1 Wednesday, 17 April 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [Accused M. Simic not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

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

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

9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I thought it was Mr. Pantelic's turn to

11 respond, unless Mr. Di Fazio is speaking on the same point. Do

12 you want to make some additional points on behalf of the Prosecution.

13 Mr. Pantelic can reply later.

14 MR. Di FAZIO: I do want to raise some additional matters on the

15 issue that was raised yesterday afternoon. And my colleague Ms. Reidy has

16 also prepared some further detailed submissions on the issue, and I had

17 hoped that we would both be permitted to address the Chamber, provide you

18 with a bit more information about the issue of the document that was

19 provided to the Defence yesterday. And also to make some more

20 submissions. I'll be brief because the bulk of the submission will be

21 handled by Ms. Reidy, and I want to take this opportunity to underscore

22 and emphasise the seriousness of the allegations that were made against

23 the Prosecution yesterday. And to reiterate that this is not the first

24 time that this sort of allegation has been made.

25 Yesterday, the Prosecution was accused, and I am referring to the

1 transcript now, of gross and blatant violations of the trial. Reference

2 was made to the intolerable practice of the Prosecution in failing to

3 provide documents it is obliged to provide, reference to a possible

4 miscarriage of justice in this case, and there was a call made to you to

5 impose sanctions to stop this practice. They are matters in my submission

6 that go to the very heart of the proper conduct of this case and matters

7 that go to the very heart of the conduct of the Prosecution in particular.

8 The allegation is of gross and blatant violations, and secondly that this

9 is part of a practice.

10 This is not the first time that these very serious allegations

11 have been made. Your Honours will recall recently the issue arose in the

12 case of notes that I provided to the Defence regarding issues that

13 Mr. Todorovic had spoken about, proofing notes in effect. And again, the

14 same sort of language was used on that occasion, and again the same

15 accusations were made. And in the reply, I submit, on that indication the

16 Prosecution pointed out how innocuous and innocent the whole occasion had

17 been and how when one looked at what had actually been provided to the

18 Defence, the oversight of the Prosecution on that indication had left to

19 nothing of any particular consequence.

20 The Prosecution submission on this occasion will be, and my

21 colleague Ms. Reidy will develop that, that again on this occasion it

22 would have been desirable of course to provide the statement that was

23 provided yesterday, but that again, no miscarriage of justice has

24 occurred, no potential miscarriage of justice has occurred. I rather

25 expected as I began reading the transcript that I would not be met with

1 any articulation of an actual miscarriage of justice from Mr. Pantelic.

2 And indeed, if you look at the transcript, the allegations are made, and

3 then he sits down. It's glaring on this occasion, and on the previous

4 occasion, that he fails to develop any sort of argument articulating what

5 the prejudice has been to the Defence, and that is something that my

6 colleague Ms. Reidy will address you upon.

7 I invite you to, of course, deal with this issue as you will in

8 the firmest and clearest of terms. I reiterate that the Prosecution has

9 made its best endeavours, and my colleague Ms. Reidy will give you a

10 history of how we came to -- how this document came to light. Has used

11 its best endeavours to provide these sorts of documents to the Defence as

12 soon as they are uncovered, and that we have done and performed these

13 sorts of efforts in the past.

14 So I reject emphatically that there is a practice, that there has

15 ever been any practice, of withholding documents from the Defence, and I

16 reject and submit that it's completely incorrect to say that there has

17 been a gross and blatant violation of the trial by the failure to hand

18 over this particular document to the Defence yesterday. In my submission,

19 the Trial Chamber should give the matter very serious consideration,

20 considering the language used when these accusations are made against the

21 Prosecution. I'd like to turn over the microphone to my colleague. She

22 will provide you with a history of how this document was located, the

23 possible uses that the Defence might have been able to make of this

24 document, and that of course is connected with the question of was there

25 any miscarriage of justice, was there any prejudice, was there any

1 inconvenience caused to the Defence. And I would ask her to carry on.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy. As briefly as possible, please.

3 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try to be brief, and I

4 will as my colleague indicated try to focus on some practical matters

5 about the disclosure of this document, which given the time we were not in

6 a position to address yesterday.

7 The first thing I would like to do also on a factual matter is to

8 make a clarification, and an apology to the Bench for a statement I put on

9 the record yesterday which upon rereading is probably not an accurate

10 reflection of a statement. And I had stated yesterday that the statement

11 disclosed, that of Sabrija Dagovic, did not mention the names of his sons

12 in the statement. And I would like to correct that. Because the

13 statement does mention the names of Safet and Esad, but does not directly

14 indicate that those two persons that he refers to are his sons. And it

15 was that consequence -- it was a consequence of that that I was referring

16 to yesterday.

17 And the consequences of that is that first when you initially read

18 his statement, he talks about his sons, and then about two other people,

19 and again on first blush reading it wasn't evident which is what I was

20 trying to say yesterday. And secondly, the technical consequence of that

21 is that when we do searches for witnesses, for example, Mr. Esad Dagovic,

22 or Mr. Safet Dagovic, we would put in a criteria, for example, the name

23 Esad within 50 words of Dagovic and hopefully bring up any document that

24 possibly refers to him in it. This would not have been caught in any

25 search like that. And that is why in that sense, his name specifically

1 was not mentioned, nor specifically as being his son. So in the way I

2 talked off the cuff yesterday; it may have been misleading, and I would

3 like to apologise to my colleagues and to the Chamber if that was

4 inaccurate. So I hope that I have clarified that.

5 So to turn to the matter of the late disclosure of a document, and

6 the impact it might have, I'd like to bring to the Trial Chamber's

7 attention exactly what the nature of the document is, so that you can make

8 a full assessment. It is a signed statement in total five pages, but of

9 those five pages, only two and a half are actually a record of what the

10 witness had said. The witness talks a lot about what happened in Bosanski

11 Samac, the takeover, what happened to non-Serbs, how they weren't allowed

12 to gather, how they had to wear armbands, how his son was arrested, how he

13 had to go through forced labour. Basically he talks about all the crimes

14 that happened in Bosanski Samac. However, in that statement, the only

15 defendant he mentioned by name is Mr. Tadic, and he simply says that he

16 was in charge of his exchange. No other defendant is mentioned in the

17 statement.

18 The controversial line of the document is the one where the

19 defendants -- sorry, the witness says: "My sons were with a group of men

20 who offered resistance throughout the first day. Both of my sons had

21 weapons, and they participated in the fighting in the town. They came

22 back home on Saturday morning about 9.30 on the 18th of April, 1992." And

23 that is the only sentence in the whole statement which does not refer to

24 crimes committed and things suffered by the witness.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: And are the sons being discussed in that quoted

1 paragraph, actually, Esad and Safet?

2 MS. REIDY: If you read on to the end and you begin to analyse the

3 rest of his statement, you assume there's -- it's not clear, but you can

4 make the assumption that it's Esad and Safet. It's not evident from it.

5 That's the assumption we make.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: This particular maker of this statement, how many

7 sons is he recorded to have?

8 MS. REIDY: I can check the statement. I think he just refers to

9 his sons, not necessarily -- I'm not -- sorry, I did not have the

10 statement in front of me. Here it is. Sorry.

11 He doesn't say -- he says his family. I lived together with my

12 family. So at no stage does he say it is limited to sons. I am working

13 on the assumption that it is Esad and Safet that he is talking about and

14 he doesn't have any others. But he certainly in his statement says, "I

15 lived together with my family." He doesn't say anything whether he had

16 daughters, how many sons, how many children, and that is the first mention

17 he talks about his sons being away, and then much, much later in his

18 statement, he refers to the fact that Esad was called on the phone by some

19 Chetniks who wanted him to give them 1.000 deutschmarks for [redacted] who

20 was imprisoned in a camp. And I believe [redacted]

21 [redacted].

22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. You can proceed.

23 MS. REIDY: That is the basis of why this whole thing was

24 initially disclosed to the Defence.

25 Now, under Rule 68 we are obliged to disclose information which

1 may suggest the innocence and mitigate the guilt that he's -- and this

2 statement clearly does none of that. We are also obliged to disclose such

3 things which may affect the credibility of the Prosecution evidence. And

4 to the extent that this contradicts the position, if it does indeed, if

5 that is Esad and Safet he's talking about, of what Mr. Dagovic has said on

6 the stand, well, in that light it could be Rule 68, and that is why we

7 disclosed it.

8 Now, what is the impact of disclosing that yesterday? We would

9 like to point out that the allegation which is in that statement, and

10 giving a generous interpretation of that statement, that Esad Dagovic was

11 out participating in the resistance on the night of the 16th and 17th is

12 information which the Defence had for a long time in their possession and

13 indeed has put on the record whilst Mr. Esad Dagovic was here on the

14 stand. And I would draw the Chamber's attention to Prosecution Exhibit

15 D29/3 where the statement which was put to the witness specifically refers

16 to the allegations. And he says: "In response to questions of whether I

17 had a firearm and whether I was in town with other individuals in order to

18 prevent the disarming of citizens in Bosanski Samac, I state that this is

19 not true because I did not have a firearm. All I had was a 9 millimetre

20 zastava pistol for which I had a valid permit but which I handed over to

21 the people who were disarming citizens in Bosanski Samac." So the

22 substance of the allegation that is in his father's statement was already

23 in the hands of the Defence, was put in this document to the defendant,

24 and as I said, was on the record. So there is nothing new or revealing in

25 the father's statement.

1 I would also point out that this was put into evidence by the

2 first Defence counsel to cross-examine the witness. So that Defence

3 counsel and each Defence counsel who came after had the chance to follow

4 up on this line of questioning if they so wanted. So the only prejudice,

5 if that's what you want to call it, flowing from the late disclosure of

6 that statement yesterday was the fact that they could not put to the

7 witness that his father is recorded as having said that his sons were

8 resisting.

9 This Trial Chamber has consistently held that a statement of a

10 third party cannot be put to a witness for his speculative comment.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: I think I may as well correct you there. That's

12 not the point we are looking at here. It's the ability of the Defence to

13 prepare their Defence properly having that type of information. I'm sure

14 you appreciate that the impact is somewhat different when a statement is

15 made by a father of one of the witnesses. Only crucial issue, was he

16 participated in the conflict or not? Because from the cross-examination

17 of some of the Prosecution witnesses, that is a point they are trying to

18 make, that some of the people who were actually arrested and detained,

19 whether rightly or wrongly, were actually arrested during the

20 [indiscernible].

21 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. And my point would be they

22 had information of the allegations that they had been participating

23 already. The information they had to prepare their cross-examination.

24 Could they have used this statement in the cross-examination? They

25 couldn't have put a third party's statement to the witness for his

1 comment. They could only have prepared the examination, put to him the

2 allegation that you are participating in and what do you say about that?

3 And they had the opportunity to do that from the information they already

4 had. I'm just trying to assess to the extent to which any way they were

5 prejudiced.

6 Now that the Defence, as you said -- to help them prepare the

7 Defence, the Defence now do have that statement. They know what the

8 father said. It is now open to them. They are quite a number of months

9 away from their Defence case. They are able to call in their Defence who

10 they want. He is not a Prosecution witness. With that particular

11 statement, there is nothing further on the cross-examination beyond

12 putting the allegation to that witness they could have done, and of course

13 they will have that opportunity to do that to his brother when he

14 testifies after this witness.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think it's right for you to lead me to

16 that. The only way they could have used the statement was actually

17 putting it to the Prosecution witnesses. They could have used it also to

18 look for witnesses to support their Defence case. That is another

19 possibility.

20 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, they are not excluded from doing that Your

21 Honour.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: The point is because it has come to them at a late

23 stage. You see the point I am making.

24 MS. REIDY: I do, Your Honour. At the end I also say that of

25 course Mr. Dagovic could be recalled and could be recalled as part of the

1 Defence case. If they put forward a case for that with good reason, I

2 don't see why the Prosecution would oppose that.

3 I would also in that sense like to address the fact that -- what I

4 said is the trying to assess how just prejudicial the late disclosure of

5 the document could be and whether or not this amounts to the very, very

6 serious allegations of a miscarriage of justice, of gross and blatant

7 violations of fairness of trial and of intolerable practices. And my

8 colleagues have already noticed that these are allegations of the most

9 grave kind, and we feel that Mr. Pantelic should be in a position to

10 substantiate clearly these sort of allegations if he is going to put them

11 on a public record. And this Tribunal has consistently held that matters

12 of disclosure under Rule 68 that the burden is on the Defence who raised

13 the matter to convince the Trial Chamber of Rule 68 material and how

14 serious violations are that occurred. And in this case, Mr. Pantelic is

15 calling in to question the good faith and integrity of the Prosecution in

16 the way that they conducted their obligations. And in doing so, he has

17 not provided one concrete example of how this fair trial has been

18 jeopardised or irreparable has been caused.

19 We would first on this matter note that the Prosecution's

20 obligations under Rule 68 are also a matter of the Prosecutor's initial

21 discretion as to whether something falls under Rule 68 or not. And in the

22 Blaskic case, the Appeals Chamber had made clear that the initial decision

23 as to whether evidence exculpatory has to be made to the Prosecutor

24 without further proof that the Prosecution abused its judgement, that the

25 Appeals Chamber would not interfere. So it was very clear that this

1 discretion should be exercised in good faith and not abused. And in this

2 case, the determination of whether or not a document falls under Rule 68

3 has always been done in good faith. What has occurred in this case is

4 that two different witnesses have said contradictory things about an issue

5 not relating to the defendants' conduct but to another matter. And on

6 reading of first blush at an early stage in the trial, it is not

7 unreasonable for a member of the Prosecutor's office to not deem it as a

8 Rule 68 material.

9 However, in exercising our diligence, using the opportunity given

10 to us in this trial because of the unfortunate indisposition of his Honour

11 Judge Singh we reviewed every single statement that has ever been taken

12 from anybody to do with this case in light of the evidence that we now as

13 the Prosecution team have heard, and in reading that for the first time

14 and knowing Mr. Dagovic's testimony as we have heard on the stand, we

15 could see that sentence put in that context as now giving rise to a Rule

16 68 obligation, and we so disclosed. Again, we would submit that that is

17 not an abuse of our discretion, nor is it showing lack of good faith. The

18 Blaskic Chamber has also pointed out that this discretion under Rule 68 is

19 in part and of necessity tinged with subjectivity. And we would say it is

20 no more evident than when we were dealing with this sort of issue, as I

21 said an issue between two different witnesses saying contradictory things

22 about an issue which does not go to the act or conduct of one of the

23 accused. And I would also note, as the Trial Chamber did, that the

24 possibility is always reserved to this Trial Chamber to verify on a case

25 by case basis where there has been potential failures, to draw the

1 necessary exclusions as to the probative value to be given to evidence in

2 question.

3 In the Blaskic case where the Defence tried to seek sanctions

4 for what they alleged was continuing violations of Rule 68 which was

5 rejected by both the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber, the Trial

6 Chamber noted that Rule 68 is governed less by system of sanctions than by

7 the Judges' definitive evaluation of the evidence presented by either of

8 the parties and the possibility which the opposing party will have had to

9 contest it. And in this case, we would submit it is clear the Defence

10 have not been deprived of any ability to test the evidence. And they

11 still have the opportunity to argue the probative value of all of this

12 before the Chamber.

13 So to sum up the Prosecution's position is one that the statement

14 has now been disclosed and the Defence are in a position to prepare the

15 Defence with the use of the statement. Any prejudice caused by the delay,

16 we would submit, is minimal, but is also not irreparable. Safet Dagovic

17 has yet to testify, and Esa Dagovic could be recalled, and as we said,

18 was subject to cross-examination, and of course Masbia Dagovic has also

19 been brought to the attention of the Defence. We also submit that while

20 we are open always to errors, we have never acted in anything but good

21 faith and we have never abused our discretion under Rule 68.

22 Mr. Pantelic, as we have said, has made the most serious of

23 allegations which he has never to date substantiated. He has talked of

24 warnings given by the Trial Chamber and I can find no warning. We are

25 aware of our obligations under Rule 68 and other disclosure provisions,

1 and we will continue to review all the evidence for a fourth and for a

2 fifth time with a new set of eyes and a new perspective and of being

3 overconsciousness in our re-evaluation of what may or may not be Rule 68

4 brings us into a miscarriage of justice yet we would submit that that is

5 not necessarily a just interpretation of Rule 68. And on the contrary,

6 the Prosecution position is that the Chamber should consider whether

7 Mr. Pantelic should be reprimanded by the Chamber for repeatedly making

8 the most grave and serious allegations if he is not in a position to

9 provide concrete substantiation for calling into question on the public

10 record the integrity and good faith of the Prosecution.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. The Defence, Mr. Pantelic.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, thank you. First of all, allow me to

13 thank to my learned friends from the Prosecution for the apologies made

14 with regard to the issue raised yesterday by Ms. Reidy with regard to the

15 mention with the names of the sons of witness Sabrija Dagovic, the

16 statement from 1995. And I think this practice should be present here

17 from the part of the Prosecution. From time to time, it's better to think

18 twice and then say something. It will save our precious time here.

19 I would like, before my submission, to emphasise the words of our

20 learned colleague, Mr. Weiner, from yesterday's hearing. It is page 7040,

21 line 4 and 7, from 4 to 7. The issue was after the question of her Honour

22 Judge Mumba with regard to the statement in question, and the response

23 was: "Which is long before any of the three of our counsel have been

24 here. We have continued to look through the records. If we find

25 anything, we immediately turn it over to the Defence counsel which is our

1 obligation. This is not the witness that is going to testify."

2 Your Honours, it is totally unacceptable, as a matter of

3 principle, to hear these kind of explanations, because my understanding of

4 the institution of the Prosecution office is that - and this is a fact -

5 they are number and number of experts there. Senior trial attorneys, team

6 leaders, et cetera, et cetera. It will not be appropriate that in each

7 case when the team of the Prosecution members will change, this kind of

8 approach should be done, because this is an institution. It is not

9 tolerable that each new team of the Prosecutor members will raise this

10 issue and say, well, it was in the past with our former colleagues. We

11 don't know anything. We are ongoing procedures, et cetera, et cetera. I

12 will respectfully remind this Trial Chamber that the indictment was filed

13 in 1995, which means almost seven years ago. It is absolutely enough time

14 for the Prosecution to prepare its case and to bring its case and to be

15 ready for the trial. And it's not tolerable practice that during the

16 trial, this kind of explanation even should be raised here.

17 Another point: On the same page, line 12 until 18, Mr. Weiner

18 made a reference that the Prosecution is in possession of 2.5 million

19 documents with regard to this case. According to our --

20 MR. WEINER: Objection.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

22 MR. WEINER: That's totally untrue. And he knows it.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the correct version?

24 MR. WEINER: 2.5 million documents we are in possession of.

25 That's the whole Tribunal, all the documents --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: For all the cases. All right.

2 MR. WEINER: Which don't have 2.5 million documents in this case.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. That was my point. Reading his words, he

4 mentioned 2.5 million documents, which brings me to another problem.

5 Officially I would like to respectfully move this Trial Chamber to give a

6 ruling or order and to allow the Defence team to make an inspection of all

7 2.5 million documents in possession of the OTP with regard to this case --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You have heard the correction. It's the whole

9 Prosecution office on all the cases. It's not only on Simic, no.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. But still, Your Honour, this particular

11 witness statement --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes, you're going back to it. That's the one

13 you should be dealing with.

14 MR. PANTELIC: It obviously related to this particular case called

15 Simic case.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no doubt about that. So I think --

17 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: You should direct your response more to the

19 prejudice, if any.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. That's my intention, Your Honour.

21 So the practice of handling of this witness statement related to

22 Simic case is very simple. All witness statements of Simic case are in

23 the Simic case, not within the 2.5 million documents in possession of the

24 OTP. This is a simple and regular, I would say, approach how one will

25 handle document pertaining to certain particular case. It is not a

1 document of the other institution, or it is not the document related to

2 another case. This document, Your Honours, is hundred per cent related to

3 Simic case. And the question is here: How this document which was made

4 in 1995 was given to the Defence in 2002? That's the point.

5 With regard to the -- with regard to the issue which I raised

6 yesterday, I'm glad to give precise and factual explanations about

7 the -- about the manner how the Prosecution team in this case is acting.

8 Your Honours, allow me to first draw your attention to the issue of

9 Prosecution and NATO SFOR forces in this particular case.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic we haven't got all day. We are dealing

11 with that particular document. I directed you to inform the Trial

12 Chamber, point out how the late disclosure is affecting your client's case

13 or the Defence case, what prejudice if any. I want you to restrict your

14 submissions to that. Because if late disclosure does not occasion any

15 prejudice, then we go ahead with the trial.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I want to establish my grounds, because my

17 learned friends asked me to give particular proofs, and I am going to give

18 these proofs. So first of all, I can check in the transcript with regard

19 to the confidential agreement between Prosecution and NATO why this

20 agreement was not disclosed to the Defence. And furthermore, on the

21 pretrial conference held on June 26th last year, on the page 876, line 18,

22 Mr. Di Fazio said: "Firstly, I just want to state that as far as the

23 Prosecution is concerned, disclosure has now been completed. This

24 afternoon, we will provide about five further statements to the Defence.

25 We have good reason for believing that that material has already been

1 disclosed, but as -- from an abundance of the caution, we will hand it

2 over again. To generally speaking disclosure of Rule 66 and 68 has been

3 completed by the Prosecution."

4 Then, Your Honour, on the -- here on the September 10th, page 915,

5 line 7 and 12, we also discussed this matter, this obligation. On

6 November the 2nd, last year, 2001, page 3306, we also raised this issue

7 with regard to the practice of the discovery -- the disclosure from the

8 side of the Prosecution. Then again, November 27, quite extensive

9 discussion from page 4552 until 4568. Then on the 17th of January this

10 year, 2002, there was also discussion with regard to this practice with a

11 certain version of statements, et cetera. And also on the 18 of February,

12 page 5987, the Defence raised this particular issue, which, Your Honours,

13 bring us to the 19th of February this year and the ruling of this Trial

14 Chamber with regard to the practice, and I will just interalia, page --

15 and page 6018, line 1 to 9, interalia I will just make the reference of

16 the ruling of this Honourable Trial Chamber which said: "If at any stage

17 the Trial Chamber finds that new details which are material to the Defence

18 which have not been disclosed before, the Trial Chamber will take

19 appropriate action, and this habit, if repeated by the Prosecution, may

20 lead to undermining the Prosecution case altogether because it is likely

21 to lead to an unfair trial to the accused." That was a ruling.

22 Then, Your Honour, after that ruling, on the 1st of March, the

23 Defence raised the same problem, page 6652. And that was a response of

24 our friend, Mr. Di Fazio. First of all, the interview in July last year,

25 Mr. Pantelic is correct that it was disclosed to the Defence late. I

1 think it should -- I should take the fault for that. And then on the

2 next page, 6653, he said: "It is a matter that I regret."

3 Your Honours, very often here in these proceedings, we are

4 listening of apologies of regrets, et cetera, from the part of the

5 Prosecution. I think it is not enough to ensure the fairness of trial. I

6 can elaborate, but I think it is not a proper moment now, because this is

7 a part of Defence strategy, how and when we shall use certain statements,

8 portion of statements, or documents, in our Defence case. That will be in

9 our case. Now, we don't want to speculate how and when and to which

10 extent certain portion of the late disclosure will affect our case. For

11 the illustration, theoretically, speaking about this particular statement

12 from 1995, which was disclosed yesterday, theoretically, the Defence would

13 be in a situation if the Defence would have that prior to the one of the

14 witnesses appearing here, which is a son of the person who gave this

15 statement, theoretically, we would be in a situation to challenge his

16 credibility, maybe to challenge another line of evidence of the

17 Prosecution. And also, allow me to say, despite of all my efforts in, I

18 would say, [indiscernible] with the Prosecution, on many occasions I

19 kindly ask my colleague, Mr. Di Fazio, to provide me with the exact dates

20 when he made these so-called proofing notes in connection with his

21 interview with Mr. Todorovic who is now in Spain. Up to now, I don't have

22 anything.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's deal with this particular document.

24 MR. PANTELIC: So this particular document, Your Honour, I would

25 say is the only peak of the iceberg of the problem that we are facing here

1 with this behaviour and action of the Prosecution. This document is just

2 an illustration, and I made these so many references on the other

3 documents. And God knows, Your Honours, how many documents we shall have

4 during our proceedings on this manner, and I think that according to your

5 ruling, this should stop.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No. No. No. Can you wind up. You have had this

7 document since yesterday. I'm sure you've got instructions. You

8 discussed with your colleagues. Is there any point on prejudice and

9 possible remedies that you would like to make submissions on?

10 MR. PANTELIC: There is always a possibility for remedies, Your

11 Honour. We have an appeal proceedings. We have a possibility to call

12 again one of these witnesses in question, which will bring us to another

13 delay. And I think in general, it is absolutely a lack of diligence from

14 the side of the Prosecution, especially after the ruling that this Trial

15 Chamber made on the 19th of February. So I don't know what else as a

16 Defence we have to do or wait for another action from -- ambush or

17 something with regard to the evidence and statements, et cetera.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: There is nothing you can do. You can only deal with

19 the matter which is --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: You can only deal with the matter which is on record

22 now. You can't focus on the future of the trial.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Of course. Let me give an answer in general terms,

24 because I'm not able in capacity of Defence counsel to elaborate what I

25 will do with a certain portion of statements or certain evidence in

1 process of defence of my client because simply, that's Defence strategy,

2 and I will see when and how I will act with that regard.

3 In this particular case, as I said, we could call even the person

4 in question of this particular statement, or we can call again one of the

5 witnesses. But it also has certain impact of this process, of the

6 delays of the fairness, you know.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: No. No. No. You see it is open to the Defence to

8 make submissions and ask for remedies from the Trial Chamber during the

9 proceedings, at any stage during the proceedings. And the Trial Chamber

10 will be able to make a ruling.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In conclusion, Your Honours, on the basis of

12 all what I said, and on the basis of your ruling of February 19, I

13 respectfully ask this Trial Chamber to take necessary actions against this

14 practice of the Prosecution which is, I would say, with a constant and

15 pertinent matter. That's my submission, Your Honours, with regard to this

16 intolerable practice of the Prosecution.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: What sanctions are available?

18 MR. PANTELIC: According to the Rule -- according to the Rule 68

19 bis, it depends on each Trial Chamber. Possible sanction could be that

20 this case will be dismissed because of the lack of diligence of the

21 Prosecution. Possible sanction could be to some extent -- I think there

22 are elements that this behaviour is very close to the Rule 77 and contempt

23 of the Tribunal, because we have numerous problems. This is a violation

24 of the speediness of trial, fairness of trial. Also, there are certain

25 impacts on the budget of this Tribunal because the witnesses should come

1 again here. We are wasting our precious time, et cetera, et cetera.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Let me be clear about that. There is

3 already an Appeals Chamber decision that the judicial economy is not going

4 to surpass the interest of justice. So don't worry about judicial

5 economy. We are dealing with a criminal trial here. What should interest

6 you is the fairness of the trial. What options are open to the Defence to

7 remedy whatever prejudice they may submit that they have suffered?

8 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I think that we have to discuss that matter

9 with my colleagues, because at this moment, beside the things that I just

10 mentioned, I would respectfully leave to this Honourable Trial Chamber to

11 decide how this practice will be prevented in future. And also, if my

12 learned friends and colleagues from the Defence teams would like to add

13 something, I don't know if it is appropriate maybe?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you are through. You are finished.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I am finished, Your Honour. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other counsel who wishes to make any submission

17 on this matter?

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Very briefly, Your Honours, I would just like to add

19 a couple of points. First of all, I would like to clarify one thing with

20 the -- with this witness statement. In the witness statement, it is

21 clearly stated that the witness has said: "But my sons were with a group

22 of men who offered resistance through the first day. Both of my sons had

23 weapons." So there was an actual reference to how many children this

24 person has.

25 I'm not saying that our colleagues from the Prosecutors' side did

1 anything in bad faith. We are not saying this. But Your Honours, out of

2 the -- my main concern is the principle of fairness in this trial. We

3 are -- it is in my mind it is very clear that the equality of arms before

4 this trial -- before this Tribunal has always been an issue, and we as a

5 Defence have always raised this issue that we are on the lower side of

6 this equality of arms. What is our position is that at least, as a

7 minimum, we should expect our learned colleagues from the Prosecutors'

8 side to disclose all possible documents and witness statements which are

9 connected to this -- to a certain particular case where we can find out

10 whether, or they have the obligation under the Rule 68 as well. But I

11 understand that sometimes it's very hard to determine because of the lack

12 of the knowledge of the language and all that. I understand that is the

13 problem for the Prosecutor, that these things might happen, can happen,

14 and it's obvious they are happening. But then, why we were not disclosed

15 all the witness statements pertaining to this case so we can find out. We

16 had the time enough for that.

17 In this particular witness statement, we have heard the witness

18 over here, Mr. Esad Dagovic. Twice he was summoned, he gave his

19 statement -- testimony in chief, and then was summoned for the

20 cross-examination. The main point the Defence was making is that he was

21 participating on the 17th of April in the fight with weapons, that he was

22 fighting the other party on that particular date. He, himself, stated

23 that it is not true. And we -- of course it creates a lot of prejudice

24 for us. Because if we knew before that his father actually is confirming

25 what the Defence has anticipated has happened or had some indications has

1 happened, we would have done so many other things in this respect to find

2 out and challenge the credibility of this witness, as we are authorised to

3 according to Rule 68.

4 The other thing, Your Honour, is that in this particular

5 situation, just as a principle of fairness, in this particular case, we

6 are now, you know, on I believe the 18th witness. Out of the 18, we

7 already have 25 per cent, one quarter, three or four witnesses, who have

8 to come back. First of all, there is Donia, then -- Mr. Donia, then

9 Ibrahim Salkic. The same thing. We received one statement from one of

10 the witness's of the Prosecutor only after we finished the

11 cross-examination of Ibrahim Salkic. We raise this issue, and we

12 wanted --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy?

14 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry, I'd just like to clarify from Mr. Zecevic.

15 I think the implications that this is happened on two other occasions and

16 these people are being recalled for the same reason. If they want to

17 recall Mr. Donia that's because of a confidential document --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, can you slow down. The interpreters have

19 to follow.

20 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry. My sincere apologies to the interpreter.

21 I'd like just to stop Mr. Zecevic just on this specific line of submission

22 he is making because he is clearly trying to imply that our behaviour has

23 resulted in the recall of two other witnesses he has named. That is

24 simply not true. If the Defence want to recall Mr. Donia, they can do so

25 and they can do so because -- they can request they can do so because

1 there was a report here from another case which was confidential, which he

2 submitted in front of another Chamber and the Defence did not take the

3 steps early enough to have that -- the Prosecution did not oppose the

4 lifting of the confidentiality of that. We couldn't give it to them

5 without the Trial Chamber saying so. It is not even clear if that report

6 is any way useful to the Defence anyhow. The seconds one, Mr. Salkic, I'm

7 not even clear what Mr. Zecevic is referring to. If they want to recall

8 Mr. Salkic because they have other questions to put to him as part of

9 their Defence, that's their Defence case. But it's not a similar

10 situation to the one that we are facing now with all due respect. And I

11 object to Mr. Zecevic trying to say that this is the third time that we

12 have arrived at a similar situation because it's not.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: I would very much appreciate if I would be given the

15 opportunity to finish, and then have the comments from my learned

16 colleagues, because it was not my intention to imply that. I'm just -- my

17 intention is to combine the principle of fairness, which among other

18 things, guarantees to the accused, our clients, that they will have a

19 speedy trial and a fair trial. The problem is this: We right now are in

20 a position that we have the opportunity to recall Mr. Robert Donia, and

21 that is very true what Ms. Reidy said, based on the confidential document

22 which was not disclosed to us, and we asked for the permission for that.

23 But the other thing was that Ibrahim Salkic, Ibrahim Salkic himself was

24 here, he was cross-examined, only after the finish of his

25 cross-examination, we received one statement which is clearly

1 contradicting his statement -- his testimony over here. Now we have this

2 statement by the father of Mr. Esad Dagovic which clearly contradicts the

3 testimony of the witness which we brought over here.

4 So what I am saying is I am not implying that the -- that my

5 friends from the Prosecutor side did that on purpose. I'm just stating

6 that this goes into the principle -- into the principle of fairness of

7 this trial, and the length of this trial, that if we are in a

8 position -- what I am trying to say is that it does not only affect the

9 Defence case; it affects the case altogether. Because if we are -- we are

10 entitled, I assume, to ask the permission by this Trial Chamber that we

11 bring back Mr. Esad Dagovic and Mr. Ibrahim Salkic for recross-examination

12 based on these two statements which we received after their

13 cross-examination. I believe we are entitled to that. But who can

14 guarantee that there isn't many more like this, and then we are going to

15 be in a position where we could have at the very end of the Prosecutor

16 case another recalling of let's say ten witnesses, which will undoubtedly

17 prolong the case which we are hearing right now.

18 Thank you, Your Honours. I'm sorry.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic? You also want to make a submission

21 on this very document?

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Just a few words.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] One matter related to precision, and

25 another thing has to do with a fact raised by my colleagues.

1 Yesterday to the question posed by Judge Lindholm whether anyone

2 is opposed to this statement, "he basically has nothing to say about the

3 defenders."

4 Today, Ms. Reidy corrected herself saying that the statement after

5 all does mention one of the accused, and that the witness actually refers

6 to Mr. Tadic. Let me make this clear: The Prosecutor made this reference

7 sound less important than it was, saying that he was just "... I did not

8 pay to be exchanged. I just went to one of his clerks and registered it

9 myself -- to be about eight months. Saying that he was just in charge of

10 his exchange, and that was just for purposes of clarification.

11 Another matter I wanted to raise is the same as my colleague

12 Mr. Zecevic and my colleague Mr. Pantelic have raised. It is not the

13 issue here whether the Defence will be allowed to recall this witness. I

14 believe the Trial Chamber would give us that permission anyway. But there

15 is another problem which has to do with the so-called line of

16 cross-examination. It is not the same thing to recall a witness for

17 recross as our Trial Chamber itself has pointed out, saying that the

18 cross-examination is an art. The Defence has to have complete information

19 in order to build its strategy of cross-examination. As an example, when

20 I cross-examined Witness M, I had occasion to experience this because of

21 late disclosure. I presented to this witness his own statement given to

22 the SUP and asked him about his signature. The witness had said that he

23 always signed himself with his full name and surname. After

24 cross-examination by one of my colleagues, the Prosecution team gave us

25 another statement made by this witness given to Defence organs in Donji

1 Levac, and the witness replied something entirely different. I believe

2 that if I had asked, I would have been allowed to recross. However, it

3 was my colleagues Zecevic who conducted the cross-examination. However, I

4 want to say just that if I had had this document before my cross, I would

5 have examined him differently.

6 If at the moment of my cross-examination I do not have this

7 document, and I am given it later, then the very purpose and outcome of my

8 cross-examination is jeopardised. When you asked my colleague

9 Mr. Pantelic about possible sanctions, I had two ideas: One possible

10 solution is not to take the testimony of such a witness into consideration

11 at all; and another possibility is to allow the Defence additional days to

12 verify through their investigators the allegations made. I think the

13 Trial Chamber would be fair to allow that because the Trial Chamber

14 should, I think, also take into account among other things the amount of

15 time given to each side to prepare and verify their evidence. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Mr. Pisarevic.

17 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be brief. I

18 share the concern expressed by all of my colleagues, and I believe the

19 Trial Chamber as well. And I believe that after all this, our concern

20 will also be shared by our learned friends from the Prosecution. We do

21 have to invest every effort to ensure that this trial meet the highest

22 standards of justice because that is a task we all share, and we have to

23 persist in these efforts. The facts quoted by my colleagues, and they are

24 true, have indeed brought us to the present situation from which we now

25 have to find a way out, a way out which would be useful and just for all

1 of us involved in the proceedings. And first and foremost be fair to the

2 accused and protect their rights.

3 We cannot say by any means that our Defence will not be prejudiced

4 by the omissions made, because any information, and especially information

5 coming from the Prosecution, is very important for the preparation of our

6 Defence and cross-examination. If the Trial Chamber recalls, and they

7 surely do, Witness Esad Dagovic came close to assuming the role of

8 Prosecutor in this courtroom. And it is certain that had we had this

9 statement earlier, we would have charted our cross-examination quite

10 differently and prevented him from behaving that way. I believe the Trial

11 Chamber should take steps to prevent this from happening again.

12 With all due respect for our learned friends from the Prosecution,

13 and appreciation of their difficulties, I must say that although we are

14 aware that they had predecessors in their current jobs, I would still have

15 to ask them to make every effort to disclose to us all that they have,

16 everything that they have. And I think that the Trial Chamber has already

17 made a ruling ordering them to do so.

18 As for possible solutions, maybe the ideas that have already been

19 voiced here can be used for ensure that we, indeed, meet the principles of

20 a fair and just trial.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. The Trial Chamber will have the

22 statement admitted for the limited purposes of making a ruling in this

23 particular case. I wonder whether the Prosecution has extra copies for

24 the Bench.

25 MS. REIDY: I'm not sure if we have five copies. Do we? Your

1 Honour, I think perhaps we could provide at least three now to the senior

2 legal officer, and then provide a number of other copies during the

3 break.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

5 MS. REIDY: There are four copies. There should be one for each

6 of the members of the Bench and one for the senior legal officer, and

7 we'll get another copy for the registry.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And it will be admitted as a Court document.

9 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: It's in English, I take it?

11 MS. REIDY: It's in English.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will discuss and give its ruling

13 at a later stage during the proceedings. We can now proceed with the

14 witness. I think he was still being cross-examined, if he can come into

15 the courtroom.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. You can continue with

18 cross-examination.

19 WITNESS: NUSRET HADZIJUSUFOVIC [Resumed]

20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Hadzijusufovic.

23 A. Good afternoon.

24 Q. I will try to complete as soon as I can. I promised the Trial

25 Chamber I will take another hour, and we have already taken a lot of time

1 to deal with other matters.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] With the leave of the Trial Chamber, I

3 would like to move into private session for three or four questions

4 because I will be referring to protected witnesses.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can we move into private session, please.

6 [Private session]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [Open session]

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You said on page 52/1, on the 15th, that is just the unofficial

25 transcript, because I got the official one only earlier today, on the 15th

1 of April, you said that Miroslav Tadic put Catholics into the secondary

2 school building, and later exchanged them. You said they were the first

3 to be exchanged. Do you remember that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When Honourable Judge Williams asked you to clarify these facts,

6 you responded to a repeated question of the Prosecutor saying that you had

7 concluded so on the basis of the fact that that was the first camp to be

8 closed?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You also said that you know or knew this based on what those

11 people involved in the exchange had told you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. When was this camp closed, the camp in the secondary school

14 building?

15 A. I don't remember.

16 Q. Approximately?

17 A. All I know, it was the first.

18 Q. You hadn't been exchanged by that time, had you?

19 A. No.

20 Q. So we can agree that it was closed before the 30th of January,

21 1993?

22 A. Yes, it was.

23 Q. You also said that only a few Croats remained in Bosanski Samac?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I don't quite understand one thing. Perhaps you can explain. How

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 come the Croats that had been exchanged told you about this if they had

2 been exchanged before you?

3 A. Croats told me. I didn't say they had been exchanged.

4 Q. Will you then explain who told you about it?

5 A. The people who were coming from Dubica to be exchanged.

6 Q. You mean Serbs?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And after the closure of this secondary school centre, there were

9 no more Croats in Samac, that is, only a few remained. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I would now like to ask you a couple of questions relating to this

12 piece of paper, you described as having seen it on Tadic's desk. I will

13 remind you of your own words. Dzevad Celic showed you a piece of paper

14 that you had previously seen on Tadic's desk. Is that correct?

15 A. Not previously. I saw the same kind -- type of paper on his desk.

16 Q. So you first saw this paper in Dzevad Celic's hands, and then you

17 saw it on Tadic's desk?

18 A. Yes. But not the same paper, but the same type of paper, the same

19 form, the same format.

20 Q. I'm now speaking about Dzevad Celic. As you explained on page

21 7625 of the unofficial transcript of the 15th of April, he showed you a

22 piece of paper containing the decision saying that you were to go to work,

23 to the separation company.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. On that piece of paper, were there any other names, names of

1 people who were supposed to go to the same place to work?

2 A. No.

3 Q. So that piece of paper contained only your name and surname?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Was the text handwritten or typed? Do you remember?

6 A. Handwritten.

7 Q. Did it bear a stamp or signature?

8 A. No.

9 Q. How about signature?

10 A. I didn't look closely enough to see there was a signature, but it

11 didn't bear a stamp.

12 Q. You also said before this Trial Chamber, page 7910, also of the

13 15th of April, that you had seen a piece of paper on Tadic's desk, and you

14 stated that you could not read the contents of the paper, the document;

15 you only saw that it was the same form or format?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. But you couldn't read it? You couldn't see the contents?

18 A. Right.

19 Q. I'll try to be precise. Did you see your name on that paper on

20 Tadic's desk?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Reading your unofficial, unsigned statement dated 1st of May,

23 1998, I noticed that you had stated the following: "On Tadic's desk --"

24 MR. WEINER: I would object to that, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

1 MR. WEINER: I think, and I'm not certain at this time, he is

2 going to impeach him with a statement with a comment -- I don't know how

3 you want to refer to it -- from not a statement as described under our

4 rules, but an unsigned document which was never shown to him, which was

5 never reviewed by him. And if that's what he is going to try and do -- if

6 he is going to refresh his recollection, he could possibly do that by

7 showing it to him if this witness has a memory problem. But to impeach

8 him by something that was never signed, never read to him, never reviewed

9 by him, I think that's a violation of the evidentiary rules if that is

10 what he is going to do.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Lukic. The objection is sustained.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My intention, Your Honours, was just

13 to ask the witness if he remembered the sentence, one of the sentences

14 from his statement to the investigators.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I haven't read the sentence yet. I

17 just want to ask him if he ever uttered it in his interview with the

18 investigators. I don't intend to ask anything else, but he did have this

19 interview with the investigators. I just want to ask him if he really

20 said something to the investigators or not.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: I suppose you can go ahead along that line of

22 examination. You can go ahead with that.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Do you remember that you told the investigators that on Tadic's

25 desk you --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the problem. You ask -- you read out the

2 question, do you remember ever having said that? But not stating that,

3 you know, the witness did say, that's a problem. It's a question of

4 language, how you phrase the question. Because the way you phrased the

5 question, you are holding it against him as if he did make the statement.

6 He may not have made it.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I appreciate that.

8 Q. Did you tell the investigators that you had found on Tadic's desk

9 a written order authorising certain people to go and pick up certain items

10 they wanted?

11 A. I don't recall.

12 Q. In response to a question I put to you yesterday, you answered

13 that a member of the OTP showed you a note of the interview, your

14 interview with the investigators, just before you came here to testify,

15 and you said that you stood behind this note.

16 A. That is not recorded in my statement which I made under oath.

17 Q. I'll now read out to you what you said under oath. I'll read it

18 in English.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean in his testimony or -- can we be clear

20 where that statement was made. Is it part of his testimony?

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No. That is part of his statement

22 made to the Prosecutor just before he came here to testify.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

24 MR. WEINER: I think there's a problem here of -- for two

25 reasons. Number one, whenever he questions the witness, he says in your

1 previous statement. Is he talking about the 1998 statement? Is he

2 talking about two other Prosecutor summaries that were made with this

3 witness in the past few months? The other thing I think -- whenever he

4 talks about previous testimony, I think we should use the words "previous

5 words" because that's confusing the witness and me and just refer to which

6 one of these sheets of paper he's talking about, the 1998 or the

7 Prosecutor summaries from 2002.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And also, Mr. Lukic, to bear in mind that the

9 Prosecutor's notes are not a statement of the witness. All right. So

10 clearly identify what it is that you are referring to.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand. But I would like

12 to reply to my learned friend from the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor's notes

13 do not indicate a date of the interview or discussions. We received two

14 such summaries, one is not dated, and the other is dated the 24th of

15 March, 2002. I believe both summaries or notes were drafted on the same

16 day.

17 Q. My question is, do you remember --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to be clear. Mr. Weiner, you heard what

19 Mr. Lukic said, that one of the Prosecutor's notes is not dated.

20 MR. WEINER: The last one is dated March 24th, 2002, and this one

21 is not dated. I'll get a date at the break, which is in a couple minutes,

22 for him, so they can refer to this by date.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you can go ahead, Mr. Lukic, as long

24 as you declare if it's the one without the date or the dated one, then you

25 indicate the date.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I was referring to the undated note

2 marked by the Prosecutor, paragraph 16.

3 Q. Do you remember what you discussed with the Prosecutor just before

4 this trial in March of this year?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you remember that on that occasion when describing the piece of

7 paper you had seen on Tadic's desk, you said that it was an order for

8 certain people to work on specific locations?

9 A. I said the paper was of the same contents, the same shape, the

10 same format, and it looked the same.

11 Q. So you stick to the statement you made in your previous testimony,

12 that you could not see the contents of this paper?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you remember how many days you worked in the separation

15 company?

16 A. I don't remember how many days, but I worked there for a long

17 time, until the company was closed.

18 Q. But approximately?

19 A. From the 25th of August onwards.

20 Q. If you could please tell me roughly, 15, 30 days.

21 A. Up to 30 days.

22 Q. And that date, the 25th of August, is engraved in your memory for

23 a reason?

24 A. It was after those people had made their escape across the Sava

25 River, and it was after that that I was sent to work.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we could take our break now,

2 although I haven't finished.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we'll take our break and continue the

4 proceedings at 16.15.

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

6 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I understand the witness is on his way. He is

8 coming.

9 Yes, Mr. Lukic, you can proceed.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].

11 Q. Prior to the break, I asked a question concerning your work in the

12 separation plant. And you also indicated the period of time you spent

13 there working.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You also mentioned that it was approximately 30 days at that

16 location.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I will ask you some names, whether these people from Samac,

19 whether they worked at separation, and if you know them. Do you know

20 Ramic Resad?

21 A. I don't know the surname. I cannot remember.

22 Q. I do not insist. Nedzad Mustafic?

23 A. Yes, I do know him.

24 Q. Did you see him working at the separation?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you know Zivorad Djordjevic?

2 A. Zile? Yes, I know.

3 Q. Did you see him at the separation?

4 A. He was the foreman.

5 Q. And Cviko?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The last two names, they are Serbs?

8 A. Yes, they are.

9 Q. Did you know Nenadic Tomislav?

10 A. I cannot remember.

11 Q. What about Kalec Stjepan?

12 A. I cannot remember.

13 Q. Now, let us pass to another subject. You have received three

14 times a military summons for mobilisation.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That was a mobilisation summons for the army of the Republika

17 Srpska?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you didn't react and report to that?

20 A. I reported twice, on two summonses.

21 Q. Can you tell us what happened when you reported?

22 A. We went in front of the memorial home, and we were told three

23 times, also the second time, whoever wants to, to join the army, to

24 remain -- to sign up. And who doesn't want, to go out and leave.

25 Q. Do you know any of the people who signed up for the mobilisation?

1 A. The first time, nobody did, at least as far as I recall.

2 Q. The second time?

3 A. I was leaving, but I heard that some people signed up.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, before you continue, I just want to be

5 clear in my mind when you are talking about the army of Republika Srpska,

6 is this the same as the [indiscernible] or different?

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I can ask the question to the

8 witness.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes. Go ahead.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. The question, the summonses you've received for mobilisation on

12 three occasions, did they refer to the same unit?

13 A. The summonses were identical, were the same. One I had submitted,

14 the one that I had with me.

15 Q. I will also ask you in connection with the summons you've

16 submitted. Do you know that those who signed up for mobilisation and

17 joined the unit, that they hadn't -- didn't have to report for work

18 assignments any more?

19 A. Yes, I heard that. I don't know who signed up. I don't know the

20 names.

21 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that you were the JNA staff sergeant in

22 reserve? After serving the army, you gained that rank. Is that so?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you know that not to respond to a summons, according to the

25 then law, was illegal?

1 MR. WEINER: I would object to that.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

4 MR. WEINER: The question is: "Do you know that not to respond to

5 a summons according to then law was illegal?" There's an issue of what

6 "then law" is. Is it the BiH law, the Yugoslavian law, the Republika

7 Srpska law?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: We have been through this similar line of

9 questioning before, Mr. Lukic. If you can avoid it and rephrase your

10 questions, please.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm ready and willing

12 to answer that question. May I?

13 MR. WEINER: I would object to any answer because that's a legal

14 issue, and he is not a witness to offer a legal opinion.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: You will not answer that question. Wait for the

16 next question.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. You've described in your testimony on the 16th of April to the

19 question of the Prosecution that these summonses for mobilisation were

20 handed to you by Subasic Jusuf?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The same person who also sent you notices for your work

23 assignments?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Distinguished -- Your Honours, I would

1 like to tender a document. It is the summons for mobilisation to the army

2 of Republika Srpska which the witness has submitted to the Prosecution,

3 and the Prosecution, on the basis of reciprocal disclosure to us. I would

4 kindly ask the Registrar to hand it to all. I also have the official

5 translation in English and the B/C/S version.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could I answer that

7 question? Could I respond to that question?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please go ahead.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not know when this summons

10 came. In 1988, I was relieved from military training of the Yugoslav

11 army. They must have also had records and shouldn't have sent me these

12 summonses at all.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

14 Yes, counsel, you can proceed.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't see this document in front of

16 the witness. I would kindly ask that one copy be submitted to the witness

17 and placed on the ELMO. If need be, I have additional copies in the

18 Serbo-Croatian/Bosnian version.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the usher can assist with that, giving it to

20 the witness.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. First, Mr. Hadzijusufovic --

23 A. Yes, please.

24 Q. This is the summons that you have handed over to the

25 Prosecution.

1 A. Yes, it was the first one.

2 Q. That was a summons submitted to you by Subasic Jusuf, one of the

3 summonses you've received?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I see a date here, but tell us, when did you receive this summons

6 and was it on the date which is stated here on the document?

7 A. This summons, I did not receive on that date. I really -- I

8 received it on the 26th of August.

9 Q. That is the date concerning when you were to report to the

10 memorial hall, or did you --

11 A. My son was in Samac, and I went there earlier.

12 Q. So we can agree that this is the second summons that you've

13 received?

14 A. This -- we went once earlier, and this is the second date.

15 Q. Can you read to us under item 1, number 1, what is below the

16 summons. Can you read it to us.

17 A. "Failure to answer this summons shall be prosecuted pursuant to

18 Article 79 of the law of military service and Article 214 of the Criminal

19 Code."

20 Q. There is a stamp here, which is quite legible. Could you read for

21 us what it says.

22 A. Serbian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence.

23 Q. Thank you. When you responded to the summonses, did you take your

24 medical results and also the decree by which you were relieved of all your

25 duties?

1 A. No, I handed that in to the Ministry of Defence.

2 Q. You did that in the municipality of Bosanski Samac, the socialist

3 republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you didn't have this documentation with you any more?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You've stated that you were also sentenced to one year of

8 imprisonment by the Republika Srpska?

9 A. I heard that from my brother-in-law when I had been exchanged. I

10 heard that after the war.

11 Q. So you didn't serve any sentence prior to your exchange?

12 A. No.

13 Q. As you've stated yesterday, you made certain statements to the

14 authorities in connection with your attempt to swim across the River Sava?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You have also stated that during the exchange, you were put on a

17 bus with military prisoners?

18 A. Well, they were from Batkovic, Samac, who were imprisoned in

19 Batkovic.

20 Q. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning the

21 exchange.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: This document, Mr. Lukic, you just wanted to refer

23 it so that it can be numbered for identification only?

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would ask that

25 both versions, both the English and the B/C/S, be entered as evidence.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Prosecution?

2 MR. WEINER: No objection at all.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the numbers, please, as

4 exhibits.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The B/C/S version is

6 Exhibit Number D34/3 ter, and the English translation is D34/3.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. In connection with your exchange, could you explain to the Trial

9 Chamber the process of this exchange. You mentioned yesterday that they

10 brought you in buses to the point of exchange. I understood you that you

11 went to a tent and you had to sign something. If you remember, if you

12 recollect, please describe it in greater detail.

13 A. The tent was a UN tent, United Nations tent, plus UN vehicles.

14 And we were lined up on one side; on the other side, the people were also

15 lined up for the exchange towards Serbia. So it was one from our side who

16 entered, then another from the other side entered. They call your name,

17 they find your name. There was a table -- a desk inside the tent. It was

18 a rather biggish tent. One could see into it, and it was open on both

19 sides. It was a nice tent. You enter it. They find your name on the

20 list. You sign. And you exit on the other side.

21 The question was whether you are being exchanged and crossing over

22 to Croatia of my own free will, I answered "yes," and they said: "Please

23 go ahead."

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, if you're going to ask, I apologise,

25 but just in case, could you make sure that we find out from the witness

1 who the persons were who called the names and so on and so forth in the UN

2 tent. There's an assumption to be made here, but for the record, it would

3 be good to have it clear.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In fact, that was to be my next

5 question for the witness.

6 Q. Who was the person who asked you whether you wished to cross over?

7 A. I do not know. That was the UNPROFOR, a Russian team. But I

8 didn't know this person who asked us. The person asked in our language:

9 "Do you wish to cross over on the other side?"

10 Q. The next question, at that point in time in the tent, were only

11 you and UNPROFOR representatives attending there? Were they the only

12 ones?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. At the time you were signing, was Miroslav Tadic also present?

15 A. He was outside with our group.

16 Q. And the representatives of the Croatian side?

17 A. They were also standing outside the tent.

18 Q. So when that question was being asked to you in the tent, there

19 were only the international representatives?

20 A. Yes, and people who spoke our language.

21 Q. Can you tell us how distant was the bus from the tent?

22 A. Some 100 -- I really do not recollect.

23 Q. Do you remember that you entered this tent in groups of eight?

24 A. No. We entered the tent one by one.

25 Q. And from the bus to the tent, did you go in groups? If you cannot

1 recollect, I will not insist.

2 A. No.

3 Q. In any case, you entered the tent alone?

4 A. Yes, I was the first one to enter the tent.

5 Q. You've mentioned that you knew many people from Batkovic on the

6 bus.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I assume these were mainly people from Samac?

9 A. Yes, mostly.

10 Q. Do you recollect whether they all crossed over to the next -- the

11 other side?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Does that mean that some of their own free will returned?

14 A. I do not know.

15 Q. Do you remember, recollect, some of these people who remained?

16 A. No.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to enter

18 the list of exchange from 1993. It was a document which we had -- a

19 document with a 00563, which has been reciprocally disclosed. And I have

20 both, the official translated version in B/C/S and the translated version

21 into English.

22 Perhaps it would be a good idea to put the B/C/S version on the

23 ELMO. Can we get a number, unless there is an objection from the

24 Prosecution for this document to be entered into evidence.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

1 MR. WEINER: No objection.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the numbers, please.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. B/C/S version is D35/3 ter.

4 And the English version is D35/3.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, I assume that this document -- you can put it

7 in front of you. I assume you have never seen it before.

8 A. No, I haven't.

9 Q. Can you please read the heading. Just slowly, please, in the

10 right hand upper corner.

11 A. "Republika Srpska, Bosanski Samac municipality, commissioned for

12 the exchange of arrested civilians and prisoners." Date: "29th of

13 January, 1993."

14 Q. That is the day you went to be exchanged?

15 A. That was the 30th.

16 Q. Could you please now look at this list and tell me whether you see

17 your name on it. And if you do, under which number?

18 A. Under number 29.

19 Q. Will you please read what it says.

20 A. It says: "H. Hadzijusufovic ... nickname Nusko".

21 Q. I suppose that was your nickname?

22 A. No, it wasn't.

23 Q. Could you now please read the name of the person under number 10.

24 A. Hasanefendic Safet.

25 Q. What does it say next to his name?

1 A. "Not declared himself. Returned."

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be put on the ELMO.

3 We don't have it.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's go ahead.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have another copy and just put it on the

6 ELMO. The interpreters don't have the document, and they have to follow

7 for interpretation.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters for

9 failing to submit a copy to them too. But since we had an official

10 translation, I didn't think it was necessary.

11 Q. Could you now please read the name under number 18.

12 A. Mijo Radic, also known as Brada.

13 Q. What does it says next to his name?

14 A. "Has not declared himself. Returned."

15 Q. Do you know this man?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Was he with you on the bus from Batkovic?

18 A. Yes, he was.

19 Q. Do you remember that he was on the bus with you when you crossed

20 over to Croatian territory?

21 A. He didn't cross over to Croatia.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 On page 2, number 53, could you read the name.

24 A. "Mirko Blaskic. Has not declared himself. Returned."

25 Q. Do you know this man?

1 A. No.

2 Q. How about number 56?

3 A. Hasan Pistoljevic.

4 Q. Can you read what it says next to his name?

5 A. "Declared himself negatively."

6 Q. Do you know this man?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Was he on the bus with you from Batkovic?

9 A. I wasn't coming from Batkovic.

10 Q. I mean was on the bus with you among the people who came from

11 Batkovic?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. Was he travelling to be exchanged with you?

14 A. I don't remember.

15 Q. Will you please look at this again. You don't have to read

16 anything aloud. And tell us in terms of percentage, out of the 64 people

17 on the list, how many were Croats? Not only because you knew them to be

18 Croats, but also judging by their names. I mean, people who were Croat by

19 ethnicity and to whom you referred as Catholics in your testimony.

20 A. There are a lot of them.

21 Q. Can we agree that there is certainly a half of Croats among these

22 people, or about 50 per cent?

23 A. Yes, we can.

24 Q. You said a moment ago that the secondary school centre was

25 disbanded before your exchange?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Because all the Croats had been exchanged?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that only a few Croats remained?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. There are many of your fellow citizens, Croats, Catholics, whom

7 you knew?

8 A. Yes, coming from Batkovic.

9 Q. But there were locals from Samac?

10 A. Yes, I know Ijo Radic. There are people from Samac. I don't see

11 anyone else.

12 Q. I have only just a few more questions about the exchange. Have

13 you returned to Samac since you were exchanged?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Never?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Where did you go after you were exchanged?

18 A. I went to Domaljevac.

19 Q. How long did you spend there?

20 A. Two days.

21 Q. And after that?

22 A. I was reunited with my family and went to Zagreb, but occasionally

23 I would return to Domoljevic.

24 Q. When did you submit a request for going abroad?

25 A. I can't tell you precisely. It was not a case of submitting a

1 request. It was rather that my son sent me an invitation.

2 Q. And based on that invitation, you went abroad?

3 A. Yes, my daughter, myself, and my wife.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, if they are going to get into where he

6 is currently living, I ask that we go into closed session or at least that

7 the transcript in the --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes --

9 MR. LUKIC: [In English] No more questions about that issue.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I was just interested in his movements

12 after the exchange.

13 Q. You said that you had seen Tadic immediately in one of those first

14 days outside the AS Cafe?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. At that time, did he have a beard?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Over the next seven months, you said you saw him two or three

19 times a week.

20 A. When I was around.

21 Q. When was the first time you saw him with a beard, if you can tell

22 us roughly?

23 A. He grew a nice beard later, perhaps in autumn.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

1 questions.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Pantelic.

3 I notice that -- you can go ahead.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic:

5 Q. Good afternoon, sir. You were exchanged on the 30th of January,

6 1993?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. On the occasion of the exchange, or rather after the exchange, did

9 you give any statements to Croatian authorities, or rather the Croatian

10 police?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you give a statement to the representatives of the army of

13 Bosnia and Herzegovina?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did you make a statement to the secret service of AID?

16 A. I don't even know what that is. No.

17 Q. Prior to 1998, when you had an informal interview with

18 representatives of the OTP, did you give any statement to anyone?

19 A. I only made statements during the interrogation by the Serbs. No

20 one else.

21 Q. Could you clarify that? When was that?

22 A. When I was in Odzak, and when I was arrested, when I was detained

23 in Pelagicevo, in the SUP.

24 Q. I'm not making myself clear. In the period between the 30th of

25 January, 1993, and May 1998, in that particular period, did you make any

1 statements to anyone?

2 A. No.

3 Q. After that statement in 1998 until the time you came here to the

4 courtroom, did you give any statements?

5 A. I had interviews, but I made no official statements.

6 Q. When did you have interviews?

7 A. I mean, that lady who came to visit in 1998, I had an interview

8 with her. And there were a couple of more occasions later, but I never

9 gave an official statement.

10 Q. What do you mean by later? Could you tell me roughly.

11 A. I can't tell you.

12 Q. Is it perhaps a month later?

13 A. No. Those were just discussions as to whether I would be prepared

14 to come here. That's what we discussed. It has nothing to do with other

15 statements.

16 Q. You talked about that with that lady from the OTP?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Be so kind as to tell me, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, prior to the 17th of

19 April, 1992, were there any -- was there any ethnic tension in Samac

20 between the three ethnic groups, Muslims, Croats, and Serbs?

21 A. Do you mean myself, or the people of Samac in general?

22 Q. I mean your general impression about your townsfolk and the

23 general feeling in Samac, the atmosphere prior to the 17th of April, 1992?

24 A. I heard about some skirmishes, but no, not really. All of my

25 friends were actually Serbs; most of them, at least.

1 Q. If I understood you correctly, you said that in terms of ethnic

2 tension, prior to the 17th of April, 1992, the situation was stable in

3 Samac?

4 A. Yes, in my opinion. Not quite, but in the circles in which I

5 moved, in my environment, that was so.

6 Q. You are familiar, are you not, with the term "Republika Srpska"?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. When did you first learn about or hear of that term?

9 A. During the war.

10 Q. Could you be a little more precise? When during the war?

11 A. At the very beginning.

12 Q. Could you name the month, the year?

13 A. April.

14 Q. Year?

15 A. 1992.

16 Q. What do you know about Republika Srpska? At that time, what did

17 you know, in 1992?

18 A. Nothing.

19 MR. WEINER: I was just going to object where we're leading with

20 this. I mean, it's also a very vague question. If you ask me, what do

21 you know about the United States? I mean, you can talk for seven weeks on

22 something, or days.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

24 Mr. Pantelic.

25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Did you have any knowledge in April 1992 about the fact that

2 Republika Srpska had been established, including the town of Samac?

3 A. That was the story that made the rounds. That's what we heard.

4 But that was because the Serbs had seized power.

5 Q. So we can conclude that you did know about Republika Srpska in

6 April 1992?

7 A. No, we cannot. That cannot be my conclusion.

8 Q. Did you know about certain regulations that were effective at that

9 time in Republika Srpska, in April 1992, that applied to all the citizens

10 of Republika Srpska?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you know about the existence of the army of Republika Srpska?

13 A. That's what they called themselves.

14 Q. Please give me a precise answer. You heard about it, and you had

15 knowledge about it. Don't tell me that that's what they call themselves.

16 That's not what I asked you.

17 A. I heard of it, yes.

18 Q. Did you see, after the 17th of April, 1992, large numbers of Serb

19 refugees in the hundreds and maybe thousands, who had arrived from the

20 environs of Samac into the town of Samac itself?

21 A. No, only the population of one village had come, from the Gradacac

22 municipality.

23 Q. When was that?

24 A. I can't tell you the date. That village was called Serbian

25 Srnice. It was near Gradacac, and the people had moved from there into

1 Samac. More precisely, they had moved into the Hasic village, and they

2 put up a board of some kind saying "Serbian Srnice" in front of the Hasic.

3 Q. Was that in summer 1992?

4 A. I know that all Croatian villages were abandoned at that time. It

5 must have been earlier. Perhaps it was May. I can't really tell you

6 exactly.

7 Q. Did you hear about any reason why the Serbs from the Srnice

8 village had come to Samac?

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 Q. To assist the Trial Chamber about the Gradacac municipality and

20 the village of Srnice, how far is that from Samac?

21 A. That was a village located at the entrance into the town of

22 Gradacac. Perhaps 15 kilometres away.

23 Q. To the south of Samac?

24 A. Yes, to the south of the Sava River.

25 Q. To make it clearer to the Trial Chamber, when you say "they" in

1 Gradacac, who was in power in Gradacac in that region?

2 A. Well, it was the people of Gradacac.

3 Q. Who controlled that area? Whose forces? Is that a Serbian area?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Is it Croatian?

6 A. Well, there are various villages. Srnice is Serb --

7 Q. Please be precise. Was Gradacac in Serb, Croat, or Muslim hands?

8 A. Muslims lived in Gradacac. It was in Muslim hands, if you want to

9 put it that way.

10 Q. Do you know that from Odzak, Novi Grad, and Dubica, in May and

11 June, Serbs were expelled and came to Samac?

12 A. I know about it from those people. I know some of them. My

13 brother-in-law was married in Dubica.

14 Q. I suppose we can agree about one fact: You have already replied

15 to certain questions asked by the Prosecutor and one of my colleagues that

16 this area is outside of Samac and that Muslim forces had expelled Serb

17 citizens who later arrived to Samac.

18 A. Well, in comparison, this transfer of Serbs from Serbian Srnice

19 was almost humane.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.

21 MR. WEINER: I don't remember him ever testifying to that that

22 Muslim forces expelled Serb citizens who later arrived at Samac. That's

23 what he said. And you said that -- I'm sorry. You've already replied to

24 questions asked by the Prosecutor and one of my colleagues that the areas

25 outside Samac and that Muslim forces expelled Serb citizens who later

1 arrived to Samac.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.

3 MR. PANTELIC: It's a mistake in translation. I actually asked

4 him about Croatian force, but it was not correctly reported in the

5 transcript, so I will repeat the question.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So we will agree that you have knowledge that Croatian forces had

17 expelled Serbs from the territory of Odzak, Dubica, Novi Grad, and that

18 they had come to Samac?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. When testifying in front of this Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor

21 asked you what is the 4th Detachment? You answered that in your view,

22 it's a paramilitary formation. Do you remember that?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. After that, he also questioned -- raised a question whether the

25 4th Detachment was linked to any party, and you answered as yes.

1 A. Yes, I remember.

2 Q. And then that colleague Prosecutor asked you what was the basis of

3 this conclusion of yours. You answered because you have seen that before

4 the war and during the war. Since you're an intelligent person, would you

5 explain to the Court, how did you observe this link between the SDS party

6 and the 4th Detachment? Could you explain this to the Court in greater

7 detail, please.

8 A. Well, the SDS leadership were all in the 4th Detachment. They

9 were all together with the military. They remained in power when this

10 military took over the power. So it was their army. That was my

11 conclusion. And when the military entered Samac, when they took over the

12 power, and they established this power, the same authorities and the same

13 people remained -- the leadership of SDS remained. They remained on the

14 same positions who were there, so this is really logical.

15 Q. However, here, you said to the Prosecutor that you had seen. I'd

16 like to know, do you have direct information, or is that your conclusion?

17 A. Well, I've seen them together. They were together.

18 Q. Do you know that in the municipal authority in 1992, also members

19 from other parties were involved?

20 A. Yes, I do know that. Could you repeat the date?

21 Q. After the 18th of April.

22 A. No, I don't know this piece of information.

23 Q. Do you know the fact that also in the 4th Detachment, there were

24 Muslims and Croats and Serbs in that unit?

25 A. I do know.

1 Q. How come that you, therefore, conclude, that the same people

2 remain in power and that these others, as a military element, cooperate,

3 when you had also people from the other parties in power as well as other

4 ethnic -- representatives of other ethnic groups in the 4th Detachment?

5 A. I told you already how these Muslims came to be there, and I don't

6 think I should repeat it.

7 Q. Therefore, we can agree that you've seen nothing in connection

8 with that, that you've seen, and that this is your own personal

9 conclusion, with no direct knowledge of it?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you participate in any -- attend any political meetings when

12 the circumstances were being discussed, and then conclude on the basis of

13 that?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Were you present in some military structures in order to come to

16 such a conclusion?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Well, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, you have a rather non-defined position

19 concerning this. You didn't directly participate or observe, so it's only

20 your guesswork, your assumption.

21 A. I saw this with my own eyes, all of it.

22 Q. Well, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, could you enumerate for me -- us the

23 type of work you performed from the 17th of April, 1992, up to the moment

24 of your exchange within the framework of your work duty?

25 A. Well, from digging for bunkers in Grebnica, Lijeskovac, and

1 Brvnik. Work in the separation --

2 Q. Explain what separation is, please.

3 A. It was a gravel pit, and we produced concrete elements with which

4 then we built bunkers. It was from cement, gravel, and sand that we

5 produced it, put it in moulds, and then built bunkers. We were separating

6 the various -- and grading gravel.

7 Q. Please be to the point. What else did you do?

8 A. I worked in the kitchen in Srpska Tisina. I did also agricultural

9 work in Hrvatska -- Croatian Tisina, picking produce, vegetables. Then I

10 went into the homes collecting things. I went also -- I worked -- I went

11 by truck to Odzak and got wood. Then I went to Hrvatska Tisina to collect

12 furniture and other objects from homes. Then I transported wood for

13 shops, for private individuals. Then I worked one day in Hrana Produkt.

14 I also went to Dubica within Odzak municipality, and there I brought --

15 collected certain items, and then we covered a roof for an individual.

16 Q. So that is that.

17 A. I also moved people -- helped in moving people.

18 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, I was thinking of the work.

19 A. Well, I also unloaded planks, wooden planks, at the railroad

20 station.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, please do pause. And the Witness

22 also, do wait for the translation to be completed.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, please count first to five, and only then

25 answer. It's for the benefit of translation and transcript.

1 A. Is this a directive?

2 Q. No, this is a request from the interpreters.

3 So Mr. Hadzijusufovic, we will agree that when military

4 conscript - and we are speaking of your knowledge - prior to the 17th of

5 April, 1992, it means the preceding period, 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's in

6 Bosnia, if you have the knowledge, because at the time you did serve your

7 military service. So if a military conscript is not a member of the

8 reserve forces of the army, he could be in the TO, in the civil

9 protection, or have a work obligation. I'm asking you about your personal

10 knowledge at that time on this.

11 A. Depending on his physical ability to perform. He does not have to

12 be in any of these, or maybe be placed in one of these.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, in the period of the conflict, 17th of April,

14 1992, armed conflict. One part of the population of Samac, including all

15 nationalities, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, are on a series of locations as

16 the military. They were called up from the reserve under a single

17 command. They are on positioned on the front.

18 MR. WEINER: I object to that.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

20 MR. WEINER: What is his knowledge as to who was being called up?

21 He is not a member of the military. He hadn't been in the military for

22 years.

23 MR. PANTELIC: But he is an eyewitness, Your Honours. He knows

24 his neighbours, et cetera.

25 MR. WEINER: Not only is it called up --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. PANTELIC: He doesn't have to be a general or military

2 expert. I'm asking about his personal knowledge whether a certain number

3 of his neighbours were called up and were at the front. Simple as that.

4 MR. WEINER: It's called up from the reserve under a single

5 command, various nationalities. This is outside his expertise. This is

6 outside his knowledge.

7 MR. PANTELIC: And finally, he said yes to my question.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic. The Prosecution is given an

9 opportunity to say what they want, please do not interrupt them.

10 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: We should have an orderly way of proceeding with our

12 trial.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Sure.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: The objection is sustained, Mr. Pantelic.

15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Well, can we agree concerning the fact that --

17 A. I didn't hear your first words.

18 Q. I shall repeat.

19 Can we agree that after the outbreak of conflict in April 1992,

20 many civilians, women, and older people also, had a certain work

21 obligation irrespective of their nationality? Somebody worked some

22 positions, somebody worked in the fields, et cetera. Do you have any

23 knowledge of that?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Yes, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, but you stated also during the

1 cross-examination whether you knew certain people who had this work

2 obligation, you said that you knew them. And how do you say you don't

3 know anything?

4 A. I do not understand whom you're referring to.

5 Q. I'm thinking of the inhabitants of Samac who had certain work

6 obligation, which they performed.

7 Q. Which nationality?

8 A. I'm speaking of all nationalities. The work obligation applied

9 only to two groups, and then Croats and Muslims.

10 Q. So you had no knowledge of the fact that Serbs had work

11 obligations?

12 A. No, I had none. They went and carried out their regular work in

13 shops, but they didn't turn up and go in front of the retirement home.

14 Q. But some of the Muslims and Croats who were recruited and went to

15 the front didn't have their work obligation?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you have knowledge that the soldiers on the front, members of

18 the army of Republika Srpska, were also digging trenches in order to

19 reinforce their positions and fortify their positions?

20 A. While I was working at it, no.

21 Q. However, when you were not working, you leave open the assumption

22 that they were digging and fortifying their positions?

23 MR. WEINER: I object.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

25 MR. WEINER: How can we answer what was occurring when he was not

1 working other than just speculate? And they are asking him to totally

2 speculate.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

4 MR. PANTELIC: I'll rephrase the question.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Did you hear from your friends or

6 acquaintances --

7 A. Again, I did not hear your first words.

8 Q. Did you hear from any acquaintances or neighbours who were in the

9 front line via -- as the work obligation, or as soldiers, that the

10 soldiers of the army of Republika Srpska were digging their trenches?

11 A. I neither asked nor was I interested in this matter.

12 Q. So, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, we can agree on one fact: You worked and

13 carried out a series of jobs, performed a series of jobs, which you have

14 enumerated, and these jobs per se are not discriminatory, are they?

15 MR. WEINER: I don't even know what that question means. I

16 object.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they are. And I don't

18 understand the question either.

19 MR. WEINER: Neither do I, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps Mr. Pantelic can explain, that the jobs are

21 not discriminatory.

22 MR. WEINER: I was going to say, you mean the jobs aren't

23 discriminatory, the giving out, the selection of who does what is not

24 discriminatory?

25 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe it's a question of translation, but I will

1 repeat the question.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hadzijusufovic, do you find it wrong that

3 you -- if you don't go in the army, go in the field in order to harvest

4 and pick vegetables and the harvest? Is there anything bad in that?

5 A. Yes, there is.

6 Q. Explain to the Court what is wrong with that.

7 A. It's wrong because I was forced to do it. I didn't go of my own

8 free will. That's what's bad in it.

9 Q. But you will agree with me that in war, there's no free will; it

10 is the -- a state that then determines who will serve the army and what

11 has to be done?

12 MR. WEINER: I would object to that last question.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe it's put to him in the general course of

14 events generally.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, his general knowledge, personal knowledge

16 about --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Not in particular with --

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, not in particular events. I'm asking him

19 generally because he's an intelligent person.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: The events in Samac.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Repeat the question, please.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Well, your answer was "yes" with a comment. So you understood my

25 question. So could we hear your comment.

1 A. I never heard that front of a bunker between the two front lines,

2 you have to mow grass, that that is an obligation. But that is what I had

3 to do. That that would be my work obligation.

4 Q. However, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, we shall agree that you didn't do

5 only that, you did a broad gamut of jobs?

6 A. Everything that I was ordered to do.

7 Q. Thank you. Let us explain something in the transcript of the 15th

8 of April. You said the HDZ president was Mato Nujic?

9 A. I believe it was Mato.

10 Q. But you're not sure?

11 A. Mato Nujic, he worked in my company for some time. He was also

12 the president of the municipality at some point, but I think it was him.

13 Q. Something else to be explained. You mentioned the village of

14 Tramosnica. Whose village was that?

15 A. That is a village in the Gradacac municipality populated by

16 Catholic population, inhabitants.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Now, Your Honours, I would like to tender into

18 evidence one map which was provided by the Prosecution to us. It's a

19 map -- it's actually one part of the general map of -- its operational map

20 of UNPROFOR issued in 1994 by military surveillance, I suppose. It's a

21 part of the area of Bosanski Samac area, and I would like now to -- for

22 this witness to make certain notes or remarks and lines with regard to the

23 positions of his work obligation between the warring parties. Because he

24 mentioned that in his statement.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes. Can we have copies.

1 MR. PANTELIC: Of course, Prosecutor can check the map because

2 it's only one copy, and then we shall put it on the ELMO, and then we

3 shall tender it in evidence and make enough copy afterwards. Thank you.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Distinguished -- Your Honours, I

5 really couldn't get my bearings on this map. I visited that village once.

6 I visited during the war, and I passed through it once before the war. I

7 don't think I'll be able to get my bearings on the map.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honours. It's a little bit strange,

9 because the witness hasn't even seen the map.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: You described what the area is about. I think it's

11 in answer of that.

12 MR. WEINER: I think he thinks it's a street map of Tramosnica.

13 It's not a street map. It's an area map.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Let the witness look at it.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. Because we are not speaking about

16 specific town or village. We are speaking about the area.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hadzijusufovic, were you digging trenches in

18 the region of the Tursinovac place? Do you know what I'm talking -- what

19 I'm referring to?

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you give him time to look at the map.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Of course.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: See whether or not he can --

23 MR. PANTELIC: My understanding is he already found that on the

24 map. So maybe --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found it.

1 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Could you kindly take the marker and show us where you were

3 digging the trenches, what was exact the location there. Could you draw a

4 line. If it's difficult, just place an X at the place Tursinovac.

5 A. First we have to move from the Sava bridge, Mosta Savi.

6 Q. If you find Bosanski Samac -- just a moment, Mr. Hadzijusufovic.

7 Did you find Tursinovac?

8 A. Yes, I found it immediately.

9 Q. Place an X there, please.

10 A. Tursinovac, that's what it says.

11 Q. Did you dig trenches there?

12 A. Well, you pass through this village to the Sava River embankment.

13 Q. And look at Tursinovac, and the river is above it, as I see it.

14 A. As I see it, it is below the village. Ormut, Grebinta [phoen]. I

15 don't see the Sava.

16 Q. You can see it is curving. You can see, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, this

17 is Sava, as it is meandering.

18 A. Yes, I can see it.

19 Q. So make a line where the trenches were.

20 A. This is Sava. Ormut. I cannot find the bridge on the Sava

21 River.

22 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, you can see on the left like a railroad track

23 going from Bosanski Samac towards Croatia, there is a bridge. Where else

24 did you dig trenches?

25 A. Well, you pass through Tursinovac, and you go along the

1 embankment, and I was digging along the way to Grebnica. Also an area

2 called Ormut. I can draw that for you. I can use this map and draw for

3 you.

4 Q. Let me just ask you --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: You are carrying on a conversation.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot -- I cannot get my bearings

7 here.

8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation].

9 Q. Did you dig trenches in Lijeskovac?

10 A. Yes, I have.

11 MR. WEINER: It may be a simple solution. We're one minute from

12 the break. Why don't we have him look at the map over the break, become

13 familiar with it, and this could move much quicker.

14 MR. PANTELIC: I agree absolutely. And I also would be in a

15 situation to give a consent that the Prosecution can confer with the

16 witness in that regard, that limited issue, during the break.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it possible also for us to have copies of the

18 map?

19 MR. PANTELIC: For the Trial Chamber, of course. I have three

20 copies. But my idea was after the -- his testimony, to make a copy with

21 the marks, and then to be tendered into evidence and for the benefit of

22 this --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but it's just better also for us to be

24 following on the map.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Three copies is for you, Your Honours. Thank you.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll take a break. We'll resume at 18.05.

2 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, you proceed with

5 cross-examination.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honours. Thank you.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hadzijusufovic, during the break, did you

8 manage to find your way around this map?

9 A. Not sufficiently.

10 Q. Did you find the place called Grebnica?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Fine. Will you please make a circle around it.

13 A. The letters are long.

14 Q. Never mind. Just make a circle around it, please.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. Did you find Lijeskovac? If I can assist you, it's just below

17 Grebnica?

18 A. I've done that.

19 Q. Did you find Brvnik? It's slightly stretched below Lijeskovac.

20 If you put it, the map on the ELMO, I can help you, perhaps. [In English]

21 Just adjust the zoom, please. Good. Little bit small.

22 [Interpretation] You see, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, down on the right

23 when you're going from Lijeskovac, you see the letters B-R-V-N-I-K

24 stretching like a snake?

25 A. I can see Batkovic.

1 Q. Well, then it's to the right from Batkovic. The letters are

2 stretched vertically.

3 A. I found it.

4 Q. Fine. Make a circle around it and put it on the ELMO, please.

5 A. [Marks]

6 Q. And now, please connect the line from Lijeskovac to Brvnik. Do

7 you agree with me that was the front line?

8 A. I cannot agree with you, and I understand this map very little.

9 It's hard for me to say where I did my digging.

10 Q. Did you dig at Brvnik?

11 A. I dug on the banks of the Sava below Tursinovac. When you're

12 going from the bridge, people from Srpska Tisina were guarding that area.

13 And if you are going from the Sava River, here is where the embankment

14 started guarded by Serb forces. And this continues on towards the

15 Grebnica road. I don't understand some things here. It says Bok, B-O-K,

16 and there are a lot of things on this map that I don't quite understand.

17 Srpska Tisina, the last house in that place continues and becomes

18 Grebnica. I can't really find my way around this map. If you want me to

19 draw anything --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Because if the witness can't find his bearings on a

21 map, then asking him to do the impossible is of no evidential value,

22 because you can't hold him against whatever you -- he has expressed that

23 several times.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I agree.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only part you can see clearly

1 is where the embankment on the Sava begins, and that's where I did some of

2 the digging. First comes the Ormut field and then the Grebnica road.

3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Can you mark where the 4th Detachment was, on which side of the

5 line?

6 A. On the embankment -- I see the Sava River, but I can't really find

7 it on this map. Ormut cannot be below Tursinovac.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: You have a lot of difficulties. Perhaps I should

9 ask, what is the point of him marking on the map, Mr. Pantelic?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course, Your Honour. I would like to

11 clarify the part of his statement with regard to the front line in the

12 position of the Croatian army, Croatian Defence council army, and the 4th

13 Detachment, just to be a part of his statement. Because he mentioned that

14 during the examination-in-chief.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, he did, but from what he says, he is unable to

16 mark it on the map. So you stop using the map.

17 Mr. Weiner.

18 MR. WEINER: I was just going to say the same thing. All he knows

19 is where those cities are on that map. He can't find the particular

20 locations which seems to be the problem.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Then I will proceed with another question.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we still have the map marked, for whatever it is

24 worth. Can we have the number.

25 MR. PANTELIC: If there is no objection from the Prosecution side,

1 maybe we could have that tendered to the exhibit, and then --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Just have it marked for identification.

3 MR. PANTELIC: For identification, of course, yes.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map will be treated as

5 Document D30/1 ter ID.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

7 Q. [Interpretation] So, we can agree, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, that within

8 the framework of your work obligation you dug trenches on the Grebnica

9 location?

10 A. Bunkers and connecting trenches, yes. That's the name of that

11 location, behind Tursinovac. First you have to go through all of

12 Tursinovac before you get there.

13 Q. We can then agree that you also dug the same connecting trenches

14 in the area of Lijeskovac. Is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And we can also agree that within your work duties, you also did

17 your digging of trenches, connecting trenches and so on, in Brvnik?

18 A. Yes, that's what it was called, Brvnik.

19 Q. On the site where you worked, there were units of the Republika

20 Srpska army, weren't there?

21 A. Yes.

22 Your Honours, do you allow me to describe where individuals were

23 standing and how they were dressed?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can do that. Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was digging at Brvnik and we

1 were digging connecting trenches there, after digging bunkers, there were

2 soldiers on that location from the following villages: Crkvina and

3 Kruskovo Polje. One of the shift commanders named Stojan from Crkvina,

4 who had been a truck driver before the war for the department store in

5 Bosanski Samac, was wearing a uniform that consisted of camouflage

6 trousers, a vest made of sheep skin but turned inside out. He had two

7 ammunition belts across his chest making a cross across his chest. He had

8 a fur hat on his head and a cockade on that fur hat. Another one also

9 wore a fur hat with a cockade, and the others were also dressed in

10 uniform, except perhaps for two or three men who had no uniform but only

11 wore ribbons on their sleeves, whereas others had no insignia at all.

12 When I was at Lijeskovac, there were no people from Samac at all.

13 At Grebnica, the men wore camouflage clothing. Only a couple of them wore

14 some emblems, and the others had no insignia or emblems at all, just

15 camouflage uniforms. Hasim Dobichev's son, and Dumic, who was a mailman,

16 had a cap with a cockade. That's all I saw on them, and I didn't mind

17 them wearing that. Others didn't even have as much. That's all I had to

18 say.

19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. All right. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, you have described the positions

21 of the troops of the army of Republika Srpska.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And on the other side, there were members of the HVO?

24 A. Yes, as I learned later.

25 Q. You mentioned that Samac was shelled?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Where did the shells come from? Do you know that?

3 A. From the direction of -- this direction you mentioned, from the

4 other side of Grebnica.

5 Q. Did you also hear later that it was the HVO that shelled Samac?

6 A. You could make your own conclusions about the direction of the

7 shells. I'm not an expert, but I can deduce it.

8 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, have you any knowledge about the fact that

9 during the war in Samac, beginning with the 17th of April, 1992, until

10 January 1993, that is the time that you spent in Samac, a large number of

11 Muslims and Croats occupied various positions at the hospital and in other

12 public services? Do you know that?

13 A. I wouldn't say it was a large number. But in the beginning, there

14 were a couple who continued in their jobs, nurses, one woman doctor,

15 Safet, Dr. Mesud, and one woman who worked in a shop.

16 Q. Do you know that in this period while you were in Samac, there was

17 a rather large number of Muslims and Croats there with you?

18 A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand this.

19 Q. Were there Croats and Muslims there during your stay in Samac from

20 the 17th of April until January 1993?

21 A. Yes, there were.

22 Q. Do you know of any cases where a number of Croats and Muslims in

23 that period, from April 1992 to January 1993, were taken to be exchanged

24 but on the spot declined to go through with the exchange and returned and

25 stayed in Samac until the end of the war?

1 A. I know of two such cases, the ones you mentioned before. And Ivan

2 Lonac, who used to be a policeman, I think he had come back, too.

3 Q. Did you know these people personally?

4 A. I knew Rado rather well, and I had another an acquaintance with

5 the other. I believe both their wives were Serb. Even Lonac's wife is

6 Serb for sure, and I can't tell you precisely about the other man.

7 Q. Did you have occasion to speak with them after they had returned

8 from the exchange?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Based on all that you have said, we will agree, Mr.

11 Hadzijusufovic, that in that period that you spent in Samac from April

12 1992 to January 1993, there was basically no discrimination against the

13 Croats and Muslims of Samac, because they continued working, and they had

14 come back from this opportunity of exchange. They had to work, but there

15 was no discrimination.

16 A. I don't understand your question at all. Who are you referring

17 to?

18 Q. I'm referring to the Muslims and Croats of Samac.

19 A. How can you say there was no discrimination when they didn't allow

20 us to go -- they forced us to go to forced labour. A moment ago when you

21 asked the same question, I asked you, how can you not call it

22 discrimination if I am forced to cut grass in front of the bunker? I

23 didn't go to those works voluntarily. I had to go. And discrimination

24 itself is implied if the camps were full, as they were.

25 Q. Can you then answer, why did those Muslims and Croats come back to

1 town from the line of exchange if there was discrimination in town? What

2 is your position on this?

3 A. It's their own problem. I learned later that in the case of Mijo

4 Brada, he had come back because his wife and child -- the child was sick,

5 and I don't know about the other one.

6 Q. Would you agree with me that everybody could leave Samac if they

7 wanted to do so, the only thing they had to do was report this wish to the

8 Red Cross?

9 A. No.

10 Q. How did you leave Samac?

11 A. As part of the exchange.

12 Q. Did you ask to leave Samac?

13 A. Your Honours, with your leave, I would like to relate one incident

14 regarding all of this.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In addition to what I have

17 described, that I tried to register at least ten times and that my

18 brother-in-law went to the office upstairs, my wife and I kept talking all

19 the time and reckoning how to find a way out, how to get out of there.

20 And then I remembered Cedo, the brother of this gentleman here. I was

21 very close to him. We were on very good terms before the war. He had

22 slightly injured me with -- when he hit me with his car. There was

23 nothing too bad. And when the police came to investigate this incident,

24 and if I wanted to press charges, I said no, because I wasn't really

25 hurt. And I decided to go and see this man and ask him. That's what my

1 wife and I decided to do. At first, I couldn't really find him. But then

2 I found him outside the retirement home, and I approached him and begged

3 him, please, you are my last chance. Please go to Cviko and register me

4 for the exchange. You can do it, I know. You occupy a position, and I am

5 aware that you are holding some sort of position. And he answered

6 whatever I can do for you, I will. But he didn't do anything. My son got

7 out by swimming across the river, and I absolutely disagree with you that

8 it was so easy to get out, just to say that you wanted to be exchanged.

9 That's all I wanted to say.

10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. But nobody forced you to go; it was of your own free will that you

12 put your name on those lists?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. PANTELIC: I have no further questions.

16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I wonder, just a small

17 clarification, page 79, line 25, and the witness says, and then I

18 remembered Cedo, the brother of this gentleman here.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm wondering whether he's referring to you,

21 Mr. Pantelic, or anyone else in the room. Maybe you can tell us

22 exactly who you meant.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Could you please explain this, whose brother did you mean?

25 A. I meant Mr. Blagojevic.

1 Q. ^Savic?

2 A. No, Blagojevic. I cannot focus at this moment. I'm sorry. I mean

3 Mr. Simic, Mr. Simic, sitting over there. I was referring to his brother

4 Cviko.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I don't have further

7 questions.

8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I have a question that you might be

9 able to assist on.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm looking at the exhibit that was put in this

12 afternoon, Exhibit D34/3 ter. That's the summons to military duties.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. And you in your cross-examination have

15 been talking about the army of Republika Srpska.

16 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And on this summons, and I'll look at the ter

18 copy in B/C/S, we have a stamp, and I think during Mr. Lukic's, I think,

19 cross-examination, we were told by the witness that the stamp says Serbian

20 republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence. Now, my question

21 is this, and I have to obviously turn to the English version now: On the

22 first page, it talks about summons, failure to answer it, shall be

23 prosecuted under Article 79 of the law on military service and Article 214

24 of the Criminal Code. So my first question is, is that the former

25 Yugoslavia's federal laws, or are these laws of the new Republika Srpska?

1 And the second, and I think related, question, we go to the second

2 page entitled "notes" which I believe also has the same stamp and date,

3 which is 25th, August, 1992, we see in paragraph (c): "When summoned for

4 military service in the JNA/Yugoslav People's Army ..." So I have a

5 little confusion here. Republika Srpska army, JNA, former Yugoslavia's

6 federal people's army, so if you could somehow try and clarify these

7 points, I would be most grateful.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. Your Honour, that was a common, I

9 would say, habit, with all three warring parties in Bosnia, with Croatian,

10 Muslim, and Serbian. Because this was the old forms actually from former

11 Yugoslavia. And practically, this article of law, the [indiscernible] and

12 Criminal Code, referred to the former Penal Code of former Yugoslavia,

13 SFRY. But it is the fact of common knowledge that they adopted

14 legislation by Republika Srpska, certain laws adopted -- adopted all laws

15 of former Yugoslavia, which was not contrary to their regime, et cetera,

16 et cetera. So it is just I would say some kind of bypass because after

17 these several months the Republika Srpska enacted other laws with regard

18 to the Cyrillic alphabet, not Latinic, et cetera. The new forms. This is

19 obviously -- it's a beginning of the creation of the Republika Srpska, so

20 they practically used the old forms from JNA.

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So that would mean that when persons in the

22 position of, for example, the witness here today received a summons for

23 which there could be criminal penalties, the summons was summoning him or

24 her to take up a position and that wasn't in existence, JNA, rather -- I

25 won't say not in existence, but the summons was really for the army of

1 Republika Srpska, and not for the JNA.

2 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, it was the summons for Republika Srpska

3 army, because you can see in the summons on the first page, in front of

4 memorial hall, and then you have above this mentioning, you have VP, which

5 means military post 6510 Bosanski Samac, which is actually the military

6 post of Republika Srpska army, and then also I believe it was in May 1992,

7 the law of defence was enacted, and then there are certain -- I would say

8 provisions in that law with Republika Srpska which were related to the

9 deserters, et cetera, et cetera.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps it's a matter of evidence on which the

11 Defence can call a witness during their case to explain the discrepancies.

12 Re-examination?

13 MR. WEINER: Mr. Zecevic.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry, Mr. Zecevic.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I will be very brief. I have perhaps

16 20 questions all together.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Zecevic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Hadzijusufovic.

21 A. Good afternoon.

22 Q. I'll try to be brief and to the point. I assume you're already

23 tired.

24 A. Quite a bit.

25 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, could you tell us whether -- are you any

1 relation to Safija Hadzijusufovic of Bosanski Samac?

2 A. I am a relative of all Hadzijusufovics in Bosanski Samac, but

3 Safija -- she lived alone.

4 Q. Did she have a husband?

5 A. I apologise.

6 Q. If you cannot remember, let us continue, then.

7 Mr. -- Sir, you were mentioning Mr. Subasic Jusuf.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. He was the courier who would be telling you to go to your work

10 duty, and he was a courier.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You said that in the organisation of the work brigade, Celic

13 Dzevad was there also at the head of it, and he worked in your former

14 company?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you know what position did he hold, if you do know?

17 A. He only gave the names of people who were supposed to go and work,

18 the names of these people, depending on the type of job which had to be

19 performed.

20 Q. Was he a clerk?

21 A. He was a go-between. A clerk a bit unusual.

22 Q. Sir, I will show you a document.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: [In English] D23/2. I would kindly ask the usher to

24 put the English version on the ELMO, and the ter version before the

25 witness, please.

1 We don't have the English version yet. I'm sorry. Then just the

2 Serbian version -- the ter version. I'm sorry. So it's Document D23/2

3 ter.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Look at that document, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, and as

5 it is the only copy, after reading it, if you would place it on the ELMO

6 so that the Trial Chamber and all who are attending could have a look at

7 it also.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [In English] Would the usher be so kind just to

9 adjust the zoom so we can see the whole document.

10 Q. [Interpretation] If I could ask you to read the title of this

11 document.

12 A. Payroll.

13 Q. If it would be easier?

14 MR. ZECEVIC: Just for the benefit of other people in the

15 courtroom.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Give it to the witness and let him read it out

17 slowly.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Payroll for clerks, typists,

19 courier/messengers, couriers, who work on the organisation of work in the

20 work brigade."

21 MR. ZECEVIC:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Under item number 2, under the clerks, we have

23 Celic Dzevad. Under number 3, couriers, we have also the name of Jusuf

24 Subasic, don't we?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, look at all these names, the persons, a total

2 of nine. I apologise, the names. Look at the names. Do you know the

3 people?

4 A. I know Seferdin, he together worked with me. Celic Dzevad.

5 Efrudin had a university degree. He worked with me. Abdic Dzemal. I'm

6 sure I know these people. I know Beriatalic [phoen], Mladic. Subasic

7 Jusuf I do know. Kapetanovic, my neighbour, I do know. And I know this

8 other colleague.

9 Q. Could you state of what ethnicity are they? Are they Muslims?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you, sir.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [In English] I don't need this document any more.

13 Thank you, Mr. Usher.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Could you tell us, Mr. Hadzijusufovic, during the

15 testimony with the Prosecutor, you stated that while working duty, that

16 you were injured, that you injured your leg, that something fell on your

17 foot?

18 A. Yes. It was so.

19 Q. On that occasion -- on the question of the Prosecutor who asked

20 whether you contacted a doctor, you answered, "No, because I was afraid."

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. A few minutes ago, to a question of colleague Pantelic, you

23 answered whether you know that the medical team in the health centre of

24 Bosanski Samac was mainly -- this medical team, personnel, were Muslims?

25 A. No. I said Dr. Mesud, and Dr. Safet's daughter, Safet's

1 daughter were also a doctor there. These are the two people. And Pop,

2 that was a nickname of a person.

3 Q. Now I will show you a document and I will ask you to look at it.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...

5 D22A/2 ter, and the English translation on the ELMO, please.

6 Just one thing. I don't know whether it might be that it's under

7 seal. It's under seal. Okay, then we won't need it -- it's under seal.

8 I just saw the marking on it. So we're not putting it on the ELMO. Just

9 give the 22A/2 ter to the witness, please.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Did you look at the document, sir?

11 A. I'm looking.

12 Q. The heading is "The Health Centre of Bosanski Samac," isn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The title is "Data on Conditions, Methods, Means, for the Payment

15 of Salaries on the Basis of Ratios Established for May 1992," isn't it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The first person is Dr. Nogic Mesud, and it says the chief

18 gynecologist. I will read and you just confirm, please.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Second, Dr. Brdar Ruza, pediatrician?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Third, Hercinovic, Dr. Damir, general practitioner, Damir?

23 A. Yes, Damir.

24 Q. Under four, Azira Hadzialijagic, a general practitioner, isn't it?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Jusufovic Urija, general practitioner and emergency service chief,

2 isn't it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. After these five names, we have medical technicians, nurses, and

5 drivers. Isn't that so?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Of the first five names I read of doctors, physician, of what

8 ethnicity are they?

9 A. Four are Muslims, of Muslim ethnicity.

10 Q. And Dr. Urija was a Croat, wasn't she?

11 A. I didn't know that.

12 Q. You can see that the entire medical team were of Muslim or

13 ethnicity, isn't it so? Of Muslim or --

14 A. Of Muslim or Croat ethnicity.

15 Q. You are thinking of the first five?

16 A. The first five are physicians, doctors that is our [in B/C/S]

17 Q. Did you know that at the time in 1992?

18 A. I knew for those two I have mentioned before. I didn't know for

19 the others.

20 Q. Did you have any reason to be afraid of these doctors?

21 A. I was never afraid of doctors I attend, but on that occasion, I

22 didn't dare go. I wasn't afraid of doctors, but I was afraid of the

23 health centre.

24 Q. Could you clarify, you weren't afraid of the doctors, but of the

25 health centre?

1 A. Yes. Could I explain it? I'll be short. Because Serbian, as I

2 heard, injured Serbs and Serbian soldiers would come here for their

3 checkups, and I believed that it would be better for me not to go there.

4 That was my personal opinion and my personal position concerning that.

5 Q. Thank you. Thank you.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I was reminded by the registry that the document

8 which is under seal, but the names were read out. So I was wondering

9 whether the reason for the document being under seal is that the names

10 were protected?

11 MR. ZECEVIC: No, it's not one of the names which this witness has

12 read. The name which is -- because the document is under seal is, I

13 believe under number 9 or so.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: So the name --

15 MR. ZECEVIC: I read only the first five. I was cautious about

16 that, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. All right.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday during your testimony and when

20 questioned by my colleague, you stated that the work obligation was

21 applied practically only to Muslims and Croats. Isn't it so?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. After that, my colleague Lukic mentioned some names of people who

24 worked with you in the separation plant. Isn't this so?

25 A. Yes, but those people didn't -- those two didn't work. Cvjetin

1 and Cviko, Simic Cvjetin, yes. He worked in the kitchen. He worked in

2 the kitchen, and the other one was a supervisor. He helped us

3 occasionally because he knew us all.

4 Q. So they worked there, they didn't work on the separation line, but

5 worked on some other jobs?

6 A. Zika was a craftsman. He was supervising whether we were

7 working properly or if everything was all right. Otherwise, he was a

8 brick layer, and I knew him personally, and he would check on how we

9 worked.

10 Q. Do you know the name of Doslic Ibro?

11 A. Well, he worked together with --

12 Q. Doslic Ibro?

13 A. I can't remember. Djordjevic Zivorad, maybe.

14 Q. I will read a few names to you which, according to my information

15 were janitors in the separation plant, and just confirm if you knew any of

16 them. Doslic Ibro.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Mimica Slavko?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Markovic Sasa?

21 A. No, I cannot -- I do not recall.

22 Q. Masuc Jova?

23 A. I don't recall.

24 Q. Markovic Rade?

25 A. I don't know him.

1 Q. These --

2 A. Do you want me to tell you who worked at the gate then? He was

3 the son of the -- his father was the secretary of party committee who

4 liked playing chess. His son was sitting at the gate. I didn't see

5 anybody else there.

6 Q. If you cannot remember the name, what was his nationality?

7 A. He was a Serb. I cannot remember.

8 Q. So it's -- there's no doubt, it was a Serb?

9 A. Yes, a Serb, but he was sickly, and therefore that is why he was

10 working at the gate.

11 Q. Thank you. And if he weren't sickly, he would be working

12 somewhere else?

13 A. I cannot give you a definite opinion on that.

14 Q. Mr. Hadzijusufovic, to the question of the Prosecutor whether you

15 were ever paid, remunerated, for the work you performed in the work

16 brigade through your obligation, from April to August, that you've

17 received no remuneration?

18 A. Neither I nor my son.

19 Q. Now, I will be showing you a document, but we'll just show it to

20 you.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...

22 2E/2 ter. And this one is also under seal. It is, according to my notes,

23 D32E/2 ter. We have the English translation, but it's under seal, I

24 believe. Am I right, it's under seal?

25 Your Honours, I have maximum four questions. If I may be given

1 the opportunity to finish today.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: So we can excuse the witness and --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, there is a re-cross.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: But these you can finish your cross-examination.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. [Interpretation] So you've looked at this document, haven't you,

9 Mr. Hadzijusufovic?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I'll read it out to you. The title is: "The list of workers

12 engaged in the work brigade for the months of April, May, June, July, and

13 August 1992." Is that it?

14 A. That's what it says.

15 Q. Under number 10, Ilija Arsic, do you know that man?

16 A. No.

17 Q. By name and surname?

18 A. If I saw him perhaps.

19 Q. You would say by his name that he is a Serb?

20 A. They are Serbs, and Ilija, I don't know.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 Next page, number 2. Will you turn the leaf, please. Number 58.

23 Zivorad Djordjevic, isn't it, number 58? Can you see it?

24 A. Yes. He did work.

25 Q. That's the same person who worked at the separation company with

1 you?

2 A. Yes, but he worked there the whole time, and it says here only one

3 day out of several months.

4 Q. On page number 3, number 92, Ilija Ivanovic, can you see it?

5 A. Yes, I can.

6 Q. Do you know this man?

7 A. I am sure I know all these people, but I can't remember that now.

8 Not by name and surname. I'm sure I was in their company.

9 Q. Can you tell me by their name what their ethnicity is?

10 A. It's a Serbian surname.

11 Q. Number 84 on that page. Jusuf -- Nusret Hadzijusufovic. It says

12 you worked there for a certain amount of days, and the total amount due is

13 7.200?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You never got that amount?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 Let's go to the next page. Page 6, the last page. The last page

19 of this document, number 174. Dragan Vuksanovic?

20 A. Yes, I can see it.

21 Q. Do you know him?

22 A. It's a Serbian surname.

23 Q. Pero, also known as Pita?

24 A. Of course I know him. If you don't know Pita, you don't know

25 Samac.

1 Q. All right. I apologise. Tell me, do you know that Dragan had a

2 work obligation?

3 A. In the Tekstilac company. He worked in the canteen of the

4 Tekstilac company.

5 Q. As part of his work obligation?

6 A. I don't know about that. I know he worked, and I think he worked

7 in order to be able to take some food back home. They didn't dare give

8 him a rifle.

9 Q. They didn't dare give him a rifle?

10 A. Can I say one more thing, if I may look at this list a while

11 longer?

12 Q. Please go ahead.

13 A. It says: Esref Fitozovic here. It's a neighbour of mine. I

14 can't understand it. He's an older man, and I never saw him on work

15 obligation. I never saw him working. He lived on my street, Vuk Karadzic

16 Street. He is an elderly man who didn't work.

17 Q. It may be another person altogether.

18 A. With the same name? If that is possible.

19 Q. Look at other names.

20 A. No, I don't want to. I know this man, but perhaps there is

21 another man by the same name in Samac.

22 Q. You have read four or five names, including your own, on this

23 list.

24 A. But I can't see my son anywhere. He worked throughout these

25 months.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. There are other lists as well. I gave you this one because you

2 are on it. Please tell me, these four other names belong to Serbs in your

3 assessment?

4 A. Yes, Arsic is a Serbian surname.

5 Q. That seems to indicate that Serbs also worked in the work brigade?

6 A. Yes, according to this list.

7 Q. Well, you said a moment ago --

8 A. Yes, I said that, for instance, Pita did work there.

9 Q. That's what I asked you about. You know this man personally.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. [In

11 English] Mr. Usher, the document.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, re-examination will be conducted tomorrow

13 starting at 14.15 hours. We shall adjourn until tomorrow. Court will

14 rise.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m., to

16 be reconvened on Thursday, the 18th day of April,

17 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25