Around the 15th of July. Mid-July, thereabouts.

25 Q. And after that, as you stated, their families were detained in the

Page 5315

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5316

1 village of Zasavica as a consequence of that act.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. After the fall of Odzak, after Odzak was taken over by the Serb

4 authorities, that's when it happened?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can we agree that at the time when the families of these people

7 were taken to Zasavica, the River Bosna was not the separation line

8 between the warring parties?

9 A. I said that I was digging trenches in the month of May, and I

10 agree that at that time when there was this major escape attempt, the

11 River Bosna was not the separation between the sides.

12 Q. Can we agree that, at that time, the line of the front ran along

13 the River Sava?

14 A. That's where it was.

15 Q. Could you tell us how far, approximately, is Zasavica from the

16 River Sava?

17 A. Do you mean if we go along the River Bosna or if we go along the

18 road?

19 Q. Well, what is the shortest distance between Zasavica and the River

20 Sava, according to you?

21 A. It's perhaps about eight kilometres.

22 Q. And the town Samac is on the bank of the River Sava?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you know that the village -- that the village of Zasavica was

25 ever shelled from the direction of the Sava River?

Page 5317

1 A. No.

2 Q. As opposed to Samac, which was frequently shelled?

3 A. Yes.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We won't need map P9 any more, thank

6 you. Actually, I would just like it to stay on the ELMO for just one more

7 question.

8 Q. On the map, you can see the town of Samac. You can see it very

9 well. But perhaps you could indicate where the old-age pensioners' hall

10 was where you had to report for work duty. If you can indicate where it

11 was, approximately. Was it in the town itself? Was it in the centre?

12 A. It was in the town itself.

13 Q. This building had a ground floor and a first floor?

14 A. It had apartments upstairs.

15 Q. And the offices for the work duty were in the basement, on the

16 ground floor; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And this is where people reported for their work duty assignments?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You stated that you frequently went upstairs where your brother

21 Ismet worked.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. We can agree, can we not, that on the first floor, the upstairs of

24 the building, there were the premises of the local Red Cross?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5318

1 Q. And the Red Cross flag was flying on that building, if you

2 remember?

3 A. No, I don't.

4 Q. What do you mean; "No, it was not there," or, "No, I don't

5 remember"?

6 A. I don't remember. I remember there was the employment office

7 there. I do not recall any flag.

8 Q. Do you know who was in charge of the Red Cross?

9 A. I think it was Sveto Vasovic, the teacher.

10 Q. Does the name Milorad Mihajlovic ring any bells?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did he work for the Red Cross?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was he in fact the manager for the Red Cross in Samac? Do you

15 know?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Do you know the name of Anka Jovanovic?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you know the name Zeljko Volasevic?

20 A. Yes, but I think that Zeljko did not work for the Red Cross.

21 Q. What about Anka?

22 A. Anka did.

23 Q. The people who wanted to being exchanged, did they go to the

24 premises of the Red Cross to sign up for it?

25 A. I know they went to the premises where my brother and Mr. Miroslav

Page 5319

1 Tadic were, but we're talking about a different premises. That's not the

2 Red Cross building. That was, in fact, a separate room.

3 Q. We have to agree. In addition to the Red Cross, was there also

4 the civilian protection there?

5 A. That was the local commune council where Zeljko Volasevic used to

6 work.

7 Q. What about the civilian protection headquarters? If you don't

8 know, just say -- just say so.

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. Do you know what the civilian protection is?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you know that Miroslav Tadic was the commander of the civilian

13 protection headquarters or staff?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Do you know that if somebody wanted to be exchanged, that the

16 other side had to give its approval; the other side, the receiving side?

17 A. I would not agree with that statement.

18 Q. I merely asked about your knowledge of this fact, whether it was

19 necessary to receive approval from the receiving side for any exchange.

20 A. No. I do not want to answer that question because the question

21 itself is not correct. They took people to be exchanged, those who wanted

22 to be exchanged.

23 Q. Do you know that if somebody wanted to be exchanged and go to the

24 Republic of Croatia, that they needed a letter of guarantee from a person

25 inviting this person?

Page 5320

1 A. That is not correct. Who would give you such a letter of

2 guarantee that they were willing to receive you? That's also not correct.

3 Q. I didn't ask you to assess my question but to give me an answer.

4 Do you know of that?

5 A. This is the first time I hear of such a thing.

6 Q. Your brother worked in the premises where Miroslav Tadic was the

7 manager.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was this his work duty assignment?

10 A. He was in a military uniform. I would say that this was his work

11 duty assignment. He was paid as a soldier of the Republika Srpska army,

12 and whether this was in fact work duty, I don't know.

13 Q. I would now like to ask you some questions that pertain to the

14 proceedings conducted against you. My learned colleague from the

15 Prosecution wanted to ask you some questions regarding this event, but we

16 did not -- we were not able to get any answers. I just want to ask you,

17 is your eyesight better now than it was in December?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. I may want to ask you to read some things. In the course of the

20 examination-in-chief, you said you were arrested in September [Realtime

21 transcript read in error "December"] 1992.

22 A. Yes.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

Page 5321

1 Q. You said that you were questioned by Inspector Milos Savic after

2 perhaps some ten days.

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm little bit concerned,

5 and I don't want to interrupt unduly, but I'm a bit concerned about what

6 was put to the witness about the date. It says December 1992. I don't

7 have it at my fingertips, but my memory tells me that the arrest was

8 earlier than what this witness said, and I think my colleague Mr. Weiner

9 agrees with me. I wonder if Mr. Lukic can specify the page or if he has

10 direct knowledge of the --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: About the date of arrest for the witness.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. On the translation here, it says December.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I can see that on the transcript.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: My memory tells me that his evidence was that he

15 was arrested much earlier.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The question that I asked was

17 September, and the witness heard me and answered and confirmed it. So

18 we're talking about September 1992.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. It's been clarified. It's just a mistake in

20 interpretation.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: We have a problem because this is the second time

22 the interpretation seems not to be correct. So the month is September.

23 Let the witness confirm that if the witness can confirm that.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In December I was taken from Samac

25 to Batkovici and that is why the month of December is mentioned at all,

Page 5322

1 but I was arrested in September 1992.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I even quoted the exact reference;

4 page 5223 of the examination-in-chief.

5 Q. You also stated that you couldn't remember whether you signed any

6 written statements.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You also stated that you were questioned only about the fact

9 whether you belonged to the scout unit, Alija's scouts, as you explained

10 to us.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And Savic did not ask any other questions?

13 A. No, no other questions. That was the only thing.

14 Q. You also answered to my colleague from the Prosecution that there

15 was no mention of Stevo Arandjic.

16 A. No. Stevo Arandjic was not mentioned at all on that occasion.

17 Q. And about the incident involving Stevo Arandjic, nothing was said

18 about that either?

19 A. No, nothing was said about that either.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now go into private session

21 or closed session, because I would now like to introduce a document where

22 the witness's name is mentioned, and I would like to have a part of this

23 document read out.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we go into private session.

25 [Private session]

Page 5323

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 5323 to 5343 redacted private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5344

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [Open session]

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. You said that you were exchanged in June 1994.

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there's just one particular

8 matter that I need -- I think should be clarified for the benefit of the

9 Chamber. It's an earlier question.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Question: "I assume that the money was taken away

12 from all persons who were imprisoned at Batkovic," and the -- what the

13 question -- and the answer was: "Yes." What that leaves unanswered is

14 whether the money was taken at Batkovic or at some other place or only

15 taken from the people who went to Batkovic. So perhaps that could be

16 clarified.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure counsel can deal with that.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Let's just clarify this issue. When you were searched, as you

20 entered Batkovic, by the officials there, any money that was found was

21 seized on the spot?

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that now it has been

24 clarified.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

Page 5345

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. You also said that at that time in June 1994, 18 persons were

3 exchanged, persons who were with you in Batkovic.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Were those your fellow citizens from Samac?

6 A. There were six of us from Samac.

7 Q. Do you remember any of the names, or perhaps all of the names?

8 A. Husein Arapovic, Zlatko Dubric, Esad Dzakic, and Mirsad Srna, I

9 think.

10 Q. You said that you found out the day before the exchange that you

11 were going to be exchanged. Do you know who organised the exchange? Were

12 you taken to the exchange by the army of the Republika Srpska? Were they

13 uniformed persons?

14 A. Yes, they were people in uniform.

15 Q. Were there uniformed persons from the B and H army during the

16 exchange? Were they present also?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you have the opportunity to see the people who were being

19 exchanged for you? Did you see people coming from the opposite side at

20 the place where the exchange took place?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You also stated that you gave a statement afterwards. Do you

23 remember to whom you gave that first statement?

24 A. To the police in Tuzla.

25 Q. Were representatives of the International Red Cross present during

Page 5346

1 that -- on that occasion, or representatives of the OSCE?

2 A. No.

3 Q. But they were uniformed persons from one and from the other side

4 there?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Miroslav Tadic was not present at that exchange?

7 A. No.

8 Q. At the time when you were exchanged, as far as I was able to

9 figure out, you had served about two years of that sentence by the

10 military court. Is that true?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you were still serving that sentence when you went to be

13 exchanged?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. A 12-year sentence in prison, according to the judgement of the

16 military court in Bijeljina.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I would like to remind you that, in response to a question by the

19 Prosecutor about your exchange, which you gave in December of last year on

20 page 5252, when the Prosecutor asked whether there were any soldiers or

21 military persons present at that exchange, you had responded, "No."

22 A. There was a military escort on both sides, because we were treated

23 as members of the army.

24 Q. Yes. This is what I'm interested in. Were you treated as war --

25 prisoners of war by the persons who took you for the exchange?

Page 5347

1 A. Yes. According to the documents, that is how we were treated.

2 Civilians were given -- were exchanged for regular army members in these

3 exchanges.

4 Q. And the -- and the judgement by the -- did you have this sentence,

5 the judgement by the military court which sentenced you?

6 A. We were -- the 37 from us from Samac, we were sentenced. So we

7 were exchanged for the members of the army who had been captured on the

8 lines.

9 Q. So if I concluded rightly, during the exchange, the people who

10 were exchanged from the other side were military persons, persons from the

11 army of Republika Srpska.

12 A. Yes.

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, I have a question for yourself. If

14 this witnesses and others like him in a similar situation were classified

15 as prisoners of war, on what basis were they being prosecuted? They would

16 have been subjected to the protections of international humanitarian law,

17 the Geneva Conventions 1949. So these prosecutions would hardly have been

18 legal and there would also be questions as to the -- obviously the

19 beatings would again violate the legal obligations both under conventional

20 international law and customary international law and arguably also jus

21 cogens.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I understood your question very well,

23 Judge Williams, but I am defending Miroslav Tadic here, who was not a

24 party to the decision of the military court. He did not participate in

25 the exchange of this witness. So I'm trying, through the procedure which

Page 5348

1 was conducted - and this Court will decide about the legality of that

2 procedure - I am trying -- I would like to show through that procedure

3 what the -- what the activities or the procedure of Miroslav Tadic was in

4 the committee for the exchange, because earlier with previous witnesses, I

5 provided documents about who it is who approves military exchanges, if you

6 remember. And I provided this document as the main headquarters of

7 Republika Srpska, the corps command, if we're talking about exchange.

8 So in this sense, the situation relating to the legality or the

9 justice of his procedure, a military trial is in somebody else's

10 jurisdiction. I'm asking these questions in order to clarify the place

11 and the role of my defendant in the procedure of the exchange.

12 JUDGE SINGH: But I think your question was, and which I also

13 don't quite understand, the question you put to him was: "You were

14 treated as war prisoners by the persons who took you for the exchange."

15 What does that mean? What persons? What persons are you talking

16 about who took him for the exchange? Who are these persons, the

17 authorities?

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there was a civilian and

19 a military committee for exchange as part of the authorities of Republika

20 Srpska. Military prisoners of war who were treated as such by the

21 authorities of Republika Srpska, based on some legal documents, were

22 exchanged through military commissions; and civilians who were treated by

23 those commissions as civilians were exchanged through civilian committees.

24 During the year 1993, these committees became mixed, and they always

25 worked jointly. And we will present evidence of this during the trial.

Page 5349

1 But my questions was, the people who took him for an exchange, were they

2 uniformed persons? This is what I wanted to find out from the witness.

3 These were people who took him to be exchanged.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Judge Singh.

5 JUDGE SINGH: Do you know who took him to be exchanged to the

6 authorities? If you know, you should put that to him. I assume you know

7 by now.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I must disappoint you. I only know

9 about exchanges in which my client participated, and I can assume who it

10 was who took him to the -- to be exchanged. But the exchanges in which my

11 client Tadic participated, I know about those specifically. But I assume

12 it was somebody from the military structure from the camp, or he was

13 simply taken there by people from the military command. Perhaps we can

14 clarify this if the witness knows this in regard to his exchange.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when the list was read

16 by a civilian, the list was read to us by a civilian person, his name is

17 Vojkan Djurkovic. He read a list to us in the camp. He was the president

18 of the committee in Bijeljina.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is 6.00. I have one

20 more topic besides the topic which was postponed. So perhaps --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we can adjourn and continue tomorrow

22 afternoon at 1415.

23 I see Mr. Zecevic.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your Honours. I was informed

25 during the break from my client that he doesn't feel very well at all, and

Page 5350

1 he is willing to rest tomorrow, and I just wanted to inform the Trial

2 Chamber that he's waiving his right of appearance for tomorrow.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. Yes.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: So he can rest in the Detention Unit.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: We will rise.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.00 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of

10 January, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25