1 Thursday, 17 January 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 [The accused M. Simic not present in court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number
9 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav
10 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I notice that Mr. Milan Simic is not here.
12 Mr. Zecevic.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I went this morning to the UNDU
14 facility, and I talked to my client. He's actually very ill. He stayed
15 in bed all day long. And he waived his rights to be present here today.
16 So I really -- he doesn't know, and he's not feeling well as yet, so he
17 doesn't know whether he will be able to come tomorrow or not. That is
18 really beyond me. And I will inform the Trial Chamber as -- tomorrow
19 morning accordingly.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: As to what the progress is, yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Thank you so much.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. On the document which was discussed yesterday,
23 I would like to find out the position of the Prosecution.
24 MS. REIDY: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It's my understanding
25 that in relation to this witness, there are two documents which were put
1 on the record as the Defence not having had. One of them was Mr. Pantelic
2 said that they had not received a statement given to the MUP in
3 Bosanski -- Bosanski Samac at the time. That statement was disclosed on
4 the 15th of May, and there are copies of the receipts available, both the
5 original for inspection and copies available if the Chamber or any members
6 of the Defence would like it.
7 With respect to the second document, which were the notes from
8 July 1998, having checked the records, those were not disclosed, and for
9 that oversight, we have to apologise to the Trial Chamber for the
10 inconvenience caused, and of course to our learned colleagues on the
11 Defence for that lack of statement in their file.
12 There was a check done on all witnesses after the pre-trial brief
13 was filed and prior to the Pre-Trial Conference, and during that check a
14 number of documents came up as possibly not having been disclosed. A list
15 was compiled, and they were disclosed on the 15th of May, which is when
16 the other documents were disclosed. For an oversight, I can only put down
17 to human error, [redacted]--
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Of the witness on the stand now.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
16 MR. PANTELIC: And in fact, we are not speaking about formal or
17 informal notes. We are speaking about the statement. That's first fact.
18 Another fact, we have checked our records and we have to inform
19 this Trial Chamber that the statement mentioned that the Prosecution gave
20 with -- of this witness in 1994, we are speaking about statement which
21 was given before the authorities and representatives in, I would say, it's
22 not Orasje, it's Modrica, Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Muslim Herceg-Bosna
23 entity, municipality Modrica.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: If you can give us that name again because you have
25 to identify the authorities correctly for the Prosecution to be able to
1 explain, if they have to explain anything.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. We are speaking about a document with ERN
3 number 0063 --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you slow down, Mr. Pantelic.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, the document in question is numbered with
7 ERN numbers 00636820. That's the first page. And the second page,
8 accordingly is the last two digits are 21. The document in question is
9 statement of the witness now in bench, and he gave it to -- on a date
10 27 July, 1994, and he gave this statement to the following -- I will just
11 read the title of the authority, which is the Republic of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina, Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, Ministry of Interior,
13 Derventa Police Administration, Bosanski Samac Police Station. In 1994,
14 that was the organisation, I don't know how in Herceg-Bosna.
15 Again, having checked our records, we can confirm that we have
16 only English version of this statement from 1994. We all know that the
17 obligation during the discovery process of the Prosecution should be that
18 also in B/C/S language, this statement should be provided to our clients,
19 which was not done, and we haven't received any such document.
20 And finally, Your Honours, I kindly invite my friends from the
21 Prosecution to confirm or to inform this Trial Chamber and Defence whether
22 they are in possession of any formal, official statement of all witnesses
23 in this case, given to the Bosnian authorities, Croatian authorities or
24 third parties, and whether these statements are of any relevance to these
25 proceedings. I mean shortly, we all know that in preparation of the case,
1 Prosecutor should rely on certain sources. Basically these sources
2 are -- in our particular case are Muslim intelligence service from
3 Sarajevo called AID, and also some Croatian -- well, authorities, police,
4 and some other secret services. And then Prosecutor is going to bring
5 this case before this -- the other Trial Chamber for the confirmation,
6 et cetera. So it is illogical for us that we have only several previous
7 statements, such as this one from 1994, up to now.
8 Of course, we learned just this afternoon that two statements,
9 including one statement which is related to the next witness, was
10 discovered to the Defence exactly at two hours and 15 minutes p.m., just
11 virtually 20 minutes before. So all of these details raise certain
12 concern on the side of the Defence that the Prosecution is in possession
13 of certain numbers of statements or documents which might be of importance
14 for this case. Of course, in next few months or -- I mean, in a period
15 which is in front of us, the Defence will of course, with the assistance
16 of this Honourable Trial Chamber, try to provide judicial assistance to
17 check everything on side, I mean within the Ministry of Interior of Bosnia
18 and all the other police stations to see whether there was any kind of
19 official connection between -- and communications between these units and
20 the Prosecution. Then we shall be in a situation to inform this Trial
21 Chamber about the details. Thank you very much for your attention.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it related to the documents?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, it is related to the documents. I have a
1 certain submission to make to this point. Your Honours, we understand
2 that this thing can happen, okay? We agree with our learned colleagues
3 from the Prosecutor's side. But the problem here is that Mr. Esad Dagovic
4 is the next witness and his statement has just been disclosed to us. We
5 are -- we want to be very reasonable, and since my client is not present,
6 I will have to have some instructions. I can do it over the telephone but
7 I was thinking to suggest to the Trial Chamber that, after we finish the
8 cross-examination of this witness, that we have a break of -- I mean,
9 within our break of half an hour plus additional 15 to 20 minutes so we
10 can prepare for the cross-examination of Mr. Esad Dagovic in light of this
11 statement that was disclosed to us 20 minutes before. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: And Your Honours, one other thing, since this is a
14 protected witness, my learned colleague has somehow missed, and his name
15 is on the record. So it has to be deleted. It's page 2, row 19.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think the registry did take note of that.
17 Thank you.
18 Yes. Any comments from the Prosecution?
19 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I'll deal with Mr. Zecevic's
20 submission first.
21 Of course, this statement from Mr. Dagovic was correctly only
22 disclosed, and we certainly feel it will be reasonable for them to have
23 more time. It was a single one-page statement involving one incident, and
24 I said it was simply an oversight.
25 With respect to the other matters which Mr. Pantelic has raised
1 before the Chamber, I think any suggestion he's making, and I don't think
2 it's an unreasonable inference to draw from his comments that we somehow
3 are sitting on statements or have -- are deliberately making judgement
4 calls on whether we should be disclosing statements is completely and
5 totally wrong. This case has been a long time in the Tribunal, and it has
6 had a very lengthy pre-trial process, and with that the individual members
7 of the Prosecution team have turned over, but I can say that my
8 colleague -- one colleague -- my predecessor, or our predecessor, was
9 certainly very conscientious of disclosing documents. Errors have
10 happened and it's not foolproof, but there has been no attempt, as has
11 been suggested, to withhold any documents.
12 On the 15th of May, on the signed receipt from Mr. Pantelic, there
13 are a number of statements which were not made to ICTY but were made to
14 local authorities of one nature or another which were disclosed to the --
15 to the Defence, including the English version of the statement
16 Mr. Pantelic has just talked about. And I have to say I find it somewhat
17 disingenuous if he now claims that he doesn't have the B/C/S version, that
18 between the 15th of May last year and whilst this witness was on the stand
19 he didn't point out to us that whilst he has the English version, the
20 B/C/S version did not accompany it. We'll check again. If it didn't
21 precede that, we'll certainly supply him with a copy, but he has that
22 English version and never brought it to our attention until yesterday --
23 in fact, until today, because yesterday he is still quoting that ERN
24 number, that document which he does have.
25 We -- a check was done on the -- well, after the pre-trial brief
1 was filed to double-check disclosure. We thought it was all complied with
2 on the 15th of May. It is continuously ongoing. Any time a document does
3 come up, a witness brings in a document, it is disclosed to Defence. I
4 don't think the Defence -- in fact, I think Mr. Pantelic, although he has
5 not invoked a Rule 66(B) and is not in a situation of reciprocal
6 discovery, we have treated him like we have treated any other defendant --
7 any other Defence members, and I find it somewhat disingenuous that he is
8 calling into question our good faith in the process.
9 As I say, if -- so we are -- we've also put in -- since yesterday,
10 we realised that there was an oversight. We have rechecked all our
11 witnesses, which is why the statement of Mr. Dagovic came to our
12 attention. And we've also put in a system whereby in the weeks before the
13 next witness comes, we'll be rechecking individually every single witness
14 with our files and with the receipts and that to make it -- it will be the
15 fourth or fifth time this is gone through but to make sure there cannot, I
16 hope, ever, you know, be this oversight that would in some way interrupt
17 these proceedings before the Chamber.
18 So if there's anything else on our behalf that the Chamber would
19 like us to do, then of course we'd be happy to undertake that if they are
20 of the opinion that there has been a problem with the disclosure process.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will deal with the matters
22 discussed by counsel at a later stage. In the meantime, we'll proceed
23 with the cross-examination of the witness.
24 Mr. Lazarevic.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Thank you.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS M [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Lazarevic: [Continued]
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir, again. We're into the third day
5 of our questioning. I would like to assure you that we don't have many
6 more questions as far as Mr. Zaric's defence is concerned, and we're
7 hoping to cover what questions we do have pretty quickly.
8 Yesterday we stopped at the event relating to the dismantling of
9 the radiators and the central heating equipment which you described here
10 in your statement. We noted, in agreement with our learned friends from
11 the Prosecution, that you did not mention that event in your statement
12 given to The Hague Tribunal investigators on the 14th and 17th of June,
13 1996. The way things look now and after everything that happened, it
14 seems that the first time you mentioned this event was in July 1998, some,
15 let's say, five years after the event; is that true?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I would now like to ask you several questions on that topic. You
18 said that you know Simo Zaric. The Prosecutor asked you about this
19 already. I would now like to go back to the time period before the
20 outbreak of the conflict.
21 Can you tell me where Simo Zaric lived at that time?
22 A. In the Mose Pijade settlement. It was called 64 Apartments.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic --
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. These are buildings with several apartments; is that true?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yeah. The witness, I saw that he was speaking at
3 the same time as me. It was really not my mistake, but I will instruct
4 the witness to speak slow and to wait until I finish with my questions.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Since we have fallen into the same trap again of
6 speaking at the same time, I would just ask you kindly to wait until I
7 have finished my question.
8 If my information is correct, these are buildings with central
9 heating, and perhaps you were even working when -- when you were working
10 in the public utility, you were working on the installation of the new
11 central heating and the water system.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In your statement to the Prosecutors, or to be precise, to the
14 investigators of the Prosecutor's Office, it states that you took this to
15 the house of Simo Zaric; is this true?
16 A. Perhaps there's a mistake there, but I know where we unloaded
17 these things.
18 Q. So you did not take this to Simo Zaric's house?
19 A. Simo Zaric did not have a house in Samac.
20 Q. And did you tell this to the investigators or did you tell them
21 that this was taken to Simo Zaric's house?
22 A. I don't know. It's possible that there was a mistake there. But
23 I do know that this was unloaded before the house of Fadil Topcagic,
24 Simo's wife's house.
25 Q. Thank you. You've already stated that before the Trial Chamber.
1 But I just have one more question concerning Odzak. In the second half of
2 August and the beginning of September, so up until the 7th, when you said
3 that you were arrested, so did you go to Odzak in that period?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you see Simo Zaric in Odzak in that period of time?
6 A. Very frequently.
7 Q. So now we are speaking, in order to clear things up, we are
8 speaking about the second half of August and early September, so before
9 the 7th of September, because after that you didn't go to Odzak. So in
10 that period, did you see him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At the end of your examination-in-chief, the Prosecutor took you
13 back to the event in front of the AS Cafe and he asked you several
14 questions so I would like to clarify a few matters on that topic. He
15 asked you about a certain Nebojsa Stankovic called Cera, and you said that
16 he was a member of the 4th Detachment; is this true?
17 A. I know that he was in uniform and that he was sitting in front of
18 the cafe.
19 Q. So you don't know whether he was a member of the 4th Detachment or
21 A. No, I don't know.
22 Q. After that, did you used to see this Cera in Samac during the
23 period while you were still free, so in the period before you were
24 arrested in September?
25 A. I saw him a couple of times, but I avoided him.
1 Q. Of course. It's a natural reaction. And then when you were
2 arrested, did you used to see him at the police?
3 A. I don't remember. I don't know.
4 Q. I would like to ask you one more thing about Cera. Was he, when
5 you saw him -- when you said that you saw him and avoided him, was he
6 often in the company of these specials, these people in camouflage
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: With Your Honour's permission, I have almost
10 finished with my cross-examination. Now I would like the witness to see
11 again the tape that was already played at the beginning of his
12 examination-in-chief. This is the tape entitled "Genocide in
13 Bosanski Samac." It is already tendered into evidence under number P16,
14 and the transcript of this tape is recorded as P60A in the evidence. I
15 don't believe that we are going to need the transcript or use it. We will
16 see just one very, very small portion. It lasts maybe ten, maybe 15
17 seconds, and if you permit, I would like to show this again.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You gave it to the technical booth?
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I already gave it to the technical booth.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Okay. You can stop now.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, at the beginning of your testimony, the
25 Prosecutor showed you a tape; is this true?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what you have just seen now, that's the tape; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. At that point, the Prosecutor asked for the tape to be stopped and
5 he asked you, "Do you recognise this voice;" is this true?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you said that you do recognise it and that this is the --
8 that is the voice of Simo Zaric; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you please tell me now, what you see on the screen, who is
11 this person sitting on the left?
12 A. I saw that man on TV for the first time when the Samac mosque was
13 shown, the day before.
14 Q. Excuse me, on the left side of the screen, not on the right side
15 of the screen.
16 A. He is the TV editor of TV Novi Sad.
17 Q. And who is this other person?
18 A. You mean in uniform?
19 Q. Yes. In uniform?
20 A. Simo Zaric.
21 Q. So it's Simo Zaric. And can you please tell me what it says here
22 on the screen?
23 A. "Simo Zaric, deputy commander," and I don't see any more.
24 Q. So at the time when the Prosecutor asked you to -- if you
25 recognised the voice in front of you on the screen, you could see the
1 picture of Simo Zaric, under that you could see the name "Simo Zaric," and
2 the title, "assistant commander;" is this true?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The next counsel? Yes, Mr. Zecevic?
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Zecevic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir, my name is Slobodan Zecevic. I
8 will be asking you certain questions. Sir, could you please tell me, is
9 your whole family from Samac?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You have five brothers; is that true?
12 A. I did have five brothers, yes.
13 Q. And one of your brothers has deceased?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Throughout the war, and after the war, your brothers continued to
16 live in Samac?
17 A. [redacted].
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, if your questioning is likely to bring
23 out the family names, maybe we better go into private session.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I didn't want him to mention the name
25 of the brothers, just the brothers in general but the witness --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It was likely to happen.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. I'm so sorry. I don't need the private
3 session at this moment because I'm practically finished with this line of
5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So the names will be redacted.
6 MR. ZECEVIC:
7 Q. [Interpretation] So one of your brothers in any case has remained
8 and lives in Samac after the end of the war. Please don't speak his
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Sir, can you please tell me, you served in the army,
12 in the former Yugoslavia; is that true?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In 1992, you were a military conscript; is that true?
15 A. According to my age, I was supposed to be, and I was.
16 Q. Did you have a military ID card?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You also had a reserve wartime assignment, which was in your
19 military ID booklet; is that true?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If you remember, could you please tell us where you were assigned,
22 where your wartime assignment was?
23 A. The first assignment was in the reserve police as a career. Then
24 I was transferred to a company, to the civilian protection.
25 Q. In April 1992, what was your wartime assignment?
1 A. I left the company at that time, and I was on the records of the
2 civilian protection at the water works.
3 Q. So that means that at the time of immediate danger of war, you
4 were obliged to report to your place of mobilisation at the waterworks; is
5 that true?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You didn't report to your wartime assignment; is that true?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know that in the former Yugoslavia, besides the military
10 duties or service, there was also work duty? You knew that?
11 A. I didn't hear that there was work duty in the former Yugoslavia,
13 Q. I would just like to clarify something. In case of immediate
14 threat of war and war, there was military service, that duty, and also
15 general work duty; is that true?
16 A. I've just stated that I had never heard of work duty. If I was
17 summoned, of course I would have to report in.
18 Q. Since you served in the army and you are familiar with the
19 regulations, do you know that it was your duty that at the moment that war
20 was declared or immediate threat of war was declared you were obliged to
21 report to your place of mobilisation at the waterworks?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, if the question's being
24 divided into two parts, I wouldn't have an objection. I don't know --
25 first of all, I don't know if the answer "yes" means that the witness is
1 saying he's familiar with the wartime regulations or whether his answer
2 relates to the latter part he knew that he was obliged to report. So
3 that's uncertain. But there's thus far nothing to show that he had any
4 familiarity with any of the wartime regulations. Whether he's qualified
5 to speak about those wartime regulations is utterly uncertain.
6 If my friend wants to ask him questions about that and find out
7 what his qualifications are, that might be another matter, but that hasn't
8 occurred thus far.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: But isn't that a matter you can clear in your
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it is, but whilst --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I suppose it is --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: -- if you want me to do that.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: You clear that. Anything that's not clear, unless
17 it's an obvious mistake, then you wait for your re-examination.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I have asked the witness concerning
20 his knowledge because he was a member -- he served a military service in
21 the former Yugoslavia and of course he knows what is his duty as an army
22 reserve, of course. And he confirmed that as well.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can proceed.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Sir, you know, I'm asking you do you know that you were subject to
1 the regulations, legal penalties if you did not respond to the
2 mobilisation call in case of immediate danger of war or of war?
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. WEINER: I object at this time to the question. Your Honour,
6 this was raised with a previous witness concerning the regulations of the
7 former Yugoslavia. In this case, we are arguing that there were new
8 countries which existed in the spring of 1992, and this question was
9 raised previously whether these regulations would apply, and we previously
10 objected when one of the unnamed witnesses was testifying in late November
11 and December, and this Court did sustain and agree that those regulations
12 or at least that question was not a fair question as to whether or not
13 they were still required to report that those regulations or the laws did
14 in fact still apply, because the former Yugoslavia did not exist in the
15 spring of 1992.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, first of all, I have asked the witness
18 on his personal knowledge. I'm not asking for a legal opinion or anything
19 like that, just his personal knowledge. At the same time, I understand
20 the point which my learned colleague is raising, but, Your Honours, the
21 obligation and the thing -- whether this -- the former Yugoslavia ceased
22 to exist or not is a matter which is up for this Trial Chamber to decide,
23 and at this point, we know that the regulations at that time were
24 applicable, that the regulation of the former Yugoslavia and the Socialist
25 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were applicable.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: But that is your -- yeah. That is your assertion.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. That is my assertion, as well as the assertion
3 of the Prosecutor that these same regulations did not apply. So what I am
4 asking, I'm just asking from the witness a personal opinion, whether he
5 knows that he is committing a criminal offence by not responding to the
6 mobilisation or going to the mobilisation point at the time of war danger
7 or wartime. That is the only thing I'm asking.
8 MR. WEINER: It cannot be a criminal offence, Your Honour, because
9 the nation did not exist. The republic -- even the Republika Srpska or
10 Yugoslavia did not exist as it did when those regulations were written or
11 when those regulations were drafted and adopted. Therefore, it can't be a
12 violation. At the least, Your Honour, it is a legal issue that this
13 gentleman, who has training as a plumber, should not be answering.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh. Yeah. Mr. Zecevic, you understood what the
15 Prosecution is saying?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: That is a submission you can make.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. I understand.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. Yeah. But you can't ask for the witness's
20 opinion even.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm asking, Your Honours, his personal opinion,
22 because the basis of his obligation is his service at the military -- at
23 the army of the former Yugoslavia. So that is where his obligation
24 derivates from.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: But that is the -- that is in issue. So the
1 objection is sustained.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Zecevic, the other thing is: What regulations
4 are these? Have they been identified?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour?
6 JUDGE SINGH: Sorry. What regulations are these? Have they been
7 identified? Do we have the name of the regulation? Do we have the
8 particular clause? We don't quite know what this is at all.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour, first of all, during the
10 cross-examination of Mr. Tihic, we have presented some legal documents
11 concerning the military obligation, but this was subject to the objection
12 from the Prosecution that these military laws applied to Republika Srpska
13 and therefore cannot be -- their assertion is that this is not for the
14 overall Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 What we are planning to do is that in the Defence case we present
16 all the relevant data, all the relevant laws which in our opinion were
17 applicable at that time, because immediately after the -- after the --
18 JUDGE SINGH: No. If you wanted to --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE SINGH: If you want him to answer the question, perhaps you
21 want to identify whatever you have there that regulates his work duty.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --
23 JUDGE SINGH: Of course eventually that's a question of law, as
24 the Court has just ruled.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, Your Honour. It is --
1 JUDGE SINGH: But --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: It is a question of law beyond any dispute. What I
3 was asking is a personal opinion of knowledge of this witness, because he
4 had a military ID in which it is clearly stated, and he can confirm - I
5 can ask him if you allow me to - it says that the person is committing a
6 criminal offence if he doesn't, in a time of near war danger or war, go to
7 his mobilisation point. That is what I'm asking the witness. And he
8 should know that because everybody had his own military book or military
9 ID in the reserve.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps you may ask the witness that if you're
11 talking about the contents of his ID, military book.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you did have your military ID booklet with
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That booklet has some 20 pages or so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It also lists the provisions of the law on the armed forces valid
19 at the time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Among them is the provision according to which a person who fails
22 to respond to the call-up is subject to criminal responsibility?
23 A. That booklet was valid until March 1992 when a referendum was held
24 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after which it was proclaimed to be an
25 independent state. I believe it was valid up until that time.
1 Q. I would really like you to answer only my question --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues]... there is a
3 confusion here. If maybe -- yeah. If I'm right, what you are asking the
4 witness to say, to confirm, is what is contained in that ID.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Is there that writing that if you don't attend to
7 your call-up you will be committing a criminal offence, just to state
8 that. It's not whether or not it was applicable.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: That's right. That's exactly what I wanted to say
10 to the witness, to refrain to my question --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Okay.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: -- to answer my question only and not to go into the
13 specific --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: We don't know if it was applicable, yes. All
16 MR. ZECEVIC:
17 Q. Sir, please answer my question. Was this contained in the booklet
18 regardless of the validity of the booklet?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. And you did read that. So you were familiar with it.
21 A. Yes. A long time ago but yes.
22 Q. Despite all that, you did not go to the mobilisation location
23 because you believed that after March, it was no longer valid.
24 A. As far as I was concerned, I considered it not to be valid, but I
25 did not go.
1 Q. Did anyone inform you officially that it was no longer valid or
2 did you decide on your own that it was no longer valid?
3 A. I decided that for myself.
4 Q. Could you please just make a pause, before answering, for
5 interpretation. Thank you.
6 Can we agree that by failing to respond to the mobilisation
7 call-up you, in effect, indicated that you did not want to take part in
8 the army?
9 A. I did not want to join any army, that army or any other army. And
10 also I was unable to leave my house because there was shooting going on
11 and I didn't want to be involved in the war in any way.
12 Q. Sir, could you please tell me whether this decision of yours, and
13 this idea that you had that this booklet did not bind you any more, have
14 anything to do with your -- with the fact that you were of a certain
15 ethnic background?
16 A. I considered this military ID booklet to be a booklet of another
17 state, that belonged to another state.
18 Q. Thank you. We will now have a look at a document that the
19 Prosecution has already shown.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: May the usher please show the document D22E/2 ter,
22 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, do you mean P22?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: "D", "D" like doughnut.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Okay.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, since this document is under seal,
1 maybe we should go into a closed session. I'm sorry, I missed that it was
2 under seal.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right. So we will go into closed
5 [Closed session]
13 Pages 5517 to 5527 – redacted – closed session.
11 [Open session]
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. We will now talk some more about the work duty, along the same
14 lines that you discussed this topic with the Prosecutor. Just a moment,
15 please. During the examination by the Prosecutor, on the 4th of December,
16 2001, at page 50 -- 5111, when the Prosecutor asked you the following
17 question, which I will now read in English and then I will read out your
18 answer, too, and you will get the interpretation: [In English] "In all of
19 the time that you were engaged in this sort of labour, this sort of
20 project, did anyone ever record, write down, in any way at all, the days
21 that you worked or the hours that you worked?" "No." Answer: "No."
22 [Interpretation] Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes. And I still have the same answer: No.
24 Q. All right. Now, please tell me, on the 3rd of December, during
25 the examination-in-chief conducted by the Prosecution, on page 5041,
1 line 5 through 8 -- 4 through 8, sorry, when the Prosecutor asked you how
2 you knew what it was all about when you first went to do your work duty
3 and about all the things that happened when you reported for the first
4 time, you stated -- I will now again read it out in English and it will be
5 interpreted to you: [In English] "When we arrived, the lists were read
6 out to us. In fact they called out our names, to see if everyone has
7 responded to the call-up. Since most people had, they went upstairs into
8 the building. I think it was Dzemal Kapetanovic, and the other one was
9 Bozo Ninkovic. After a while, we were divided into those labour groups.
10 We didn't know where we were going or what we were required to do."
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Is this what you stated?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So somebody must have called out your names from a list of some
16 kind; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When they called out your names, that was the way in which they
19 ascertained who responded to the call-up and who didn't; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And after that, they assigned you to various work groups and sent
22 you to carry out some tasks in various locations in Samac and its
23 environs; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Does that mean that there was some kind of a record kept?
1 A. As far as I understand, the records existed only to show who
2 showed up and who doesn't. The person who failed to show up was arrested
3 by the police. That was the only reason why it existed, as a sort of
4 control mechanism.
5 Q. At the beginning, I read out to you what you stated on the 4th of
6 December, and that is when you said that there was -- there were no
7 records. You confirmed to the Prosecutor that there were no records?
8 A. In the morning, they would read out.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the witness said in
10 examination-in-chief that there were no records of work done, work
11 performed, hours worked. That's what there was no record of, and that was
12 the thrust of his evidence. Now it's being put to him that somehow he's
13 contradicting his position because he agrees that there must have been a
14 list or something for people to answer in the first place to the call-up.
15 But they're completely different records, and they address different
16 issues. They're recording different things, and from that point of view,
17 the question is misleading to the witness, I submit. One --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: One deals with call-up and one deals with record of
20 work done, and they're the two differences.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours --
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I see that it's the time. Shall I pose that --
25 shall I answer this question or pose another question? Because I see it's
1 a quarter to 4.00 already.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but Mr. di Fazio's point has been taken.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: But I will read again the transcript, because the
6 transcript says -- the question of Mr. di Fazio was:
7 Q. In all of the time that you were engaged in this
8 sort of labour, these sort of projects, did anyone
9 ever record or write down in any way at all the days
10 that you worked or the hours that you worked?
11 And he said "No." But it's obvious when he shows for call-up
12 somebody would put a cross on his name that he showed for work that day.
13 Isn't that right? I mean, it sounds logical to me.
14 JUDGE SINGH: But, Mr. Zecevic, that's a different question. I
15 mean, your name can be called out --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE SINGH: -- you can come on a particular day --
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE SINGH: -- and what the official does, what he records, I
20 mean, is he privy to that? I mean, for that matter, if you had asked him
21 a question, which probably would have been more proper, "You did go for --
22 you did report for duty on particular days, and you did go at a particular
23 time and come back at a different time. From there, records could have
24 been made of the number of hours you worked." That would be quite another
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Shall I pose that
3 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Let's go for our break and you will ponder the
4 issues raised, and we will continue at 1615 hours.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic? You're proceeding with
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, before the break, you confirmed that you
11 were called out in the morning, there was a roll-call in the morning when
12 you reported for work duty?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You are not aware of anyone keeping any records?
15 A. No.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: May the usher please show the witness P39 ter,
17 "P" like Paris.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, it's just a -- I wonder if
19 the Chamber would indulge the Prosecution for a moment. We seem to have
20 lost our copy of P39. Might I just have a look at the court exhibit,
21 please, just to see if I can refresh my memory as to what it is?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can just -- you can approach the ELMO.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I wonder if it's ID -- an ID document, or is it a
24 full exhibit at this stage?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: It's your document. I don't know.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we confirm from the registry, please?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, Your Honour, it's an ID document.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation].
5 Q. Before we go on to this document, I have just one question for
6 you. When you were called out for work duty, somebody came out and read
7 out the names?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you see that anything was written down or not?
10 A. Just the names.
11 Q. So the names were read out?
12 A. Yes. And those who did not -- who were not there to respond, a
13 mark was made next to their names.
14 Q. So the person reading out the names, if somebody had failed to
15 show up, that person made a mark?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You don't know what kind of notes he made, of course?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thank you. Please have a look at this document. The Prosecutor
20 showed you this document, if you remember.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you please read out the title?
23 A. In the upper left-hand corner, "Clerks and others for the work
24 brigade tasks."
25 Q. Thank you. When you answered the questions put to you by the
1 Prosecutor, you said that persons under numbers 1 and 2, whose jobs are
2 indicated as clerks, that they became clerks only in mid-July, 1992; is
3 that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You also said that the persons who used to be clerks swam over the
6 River Sava; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The two persons here under numbers 1 and 2 --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you please wait for me to finish my question. The two
11 persons listed here under numbers 1 and 2 are Muslims; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The previous clerks were also Muslims; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you please tell me, all the names listed here as 1
16 through 9, are they all Muslims?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You confirmed that the first two persons listed under 1 and 2,
19 before they became clerks that they were involved in the work duty.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You started with your work duty on the 17th of May, 1992; is that
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Does that mean that before that date you do not have any personal
25 knowledge as to who was involved in the work duty and who wasn't?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher. I don't need that document
3 any more. Could you please show the document D23/2 ter. I'm not sure
4 whether it's ID or not.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please have a look at this list and
6 tell me whether this list refers to the same nine persons that were listed
7 on the previous exhibit that you had examined a little while ago?
8 A. With the exception of Miladeta Bajraktarevic. She was not there.
9 I think that's the only change. So Miladeta Bajraktarevic was not there.
10 Q. Could you please tell me, the persons listed as 1 and 2 are the
11 same persons who were listed on the previous document also under 1 and 2?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Above their name -- names --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, I have to interrupt you. For the sake
15 of the record being clearer, can we have the other document you're
16 referring to given to the witness so that when you ask -- you say the
17 list on D23 is the same as D22, or whatever, so he has both.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, by all means, Your Honour. I'm sorry for
19 this. Yes, please. If the usher can show the other document as well, the
20 previous document. It's P39 ter. I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: So when you ask the question, you actually give us
22 the ID number of the document.
23 A. There is no difference. The two documents are the same.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Would you please -- [Interpretation] Could you
25 please put both documents on the ELMO, one next to the other.
1 Q. Please have another look and check whether the same persons are
2 listed on documents P39 ter and D23/2 ter.
3 A. The same persons. The same persons are listed.
4 Q. Thank you. Could you please now look at this document which is
5 now on the ELMO, that's document D23/2 ter? Could you please read what's
6 written in the lower right-hand corner?
7 A. "Certified by Sejfudin Sejdinovic".
8 Q. Please tell me, Sejfudin Sejdinovic is the clerk who is listed
9 under number 1 on this same document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Please tell me, when you went to do your work duty, who called
12 you, in fact, if you remember? Was it somebody -- was it one of the two
14 A. A courier came and brought me a list that I was supposed to sign,
15 and he told me that I was to report the next day. The names were there
16 but there was no signature by Sejfudin. I think that Bozo Ninkovic and
17 Dzemal Kapetanovic were at that time and Sabahudin Nogic [Real-time
18 transcript read in error "had much"].
19 Q. Thank you. In this document, D23/2 ter, there are headings with
20 the months listed here. You have April, May, June, July, August, total
21 number of days, total amount, and remarks; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Below each of the headings for the month, there is a certain
24 number listed there?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Zecevic, I wonder whether we could get a
2 clarification of what we've got here in the transcript? Page 42, lines 22
3 and 23 doesn't make too much sense, as you can see. It says, "I think
4 that Bozo Ninkovic and Dzemal Kapetanovic were at that time and Sabahudin
5 Nogic had much."
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, by all means. I wasn't following the
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. When I asked you who it was that called you to go to the work duty
11 the first time, whether it was one of the clerks, you said that a courier
12 came, brought me a list, I was supposed to sign it and then you said --
13 you mentioned Sabahudin Nogic, Dzemal Kapetanovic and another person.
14 What did you mean?
15 A. They were clerks. Bozo was the chief clerk and Sabahudin Nogic
16 and this other person, Dzemal Kapetanovic, was also there. Dzemal Rogic
17 [as interpreted] was digging trenches with me.
18 Q. Please go about this slowly. So on the 17th of May, 1992, when
19 you went to do your work duty for the first time, the clerks were Dzemal
20 Kapetanovic and Bozo Ninkovic. Bozo Ninkovic was the chief clerk and
21 Dzemal Kapetanovic and Sabahudin Nogic were clerks?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So these two gentlemen, Dzemal Kapetanovic and Sabahudin Nogic,
24 are the two clerks you were speaking about when you said that they swam
25 over the River Sava?
1 A. Yes, that is correct, and that's when the other two persons became
2 clerks. That was in July.
3 Q. So the two gentlemen listed in document D23/2 ter, Sejfudin
4 Sejdinovic and this other gentleman, they became clerks in July; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. We started discussing the figures below the headings for months,
8 and the total number of days. In your opinion, do these figures represent
9 the number of days?
10 A. I think this is the number of days that a person --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour please, it's very difficult for this
12 witness, who can only speculate as to what those figures might represent.
13 We ran into this difficulty, I think, with the previous witness.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Before, yes.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, it's something that my learned friend --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: He's not the maker of the documents so --
17 MR. DI FAZIO: No. Not only that. There is nothing to indicate
18 he's an expert accountant or familiar with this sort of material. It's
19 something that Mr. Zecevic might be able to submit to you, of course, but
20 whether this witness can say anything about it is another matter
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. I will withdraw that question, Your
24 Q. [Interpretation] Just one last question, please. In the lower
25 right-hand corner, it says, "Certified by Sejfudin Sejdinovic;" is that
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Does that mean that by his signature, he certifies the accuracy of
4 the information contained here?
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Again --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Again, that is a question that can't be answered by
7 the witness, Mr. Zecevic.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I will withdraw that question as well. Thank you,
9 Your Honours.
10 Thank you, Mr. Usher, I don't have any more questions on that
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Sir, please tell me, you worked at the waterworks in
15 Bosanski Samac?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Safet Hadzialijagic nicknamed Coner also worked at the
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was he a manager of the waterworks or anything like that?
21 A. He was the manager of the plant.
22 Q. At any rate, he was your superior; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. During your testimony while my colleague Mr. Lukic was questioning
25 you regarding that statement at the police station, you said that the part
1 that pertains to your relationship with Mr. Hadzialijagic is true; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You had a dispute with him; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Could you please tell us what the dispute was about or you perhaps
7 don't wish to talk about it.
8 A. It was a dispute when we were both -- it was a conflict when we
9 were still in the Communist Party.
10 Q. So you and Mr. Hadzialijagic were members of the League of
11 Communists of Yugoslavia. This was in 1992.
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I am to assist
14 Mr. Zecevic. I am not objecting at this stage, because I assume that this
15 is an issue going to credit. It's being developed to attack the credit of
16 this witness. And if that's the case, then it may be relevant. If it's
17 not, then it's difficult to see what possible relevance his disputes with
18 other people in Bosanski Samac have to the proceedings.
19 So I'm not objecting, but because I've made that assumption I hope
20 my assumption is correct, because if I am incorrect, then I most certainly
21 am objecting.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: It may be relevant -- it may be only necessary to
23 say -- for the witness to state whether or not there was a dispute without
24 going into the details of the dispute.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I didn't want to go into the details.
1 I asked the witness whether he can tell us that or not. If he had said
2 no, then that would be enough. It goes into -- it goes into the matter of
3 the credibility of the witness, and as well, I am building the foundation,
4 Your Honour --
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: -- for my questions.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Are the details of the dispute relevant?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour, they are not.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Then we don't get them.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: We're not getting them.
11 Q. [Interpretation] You said that both of you were members of the
12 League of Communists before the -- before April 1992. How long were you a
13 member of the League of Communists? Do you remember?
14 A. It was a long time ago. I think that I became a member in 1998
15 or -- I'm sorry, in 1988 or 1989.
16 Q. Is that when you became a member or when you stopped being a
17 member of the League of Communists?
18 A. That's when I stopped being a member of the League of Communists.
19 Q. And after that, and also Mr. Hadzialijagic, as far as you know, we
20 both moved to the SDA.
21 A. Well, at that time I did not join the SDA because it didn't exist
22 at the time I left the League of Communists.
23 Q. When did you become a member of the SDA?
24 A. In 1991.
25 Q. Do you know when Mr. Hadzialijagic became a member of the SDA?
1 A. Two or three months after I joined the SDA. I don't know the
2 exact date.
3 Q. And after that he became a member of the executive board of the
4 Samac SDA?
5 A. Well, I don't know, because I left the SDA at the time that he
6 joined the party.
7 Q. So his joining of the party was the reason why you yourself left
8 the party; is that true?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Now that we've touched upon this topic, could you
11 please tell me, sir, the judgement of the military court, as we've already
12 heard, declared you -- found you guilty and sentenced you to a prison
13 sentence for, amongst other things, wounding Mr. Stevan Arandjic on the
14 17th of April, 1992; is that true?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You claimed here that these facts are not true. Is that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you see, sir, Stevan Arandjic on the 17th of April or in that
19 period in Samac?
20 A. Fifteen days before the war -- this is Fadil Mustafic's neighbour,
21 so I would see him when I would go to visit his son Dino. That's when I
22 would see Stevan, because they live next door to one another.
23 Q. So you didn't see him after the 16th of April, 1992?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You didn't see him at all or you didn't see him in that period in
2 A. I didn't see him.
3 Q. At all?
4 A. I can't recall. Perhaps in passing, but I generally did not see
5 him, because when I started to perform the work duty, we would leave at
6 7.00 in the morning. We would be taken there, and we would be brought
7 back in the evening. So I didn't have any time to see him.
8 Q. You started your work duty on the 19th of May, 1992.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you see Mr. Stevan Arandjic between the 16th of April and the
11 17th of May? Did you see him at all?
12 A. I think that you already know that I was beaten up at that time
13 and that both of my arms were hurt. My collarbones were broken, so I
14 couldn't move. I couldn't walk.
15 Q. Well, I know that. I'm just asking you simply if you had seen him
16 or not.
17 A. No, I did not.
18 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you explained to us that after your
19 exchange, you gave a statement to the police, I think in Orasje; is that
21 A. The first statement I gave was in Tuzla, because I came from the
22 other side. So you had to go to the police. The police was -- were
23 waiting for us, and they were taking our statements. So I had to give a
24 statement upon my arrival.
25 Q. Do you remember that on the 27th of July, 1994, you gave a
1 statement to the police?
2 A. I don't know. If you perhaps mean the one in Domaljevac to Sead
4 Q. Yes, to Sead Mujkanovic.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was this -- do you agree that this was on the 27th of July, 1994?
7 A. I don't know the exact date, but I know it was in 1994. It was
9 Q. You gave this statement at the police station in Domaljevac; is
10 that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And this Sead Mujkanovic, he was a police officer and you gave
13 your statement to him; is that right?
14 A. At that time he was a police official, but, yes, he was a police
15 officer in uniform.
16 Q. Do you know this Mujkanovic from earlier, from Samac?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And when you gave your statement to him, did you -- were you
19 telling the truth?
20 A. There was only one thing that I was silent about. I did not dare
21 mention my brothers. He would always ask me where they were, if I had any
22 contacts with my brothers.
23 Q. So everything else contained in the statement is true; is that
25 A. I don't know. I don't remember. But I would like to see it.
1 Maybe you can read it.
2 Q. Well, according to your recollection, was there any reason for you
3 to lie to Sead Mujkanovic once you were released from Samac?
4 A. Well, I mentioned this one thing. The first thing that Sead asked
5 me was about my brothers. I don't know any other reason.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, I don't think that's the way to
7 challenge a witness, like he indicated that maybe he should see the
8 statement. I'm sure you can't expect him to remember every word since
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. By all means, Your Honours. I understand.
11 And I just have one more question and I will show him the statement, and
12 then he can verify whether --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: About the statement.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Not the contents.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Not the contents.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Sir, can you tell me, do you remember if you signed this statement
20 at the police?
21 A. I think that I did.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Can the usher please -- I would like to introduce
23 into evidence the statement given by this witness. Just one second. This
24 is a statement given on the 27th July 1994, number is 03-12/5-02-31/94.
25 The statement was given at the Ministry of Interior, Police Headquarters
1 Derventa, Police Station Bosanski Samac.
2 This document was disclosed to us by the Prosecutor. We have it
3 in Serbo-Croat and in English, and we have copies for -- here.
4 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Zecevic, what is the purpose of wanting to put
5 this in?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry?
7 JUDGE SINGH: What is the purpose of wanting to put in the whole
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Because I would like to ask --
10 JUDGE SINGH: The specific purpose.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, there -- there are at least three specific
12 questions. Two of them deal with the contents of the statement and his
13 previous testimony, and one -- one deals with the -- with the -- no, no,
14 no. I'm sorry. It deals with the -- with the formal sign of the
15 statement -- the signature on this statement, because as you will see, the
16 signature on this statement is almost identical to the signature in the --
17 on the previous statement which was denied by this witness.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, you're not telling the Trial Chamber
19 that you're trying to challenge the witness on the signature in this
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I'm just trying to challenge the
22 witness on the contents of this statement.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. I hope not the signature, because we are not
24 going to do it that way.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the position of the Prosecution? Any
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, the ultimate purpose of what Mr. Zecevic is
4 trying to do, I assume, is to establish prior inconsistent statements. If
5 that's his object, then that's a perfectly proper object -- objective, I
6 should say. The manner in which it's to be accomplished is another
7 issue. Whether it necessitates putting in the statement into evidence, I
8 don't think is necessary. Surely, the witness can be shown the passages,
9 perhaps read out the passages, refresh his memory, and then Mr. Zecevic
10 can ask him: "Look, that's what it says" --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Mr. di Fazio, Mr. Zecevic has stated
12 what he wants to do. Is the Prosecution objecting? This question of
13 going behind the submission and suggesting what the intentions are will
14 not be allowed at this stage. I think it's better for you. You know
15 these documents came from your office. If you have any objection, you
16 state your reasons. That's all.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, with respect, it's
18 difficult for me to say whether I object or not because I don't know the
19 purpose for which it's being used.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: But that is a matter for submission. You can make
21 submissions after that, when you notice that it's being used in ways which
22 you didn't expect.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Very well. If that is the case, then I would
24 have no objection to its admission into evidence.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You wanted to say something else? Yes, you
1 can make a submission.
2 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, is the name of an individual who was
3 raped in here? Could this be held at least privately or under seal so it
4 just won't be public?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Okay. Can we have the numbers, please?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D26/2 ter for the B/C/S and D26/2
7 for the English.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Under seal.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Under seal.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 Yes, Mr. Zecevic, you can go ahead.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Sir, have you looked at this statement?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you please look at page 2? There are two signatures. One
16 is a signature of Sead Mujkanovic and the other is yours; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is this your statement that you gave to Sead Mujkanovic on the
19 27th of July, 1994?
20 A. Yes. I think that Sejo maybe put in some -- augmented it a little
21 bit. That was his job. But yes.
22 Q. But the things that you stated are generally contained in this
23 statement; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you kindly read the third paragraph, and it begins with --
1 A. "At the beginning of the war."
2 Q. It's the third passage from the top of the page, from the top of
3 the statement.
4 A. [redacted]
8 Q. I meant the third paragraph, the one that starts, "At the onset of
9 the war."
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic, this document is under seal but then
11 the particulars have been read out, so that has to be redacted.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course. I'm sorry. I said the third paragraph
13 and the witness started reading.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: This is a problem because we've always said if you
15 want a paragraph read, please, can counsel read it out? And then the
16 witness will obviously follow and then the translators will do their job
17 and then you can ask your questions later. Then we avoid this sort of
18 problems and even the delay.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I would be more than glad to read the
20 paragraph, if I may now.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Sir, I will read and you can follow it in your statement, please.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: And you read slowly, slowly.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. "At the onset of the war, when the town came under Serbo-Chetnik
2 attack, I was at home. That day, I saw the following persons armed and in
3 uniform in their army. And those people -- the following persons:
4 Djordje Pisarevic, known as Ruka, probably, son of Andrija, born in 1945;
5 Stevan Arandzic, in brackets, Stevo Milic's son-in-law; Aco Vasic, Milan
6 Celikovic, in brackets, the manager of the cooperative farm. Jovo
7 Ikanovic, from Dugo Polje." And so on and so forth.
8 Is this true?
9 A. The names have been changed a little bit so I don't know whether
10 it's true that I saw Stevan. That's what it says here but I'm not sure
11 that I saw him.
12 Q. So you claim that you did not see him but still it states so
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Was this statement read to you before you signed it, if you
17 A. I think that it was read to me.
18 Q. And you signed it without any remarks?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I will read another passage. This is the last sentence on the
21 first page: "On the 8th of August" --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Let me just clarify the English version, Your
23 Honour, if I could assist you. It's -- in the English version, it's
24 the -- yes, it's the second paragraph, the first sentence on the second
25 page. It's -- in the English version, that's the -- that is the sentence
1 I'm going to read.
2 [Interpretation] "On the 8th of September, 1992, after I returned
3 from working in Odzak, in front of the retirement home in Bosanski Samac,
4 Stevan Arandzic saw me there and I was immediately on that day taken to
5 the detention room in the SUP building."
6 Do you remember having stated that, sir?
7 A. I don't.
8 Q. Is that correct, though, or not?
9 A. The day when I was arrested, I did not go to work. I think that
10 in my testimony, and in my statements, I did -- in my previous statements,
11 I said that I was ill, I couldn't go to work, and the police came and
12 picked me up.
13 Q. So it is not correct that Stevan Arandzic saw you in front of the
14 retirement home and that you were arrested immediately after that?
15 A. I was arrested on the 8th of September. I think it was around
16 2.00 or 3.00 p.m. And I don't recall seeing Stevan Arandzic at that time.
17 Q. Tell me, please, this is a statement that you gave to Sead
18 Mujkanovic, and you signed it; is that so?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you signed it and you didn't have any remarks or objections
22 A. That's how it should be.
23 Q. Just one more question on page 2 --
24 A. This is a really bad copy.
25 Q. Sir, when Judge Singh asked you a question three days ago, you
1 said that you signed a statement in such a way that you never sign your
2 first name first -- your last name first and then your first name; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you please see -- look at the signature here?
6 A. Yes, the signature is as follows: Last name first and then the
7 first name.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Can the usher please place the Serbian version on
9 the ELMO, please?
10 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm wondering whether we should go into closed
12 MR. ZECEVIC: We will have to go into the closed session.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we go into closed session, please?
14 [Closed session]
13 Page 5553 – redacted – closed session.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
13 [Open session]
14 MR. PANTELIC: Just in the meantime, I will make some reference to
15 the witness statement of 14 and 17 June 1996. I mean, for the benefit of
16 my learned friend from Prosecution, because we are going to rapidly check
17 certain contents. And then I'm going to make some reference to the
18 informal statement of this witness made on July 19, 1998. And finally,
19 certain notes made on 13 July 2001. So these three documents will be the
20 basis for certain checkings, and I kindly ask my learned friends from
21 Prosecution to help us.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And the notes you are talking about are the
23 notes made by --
24 MR. PANTELIC: By the OTP. They are notes made by OTP. Mr. John
25 Michilich and Yves Roy. Thank you.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic:
2 Q. Good afternoon, sir, I'm Pantelic, Defence counsel for Mr. Blagoje
4 Do you know personally these defendants, namely Mr. Milan Simic,
5 Mr. Blagoje Simic, Mr. Miroslav Tadic, and Mr. Simo Zaric?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How long do you know Mr. Blagoje Simic?
8 A. Well, for quite some time I've known him, because when he worked
9 as a doctor in Bosanski Samac, he used to examine my daughter. I used to
10 take my daughter to him to be examined.
11 Q. You have your personal knowledge that Mr. Blagoje Simic was
12 indicted by this Tribunal?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you have your personal knowledge that Mr. Blagoje Simic
15 voluntarily surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on March
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You said in your previous statement that you gave several -- on
19 several occasions several statements to Bosnian authorities, army
20 authorities, Croatian authorities, as well as to the Office of the
21 Prosecutor; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Among these statements -- now we are operating with the statement
24 that you gave in 1994 on the 27th July which was mentioned in previous
25 cross-examination by my learned colleague Zecevic; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: You are talking about, Mr. Pantelic, D26/2?
3 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct, Your Honours.
4 Q. And then, sir, you gave the statement on the 14 and 17 June, 1996
5 to the Office of the Prosecutor; is that right?
6 A. I don't know. What Prosecution are you referring to?
7 Q. This Prosecutor office from this Tribunal. I mean The Hague
9 A. I don't know if that's the statement taken in 1996 in Orasje.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, why don't you -- you know which
11 statements we've already discussed, so why don't you simply go through
12 them and say there is a statement this date, that date, that date and then
13 you ask your questions, because they're not in issue.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: I mean, the fact that they were recorded from him
16 has already been discussed in the proceedings.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Of course, Your Honour, but in order to simplify
18 this things and to help this witness to easily go through, because you
19 know there was many statements, so I want to just clear that up with
21 Q. And finally, sir, you gave the -- you gave the statement also to
22 the Office of the Prosecutor in Orasje last year on 13 July 2001; is that
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I object to the question. I think my learned
25 friend knows that it wasn't a statement and all that he's been provided
1 with are notes provided by lawyers to the Defence. Lawyers' notes of the
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not his statement. It's never been adopted by
5 him, signed by him, or read over by him and given that imprimatur. That
6 was always explained to the Defence.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: So it's not his statement. It would be misleading.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I agree.
10 Q. So, sir, you can confirm that you met certain members of the
11 Office of the Prosecutor last year on 13 July in Orasje; is that correct?
12 A. It was in Gradacac, but otherwise it's correct.
13 Q. Well, I'm just reading what is in the heading of this document,
14 but you're right probably. Anyhow, sir --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's be clear about this, especially since they are
16 notes from the investigators. Was this Orasje or Gradacac? Which place
17 was this? Because this is the second time that the witness has, you know,
18 stated that it was in Gradacac.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I would be very happy to give
20 this information. Actually, I'm reading from the heading of these notes
21 of investigator team.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: According to the record on those notes, the place
23 is --
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, the heading is "Police Station Orasje." So I
25 don't have any reason to think that it was in Gradacac, but probably
1 witness knows better, and also maybe our friends from Prosecution can
2 also, in a later stage, clarify all these details. Good.
3 Q. So according to all these documents, you never mentioned
4 Mr. Blagoje Simic in all these statements; is that correct?
5 A. I think that I have already said at the beginning of my testimony
6 that I only saw him once and that that was the only occasion when I saw
7 him. I did not see him again.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. But the question hasn't been answered.
9 MR. PANTELIC:
10 Q. But let me help you, sir. My question was based on all previous
11 statements and contacts with the Prosecutor office. I'm not referring to
12 your statement before this Tribunal. So briefly, we are now speaking
13 about your statements given to Muslim and Croatian police and also to
14 Prosecutor in The Hague.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, again, if Your Honours please, I don't want
16 to be pedantic, but it's -- how can this witness say -- perhaps he can say
17 if he's asked directly, and I've got no objection to that, but how can he
18 say that because there's no reference to Mr. Blagoje Simic in, for
19 example, investigators' notes or in notes taken by --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, Mr. -- no. I will allow the question.
21 Let him ask the question. He hasn't said -- he hasn't -- Mr. Pantelic
22 hasn't stated the reasons why he's putting that to him. Maybe that will
23 come later. He simply is asking him that in all these statements, in all
24 your discussions with the officer -- officers from the Prosecution, you
25 never mentioned, you know, he's dealing with his client.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. If the question is put in that way then
2 I certainly would have no objection if in discussions -- it's made clear
3 that it was in discussions. That's all I'm concerned about. That's all
4 I'm concerned about, because he hasn't seen -- he hasn't seen the notes
5 and can't comment on what's in the notes and so on.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
7 Q. Sir, we can agree upon the fact that you mentioned Mr. Blagoje
8 Simic for the first time here during your testimony before this Trial
9 Chamber? Is that correct or not, please?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. During your previous stay in The Hague, have you made
12 any contact with the other witnesses before this Tribunal?
13 A. With this group that I was with, I didn't talk about that at all
14 with them because I felt that there was no need. That one time that I saw
15 him, I said it. I didn't talk to anybody about that meeting of ours in
17 Q. Thank you, sir, but that wasn't my question. I asked you about
18 simply contacts with the witnesses.
19 A. You know that there were four of us in the group, in that group,
20 and that we had dinner together. Then everybody went to his room. There
21 was always somebody there from the Tribunal with us so that I didn't have
22 any conversations at all concerning the trial, these proceedings.
23 Q. Well, could you tell us, did you get any question during last six
24 years about the involvement of Mr. Blagoje Simic in any of the events in
25 the region of Bosanski Samac?
1 A. As far as I know, he did not, because I didn't have any reason.
2 The people that I saw and the things that I went through, this is what I
3 talked about. But I did not see him, Blagoje Simic.
4 Q. So finally and suddenly being in The Hague with two witnesses, a
5 couple who gave testimony here, and they mentioned also the same event,
6 you for the first time give --
7 MR. WEINER: Judge --
8 MR. PANTELIC:
9 Q. -- gave your testimony in regard to Blagoje Simic before this
10 Trial Chamber; is that correct?
11 MR. WEINER: Your Honour?
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. WEINER: It's argumentative. It's a speech. It's not a
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Maybe it's the way the question
17 is put. I think that's where the problem is.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: I think you can rephrase it.
20 MR. PANTELIC:
21 Q. So, sir, could you explain to this Trial Chamber why after almost
22 ten years of the events, tragic events in Bosanski Samac, you mentioned or
23 you decided to mention Mr. Blagoje Simic for the first time in December of
24 2001? Tell me your reasons.
25 A. I think that if I were to give a new statement now, I would have
1 many things to say. This is the only opportunity where I can rest
2 properly and where I can recall things, when I can go back and recall
3 things in order to be able to talk about them. Many things are coming
4 back to me, so that if I were to give a statement now, it would be
5 different. Nobody tried to influence me. I know very well who you mean,
6 that couple. We never spoke about that at all.
7 Q. I didn't mention any couple in relation to you. So --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No, you did previously, before Mr. Weiner objected.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, but not in this direct way.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Of course no names were given, but the witness did
11 understand because you did say they were together.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
13 Q. Sir, tell me, would you agree with me with the fact that for a
14 person who should commit or who should be called up in military, and for
15 various reasons this person is not in situation to go to army, that this
16 person should have certain work duty during the war?
17 MR. WEINER: Objection.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic? Okay, Mr. Weiner.
19 MR. WEINER: Sorry, I was just going to say I don't understand the
20 question. It's also asking for him to make some sort of opinion, which I
21 don't believe he has the expertise to do so.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not a question for this witness,
23 Mr. Pantelic.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
25 Q. Sir, do you have any personal knowledge about the fact that
1 Ministry for Defence of Republika Srpska, through its branch in
2 Bosanski Samac, organised work duty during the war in Bosanski Samac;
3 "yes" or "no"?
4 A. I was part of that work duty myself, so yes.
5 Q. And also, you can confirm the fact that you were not a member of
6 Army of Republika Srpska?
7 A. Thank God not.
8 Q. But you are a plumber, yes?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And during a first couple of months in 1992, you performed your
11 work obligations on various places, including waterworks at Bosanski
12 Samac; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell me, sir, will you agree with me that certain number of
15 villagers surrounding Bosanski Samac during the first months of 1992,
16 after the beginning of the war, as you said on previous occasion, started
17 looting all these houses in the surrounding area of Bosanski Samac?
18 A. I wouldn't agree with that. Not all of those houses but Croatian
19 and Muslim houses.
20 Q. And you can agree with me with the fact that certain persons - I
21 would say criminals - tried to get some money from the citizens of
22 Bosanski Samac; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. [redacted]
25 A. [redacted]
1 Q. [redacted]
3 A. [redacted]
5 Q. Could you tell the Chamber what exactly you heard?
6 A. From Tidja, Dzafer's sister, I heard that they collected money, I
7 don't know whether it was 4.700 or 5.000 German marks, and that Dzafer's
8 son-in-law, Hasan, took the money and give it to Lazo Trojan. That's what
9 I heard.
10 Q. Can you tell the Chamber for which purpose?
11 A. To keep him alive, to save his life, so that they don't transfer
12 him from Crkvina to Samac -- oh, to transfer him from Samac to Crkvina.
13 Q. [redacted]
14 A. [redacted]
15 Q. What is his ethnic background, please?
16 A. He's a Muslim.
17 Q. Have you seen this person in any occasion at the beginning of the
18 war in Bosanski Samac?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you tell the Chamber when?
21 A. I saw him on several occasions. Most frequently I saw him when I
22 was detained.
23 Q. So he was a policeman and he was a member of Serbian police; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And what was his behaviour, being a member of Serbian police, on
2 several occasions?
3 A. Very ugly.
4 Q. Now, sir, I'm almost finished my cross-examination. Could you be
5 so kind and tell to Chamber why you didn't mention Mr. Blagoje Simic,
6 although you were questioned about him, in all previous occasions? For
7 the last time, maybe that was by mistake, maybe you mentioned him here.
8 Could you be so kind, as an honest man, to explain to this Trial Chamber
9 why you decided to mention Mr. Blagoje Simic for the first time before
10 this Tribunal?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: I thought the evidence was that he hadn't been
12 questioned about him on previous occasions.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: I hope Mr. Pantelic has understood that.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Well --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Why should he repeat?
16 MR. PANTELIC: I didn't heard his answer, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: You didn't hear his answer previously?
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Well, not previously but -- no, Your Honour,
19 not previously, but with regard to this matter.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: No. The question you just posed to the witness, to
21 which Mr. di Fazio was explaining that he has already explained that he
22 wasn't questioned about him.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I will try with another question, if you
24 allow me.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.
1 MR. PANTELIC:
2 Q. Sir, after your exchange, probably many of the police and army
3 authorities of Muslim and Croat Federation asked you about the important
4 persons in Bosanski Samac; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Including Blagoje Simic, yes?
7 A. No. As far as I recall, the main questions were, first, where my
8 brothers were, and also Mr. Zaric and Mr. Tadic. Nobody mentioned
9 Mr. Milan Simic.
10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Pantelic, can we clarify that?
11 We've got, "Nobody mentioned Mr. Milan Simic."
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Whom did the witness mean?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's an unintentional mistake.
14 Q. Probably you mentioned Mr. Blagoje Simic, yes?
15 A. No, no. They didn't mention Blagoje Simic ever in the statement,
16 nor did they mention Mr. Milan Simic.
17 Q. And then the members of the Prosecutor in The Hague on 1995 and
18 1998 asked you about Mr. Blagoje Simic; yes or no?
19 A. I think -- I don't remember. I said a while ago that thanks to
20 the fact that I'm here, I can go back and recall, so that I was able to
21 recall that incident or that scene with Dr. Blagoje, that one time only
22 that I did see him.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't have any further
25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm hoping I can finish my
1 re-examination before 6.00 because this witness is due to fly out
2 tomorrow. If he doesn't get on that plane, he's going to apparently stay
3 in The Hague for the whole weekend. I don't know why. This is what has
4 been reported to me. So --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's try and see if you finish. I mean, it's your
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I realise that, if Your Honours please, and I'll do
8 my level best. I've prepared some examination-in-chief -- sorry,
9 re-examination, which I'm going to pare down. Would the Chamber indulge
10 me if I pause from time to time and remove from that list of questions all
11 the -- perhaps ones that might not be quite as necessary?
12 Re-examined by Mr. di Fazio:
13 Q. [redacted]
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio, can you refer to his pseudonym,
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry.
17 Q. First thing, witness - and I apologise for that - you've been
18 asked at length by all Defence counsel regarding statements that you've
19 been -- that you've made and discussions that you've had with
20 investigators and lawyers from the Office of the Prosecutor. In all of
21 those conversations, in all of those statements, did you ever direct the
22 content of what was to be recorded or was it in -- did you deal with those
23 persons by responding to questions that they directed to you?
24 A. I responded to questions.
25 Q. Did you ever choose, in any way at all, what topic to speak
12 Page 5568 redacted due to repetition of text on page 5567.
1 about? For example, whether you wanted to speak about Mr. Blagoje Simic,
2 or anyone else for that matter?
3 A. No. I never chose my own topics. I was saying -- talking about
4 the things that I had been through, and you took notes.
5 Q. Thank you. You were asked about mention of Blagoje Simic in this
6 Chamber in December when you were giving evidence. Had you mentioned
7 Mr. Blagoje Simic to anyone in December outside of this courtroom? Just
8 think back, think back to what you did in December, and my question is
9 this: Did you speak about Blagoje Simic to anyone, anyone at all, anyone,
10 outside of this courtroom, and in particular, before you gave evidence?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you. You were -- on the 16th of January, you were being
13 asked questions by Mr. Lukic, and you were asked about assembling in front
14 of the hotel, and you agreed that later, as you -- in your visits to
15 Odzak, you assembled in front of the SUP building. Thinking back to the
16 period of time that you did labour duties in Odzak, where did you assemble
17 most often, in front of the hotel or in front of the SUP?
18 A. At first in front of the hotel for a time and later on in front of
19 the SUP building. We simply switched to this other location later.
20 Q. You've mentioned in your evidence having seen Mr. Simo Zaric at
21 the hotel and described his office and so on. In the time that you
22 assembled at the SUP, did you ever see him there?
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio, I was just trying to find out whether
24 we could go on after 6.00. If we get ten minutes break at 6.00, then we
25 can reconvene and you can complete your re-examination. So maybe to --
1 yeah. Let's see how we proceed.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. It may be with paring down I can even
3 finish the job. And I'm grateful to the Chamber for those inquiries being
4 made and that being available, and I'm sure the witness is grateful too.
5 Q. You mentioned in your cross-examination, also on the 16th, that
6 you were given a permit, a piece of paper signed by a gentleman called
7 Krstan Djordjic, which allowed you to move freely about Odzak. Whose idea
8 was it to give you that permit?
9 A. I don't know whose idea it was, but as they said, it was for my
10 own safety. I had to move around Odzak, and Krstan Djordjic -- Krstan
11 Dujic - I'm sorry - brought me this permit. I don't recall who had signed
13 Q. What sort of circumstances did you produce it to anyone, if indeed
14 you did produce it?
15 A. There were checkpoints that were manned by the army in the
16 industrial zone in Odzak, at the exit of Odzak, and since I had to move
17 around, I wasn't able to pass through. This was the reason why I was
18 given this piece of paper.
19 Q. Did the other people who were doing labour duties or forced
20 labour, call it what you will, in Odzak have similar permits, for example,
21 the women who worked out at the home of the well-known folk singer?
22 A. Just myself and Sead Zigic had it. The women didn't have it.
23 Q. Did you need it for a particular type of job, for example, working
24 on the water supply system or something else?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What about when you were burning the books? Did you need to
2 produce the permit to anyone?
3 A. No.
4 Q. You were asked a question, I apologise, I can't recall from which
5 counsel, but it was on the 14th of January, you were asked if you knew
6 that the village of Zasovica was shelled from the direction of the Sava
7 River, and you answered no. Is your answer to be understood as no, you
8 have no knowledge of whether or not Zasovica was shelled from the
9 direction of the Sava River, or is your answer no, Zasovica was in fact
10 not shelled from the direction of the Sava River?
11 A. As far as I know, it was not shelled.
12 JUDGE SINGH: Sorry, it was not shelled or not shelled from the
13 Sava River?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean from the direction of the
16 Sava River. But while I was there, it was not shelled at all.
17 MR. DI FAZIO:
18 Q. You were asked a number of questions --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. DI FAZIO:
21 Q. You were asked a number of questions by Mr. Lukic regarding Avdo
22 Drljacic and payment of money to Mr. Tadic. You said in cross-examination
23 that he was in Batkovic with you. Thinking back, can you tell the Chamber
24 how long he was in Batkovic with you? If you can't recall with any
25 precision, can you give us your estimate, your best estimate?
1 A. I know that he was exchanged in 1993. It was in summer. I don't
2 know the exact date.
3 Q. And you told us in cross-examination that he was exchanged quite
4 awhile before you eventually were exchanged. Have you got any idea how
5 long before you were exchanged it was that he was exchanged?
6 A. Sometime -- it was about a year.
7 Q. Again in answer to questions on the 15th, you were asked about
8 people you see nowadays in Bosanski Samac. One of the people you
9 mentioned was a person called Perica. What's that person's name?
10 A. Perica Krstanovic.
11 Q. You also said that you saw a gentleman named Marinko Stefanovic --
12 sorry, that you didn't see a person named Marinko Stefanovic, in
13 cross-examination. Now, Perica Krstanovic is the man who -- one of the
14 two men who came to see you and asked you for your drill shortly before
15 the mosque was blown up; is that correct?
16 A. Marinko came and Perica was in the car.
17 Q. Have you ever spoken to him about that episode when he came and
18 asked you for the drill?
19 A. I don't know whom you mean, with Perica or Marinko.
20 Q. Sorry. With Perica.
21 A. Marinko came, and I did not talk to Perica at the door.
22 Q. I understand that. But in cross-examination, as I understood your
23 evidence, you said that from time to time in Bosanski Samac you see
24 Perica, the same gentleman, I assume, who came to you and asked about the
25 Hilti drill. Now, in the -- on the occasions that you've seen him in
1 Bosanski Samac, have you ever raised that topic with him or sought to
2 raise that topic with him?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Is there any reason for that?
5 A. A very good reason.
6 Q. Well, you better tell us. What is it?
7 A. Because I did not dare to ask. Pero is still a high-ranking
8 person in Samac, and I'm afraid that I may encounter some problems with
9 the police. Let me confine remarks to that.
10 Q. Thank you. Okay. You were answering questions today, I believe,
11 in relation to a radiator that you unloaded at Fadil Topcagic's house, and
12 you described it as Simo's wife's house. Can you just explain to the
13 Chamber what you meant by that, why you described it as Simo's wife's
14 house? Is there a -- do you perceive it as his wife's house rather than
15 Fadil Topcagic's house or is that not the case?
16 A. It was a house of her parents. Her father, her mother, and Fadil
17 lived there until they built another house in the yard. That's why I said
18 that. They all used to live in the same house.
19 Q. Today you were asked about a document, D22E/2 ter, and your
20 attention was drawn to two persons on that document who are of Serb --
21 Serbian ethnic background. One of them was a gentleman named Djordjevic,
22 or Srbin was his nickname, and I think the other one was Ilija Ivanovic.
23 Do you personally know both of those people?
24 A. I know the first person. And as to the other person, I don't
25 remember him. I mean Ilija. I don't remember him.
1 Q. Thank you. And although it's -- I don't think you were asked if
2 another man whose attention you were drawn to who is mentally handicapped,
3 the fellow known as Pero or Pita, what his ethnic background is. Can you
4 tell us what it is, please?
5 A. I believe that he himself does not know that, and I don't know it
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I correctly remember it --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. It's because of the witness. I'm
11 sorry. It take a tic.
12 If I correctly remember, Your Honours, the question was posed
13 first during examination-in-chief referring to this gentleman, retarded
14 person, as a Serb national, and then it was answered by this witness that
15 this gentleman is of Serb nationality, and his name is Dragan Vuksanovic,
16 I believe.
17 So I would like Mr. di Fazio to clarify this now because we are
18 now getting the other answer altogether. He himself asked the witness to
19 identify this person as a Serb national, what is his mental state? That
20 is in the transcript. I can read the transcript right now.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: I --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: It's the 4th of December, last year.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I recall. I recall. I just didn't recall anything
24 about any questions regarding his ethnic background. I recall asking him
25 as to whether or not the gentleman was mentally handicapped, but in any
1 event, I don't think much will turn on it. The record is there and we can
2 see -- we can read it at a later point. I don't think the Defence will
3 be unduly prejudiced if what Mr. Zecevic asserts turns out to be true. So
4 I don't think there will be a problem with that.
5 May I continue in the meantime?
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can continue, as long as the perception is
7 not again repeated.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Since you are not sure what the transcript says.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes, yes.
11 Q. You were asked a number of questions today about a statement given
12 on the 27th of July, 1994.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio, can we have a ten-minute break?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Because we've gone beyond the one and a half hours
16 by 15 minutes. So have ten minutes' break and reconvene at 1810.
17 --- Recess taken at 6.00 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio, you can continue.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Witness, Mr. Pantelic today asked you some questions about your
22 recollection of discussions with the Prosecutors in July of last year in
23 Bosnia, and there was, I think, a little confusion regarding the town in
24 which that encounter occurred. Where were you interviewed last year by
25 Prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor, which town?
1 A. At my house in Gradacac.
2 Q. And was that the only place that you were interviewed at? What I
3 mean by that, it was your house -- it was only at your house in Gradacac?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: You know what I think, Mr. di Fazio, with this
6 problem of the notes or the informal statement so recorded by the
7 Prosecutor's investigators is that perhaps, after discussing with the
8 witness, and then they moved on to the other town, which is indicated on
9 the document, and then made their notes then.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe. But it's something that can be cleared
12 maybe. Because you see, the problem here is to -- it may put the
13 witness's credibility in issue.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: You see. So it is better that it is cleared.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Because this -- the witness has been insisting ever
18 since this question was raised that it was Gradacac.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. My learned friend, my colleague, in fact, is
20 the author of those notes, so perhaps he should be conducting the
21 re-examination on this particular point.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Might I just ask the permission of the Chamber to
24 see the document that Mr. Pantelic had? Might I just confer with him and
25 see --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I think I'll let my colleague explain
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Weiner can explain. Yes.
5 MR. WEINER: It does say "MUP, Orasje." That was my mistake.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: You were the one that recorded that?
7 MR. WEINER: Yes, I typed them out. It was Gradacac; I'm certain
8 of that. I'm sorry.
9 MR. PANTELIC: I surely accept this.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.
11 Yes, Mr. di Fazio, you can go ahead.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. A lesson to us all on notes. Thank
13 you, if Your Honours please.
14 Q. At that encounter with prosecutors from the Office of the
15 Prosecutor at your home in Gradacac, were a number of topics discussed
16 that evening?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you remember each and every topic that was
20 A. I think that I do remember.
21 Q. Was Blagoje Simic discussed?
22 A. I think that we did not mention him.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: May the witness just be shown D26/2? That's the
25 statement dated the 27th of July, 1994.
1 Q. Witness, thinking back, how long after your exchange did you
2 provide this statement?
3 A. A month and a half, something like that.
4 Q. Were you told what the purpose of the statement taking was? I
5 mean, obviously to give a statement, but beyond that? In other words,
6 what it might be used for, what the intentions of the statement taker
8 A. I wasn't told. As soon as I arrived, the civilian police came and
9 you had to give a statement because I came from the opposing side. So I
10 had to go to Domaljevac.
11 Q. And you've told us that whenever you gave statements the material
12 in it, the content was directed by the person who was taking the
13 statement. Did the same apply to this one?
14 A. Sead questioned me and I talked, and he initiated the topics.
15 Q. How long would you say that you spoke to Sead when you were giving
16 this statement?
17 A. Perhaps for an hour.
18 Q. Was -- I know it's a long time ago and if you can't remember, say
19 so, but if you can remember, tell us. Was Sead writing all the time
20 everything that you were saying or was he -- while you were speaking was
21 he writing, or was it a conversation and from time to time he'd write
23 A. I was talking and he was taking notes. Then he went downstairs,
24 typed it out. I glanced over the statement, signed it.
25 Q. Thank you. Let's look at some of the things you said in the
1 statement. In, I think, the third paragraph, you mention that on a
2 certain day around the onset of war you saw a number of people, and
3 they're mentioned there, one of whom is Stevan Arandjic. Are all the
4 people there members of the 4th Detachment that you mentioned, all the
5 names that you see?
6 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly. None of them had IDs
7 saying that, "I'm a member of the 4th Detachment," but all of them were in
8 uniform and they were armed.
9 Q. Did you in fact --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. Did you in fact see them on the 17th or 18th of April, 1992, as it
13 says in the statement?
14 A. Yes, except for Stevan. I don't remember that I saw him, but
15 that's what it says.
16 Q. The statement says that you saw these people stationed on the
17 embankment. What does that mean?
18 A. I don't know. I don't know. It's not clear to me now if I saw
19 them at home or if I saw them on the embankment. I couldn't have seen
20 them in two places at the same time.
21 Q. Thank you. Look a bit further down the statement and you will see
22 a paragraph that deals with Perica Krstanovic and Marinko Stefanovic. It
23 says that they came to your house and asked you to give them a compressor
24 to drill holes. What's the name of the compressor that drills holes?
25 A. It's a Hilti drill.
1 Q. It also says that they asked you to place explosives in the
2 mosque. That's what it says in the --
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm wondering -- yes, Mr. Zecevic?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm probably wondering the same what you are
6 wondering, Your Honour, because it was not in the cross-examination. So
7 it's -- there's no place for this in re-examination in chief. If this
8 issue was to be covered, it was to be covered in the direct examination,
9 examination-in-chief. Thank you. So we object to this line of
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: It wasn't covered in the examination-in-chief, and
13 it wasn't produced in examination-in-chief. It was produced in
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: It wasn't me. It was the Defence that produced
17 this document.
18 JUDGE SINGH: But he's not placing any relevance on that.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Isn't he -- isn't the Defence.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Isn't the Defence, if Your Honour pleases, using
22 this document to attack the credibility of the witness?
23 JUDGE SINGH: I think he's -- sorry.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The point I want to make is that this is a
25 statement introduced into evidence by the Defence. Yes?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: But it was produced initially by the Prosecutor to
5 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the Prosecution in their discovery.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: In discovery of the documents provided this document
7 to us.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: And we used this document today in our
10 cross-examination. But our cross-examination confined only to two -- two
11 specified events in this --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Now it is clear now that you say that it was a
15 document given to you by the Prosecution. So they had it during the time
16 they were preparing their case.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, of course. It was disclosed to us by the
18 Prosecution. Yes. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: So the objection is sustained.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: As Your Honour pleases. Would Your Honours just
21 bear with me for a moment, please.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further questions.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Witness, for giving evidence to
25 the Tribunal. You're now released and you can go.
1 Can the usher please lead him out of the courtroom.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is concerned with some of
4 the documents which have been introduced, discussed by the witnesses, and
5 sent for translation and which haven't yet been translated, and the number
6 is quite alarming, so that it is not possible for us to fully exploit the
7 evidential value of these documents which are being discussed by
8 witnesses. So the Trial Chamber is of the view that it's not -- it's not
9 possible to properly continue the proceedings with this problem still
10 hanging, because once a witness leaves, then that's it. So when the
11 translation comes much later, what does one do with questions that may
12 have been raised with the witness?
13 And the other problem is that the Trial Chamber has been informed
14 that the amended -- the amendments to the indictment were only filed
15 today in Serbo-Croat, which means they haven't yet been received -- they
16 haven't yet been received by the accused persons.
17 And then we have received the report, that is the Judges, from the
18 Witnesses and Victims Unit on the possible threats that are being made to
19 one of the witnesses yet to come and finalise his evidence with the
20 Prosecution, and that matter will be dealt with by the Trial Chamber, and
21 of course, if need be, depending on how issues turn out, the Trial Chamber
22 may inform the parties.
23 But because of the inability to fully deal with the documents
24 which are yet to be translated, the Trial Chamber has decided that we
25 shall adjourn the proceedings and continue on the 11th of February this
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 year in the afternoon. The times will be the same. The 11th of February
2 was the week when we were supposed to have a break, had we continued, but
3 because we can't continue, we are going to have this break and then start
4 the proceedings again on the 11th of February. Hopefully by that time,
5 all the documents yet to be translated will have been translated, and one
6 does hope that the Defence counsel will also have their instructions fully
7 from their clients.
8 And also the problem which we keep coming back to time and time
9 again as to whether or not a particular document was given to the Defence,
10 I do hope that the Prosecution will take the time to look through their
11 lists and make sure that we don't have these hitches in the proceedings
12 again when we resume on the 11th of February.
13 So the proceedings will adjourn until the 11th of February at 1415
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
16 6.31 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the
17 11th day of February, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.