1 Wednesday, 1 May 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 [The accused Milan Simic not present]

6 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

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

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

10 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness did make a solemn declaration

12 before, and that continues throughout his testimony. So the witness can

13 sit down.

14 WITNESS: SAFET DAGOVIC [Resumed]

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we deal with any other matter, the Trial

17 Chamber would like to make one ruling. And I'll give you an opportunity,

18 Mr. Di Fazio.

19 On the statement of Mr. Sabrija Dagovic, which was disclosed to

20 the Defence by the Prosecution. The statement has an exhibit number, and

21 I'll ask the registry assistant to give us the number.

22 THE REGISTRAR: It is C1, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's a court document admitted for the limited

24 purpose of assisting the Trial Chamber to decide on whether or not the

25 late disclosure has occasioned any prejudice to the Defence.

1 The Trial Chamber has observed that the statement discusses the

2 events in Bosanski Samac prior to the armed conflict and throughout the

3 period of the conflict until the exchange of the maker, Mr. Sabrija

4 Dagovic. There are matters in the statement which have a bearing on the

5 evidence of Esad Dagovic who had already given evidence by the time this

6 statement was disclosed.

7 The Trial Chamber is of the view that the Prosecution did fail to

8 exercise duly -- due diligence in the obligations towards the Defence as

9 provided by the rules. However, the Trial Chamber has not found any

10 evidence of deliberate failure on the part of the Prosecution to disclose

11 the said statement timely to the Defence. The Trial Chamber finds that

12 the Defence has sufficient remedies available to them under the rules

13 during the rest of the trial.

14 The Defence can recall Mr. Esad Dagovic if they so wish? If they

15 choose to do, so they must give notice during the proceedings tomorrow,

16 Thursday, the 2nd of May. In the event that Mr. Esad Dagovic is recalled,

17 the cross-examination will be limited only to the events in the month of

18 April, 1992 in Bosanski Samac. The Trial Chamber will consider the

19 conduct of the Prosecution in these proceedings as part of the overall

20 evaluation of the evidence after the close of the trial.

21 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. Do you wish me to

23 continue now with this witness, or to attend to any other matters?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Let's -- let's complete the evidence of the

25 witness.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I see. Thank you very much.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: In chief.

3 After the examination-in-chief, maybe we will deal with the other

4 matters that are outstanding before the cross-examination.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Will you just give me a moment to

6 gather my papers.

7 I apologise for the delay. I thought I'd be attending to another

8 issue and I will be able to move into this matter straight away.

9 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

10 Q. Mr. Dagovic, on the last occasion that we were here, I had asked

11 you a number of questions about life in Bosanski Samac. And you ended up

12 describing a meeting in the Spomen Dom where there was a recruitment

13 exercise for members of the 4th Detachment. Before I return to that

14 topic, I want to just raise one other issue with you about life in

15 Bosanski Samac in the period of time up to December 1992, and that's the

16 issue of telephones.

17 Did you have your telephone service suspended?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When was it suspended and how -- under what circumstances was it

20 suspended?

21 A. Perhaps a couple of days before the takeover of Bosanski Samac,

22 telephones simply stopped working. They were disconnected?

23 Q. Were you ever able to get resumption of the service?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Did the same thing happen to other members of the Bosanski Samac

1 community?

2 A. Yes. The telephones of Muslims and Croats were disconnected.

3 Q. Can you comment on whether or not the telephone services of Serb

4 members of the community were so affected?

5 A. No. They continued to have a telephone service.

6 Q. Can you tell the Chamber how --

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Di Fazio. Could we find out how

8 the witness knows that, please.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: That was indeed my -- my next question.

10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay.

11 MR. DI FAZIO:

12 Q. You heard the Chamber's comment. How is it you find yourself able

13 to make that assertion? I mean by that that Croats and Muslims had their

14 phones cut but Serbs did not.

15 A. Because I talked to most of my Muslim and Croat friends who also

16 couldn't use their phones, just as my family. Whereas Serbs did and said

17 so publicly. My neighbours had a working telephone service. They didn't

18 even hide it.

19 Q. Did you ever try and use the telephone service between the months

20 of April and December 1992?

21 A. No.

22 Q. When you say that your neighbours had a working service and didn't

23 try to hide it, can you provide the Chamber with any more detail as to

24 what it was that you saw that makes you -- makes you comment in that way.

25 A. They openly -- they openly said their telephones were working.

1 And sometimes they would let us use their phone, although that happened

2 very rarely.

3 Q. Thank you. I've dealt with that topic.

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Just one question, then. Mr. Di Fazio, so

5 when the witness said in response to your question, "Did you ever try and

6 use the telephone service between the months of April and December 1992,"

7 the answer was no. He was therefore referring to his own phone in his own

8 house? Is that the correct assumption? Because now he says he did use on

9 some occasion the phone of the neighbours.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. As Her Honour has pointed out, you a few questions ago said that

12 you didn't try and use any telephone service between April and December

13 1992, but sometimes they -- and I assume you meant Serb members of the

14 community -- would let you use their phone. Can you reconcile those two

15 answers. Did you or did you not actually use a telephone service at all

16 during the months of April -- during the time from April 1992 to December

17 1992? And if so, what was the ethnic background of the person whose

18 telephone service you used?

19 A. My family used the phone perhaps two or three times, and the

20 telephone belonged to a Serb.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, on the last occasion, you came to this Chamber to

22 give evidence, we -- I finished asking you questions about a meeting that

23 you attended at the Spomen Dom. And you gave us details about that, you

24 recall. You said that Mr. Zaric was present. You said that there was an

25 invitation extended to the people assembled, and that they would not be

1 required to perform work duty or forced labour if they joined the 4th

2 Detachment. Do you recall that evidence -- giving that evidence?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Now, I want to ask you this: Did you ever attend any other

5 meetings where a similar topic was discussed?

6 A. Only at the Spomen Dom.

7 Q. I take it from your answer, therefore that, there was a second

8 meeting at some stage.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can you tell the Chamber if you can say whether or not Simo Zaric

11 was present at that meeting.

12 A. You mean the second meeting?

13 Q. Yes. I've finished with the first meeting. I'm now asking you

14 about the second meeting. Was he present there, or can't you recall?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. Again, can you tell the Chamber of the ethnic background of the

17 people who attended the meeting?

18 A. All Muslims and Croats were invited to attend.

19 Q. Again, can you tell the Chamber whether or not those Muslim and

20 Croat workers -- sorry. I'm withdraw that. Whether those Muslims and

21 Croats who attended were people who were engaged in forced labour.

22 A. Yes.

23 MS. BAEN: Excuse me. Just one moment.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen.

25 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour. I just believe that there was

1 previous ruling by the Chamber that the Prosecution and the Defence are

2 not to use the term forced labour because it's a legal term. So --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Later on we decided that we will use it and

4 refer to it as a general term, because the Prosecution is aware of the

5 elements that they have to prove before the Trial Chamber can make a

6 finding that indeed that was forced labour. So it won't matter any more

7 to use the term "forced labour."

8 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

9 MR. DI FAZIO:

10 Q. And I'm still asking you about the second meeting that you've just

11 mentioned. Can you tell the Chamber what -- what was discussed at this

12 second meeting.

13 A. The meeting discussed the same topics as the first meeting.

14 Again, they tried to convince Muslims and Croats to join the army of the

15 so-called Republika Srpska and to take up rifles.

16 Q. In -- you've just said that the same topics were discussed. In

17 your evidence on the last occasion you came to the Chamber, you said that

18 the -- a proposal was put to the assembled men, namely that if they joined

19 the 4th Detachment they would no longer be required to perform work duty

20 or forced labour, call it what you will. Was this -- was the same

21 invitation extended to you on this occasion, the same deal, so to speak;

22 you go into the 4th Detachment, you don't have to perform forced labour?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. And did anyone accept, as far as you can recall, the

25 offer on this second occasion?

1 A. I can't remember any Muslims or Croats taking up rifles on that

2 occasion.

3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio, who was extending the offer at this

4 meeting?

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'll just get on to that topic very

6 shortly, if I may -- if Your Honour pleases.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: That's fine.

8 MR. DI FAZIO:

9 Q. First of all, who organised the meeting?

10 A. Members of the 4th Detachment.

11 Q. And now, to be absolutely certain, who extended the offer? If you

12 don't know a name, that's fine. But what I'm interested in, was it a

13 representative of the 4th Detachment who extended the offer?

14 A. Yes, it was a representative of the 4th Detachment who made the

15 proposal, but I can't remember his name just now.

16 Q. And can you give us any idea of approximately when this second

17 meeting took place?

18 A. I can't recall exactly. It might have been in August or

19 September. I can't remember the date.

20 Q. Thank you. Earlier in your evidence, you commented that in

21 December of 1992 you stopped performing the work that you had described

22 and that you were mobilised. I want to turn to that topic now.

23 Approximately when did this occur?

24 A. In December 1992, roughly on the 24th or the 25th.

25 Q. That was a significant date, wasn't it? A member of your family

1 was exchanged around that time, I believe. Am I correct?

2 A. That's correct. My mother was exchanged on the 24th of December,

3 1992.

4 Q. I see. So -- and you described that you were the last family

5 member left after this particular exchange. And about that time you were

6 mobilised; is that the situation?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. How did you receive notice of your mobilisation?

9 A. A courier came to my home with a call-up paper which said that I

10 had to report to the military department, that is, their building, the

11 next morning.

12 Q. Was the -- can you recall what was written on the paper? And in

13 particular, can you recall the name of any organisation or entity or body

14 that was issuing this order?

15 A. The paper said the Army of Republika Srpska. It said I had to

16 join the Army of Republika Srpska, the VRS. And the signature at the

17 bottom was that of Mr. Bozo Nenkovic.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for a moment,

19 please.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO:

22 Q. This fellow Bozo Nenkovic, do you know what -- any official

23 positions he'd held in the months leading up to December of 1992?

24 A. He worked at the military department, but I don't know exactly

25 what position he occupied.

1 Q. Thank you. So did you do the report?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Tell the Chamber if you considered yourself to have any choice in

4 the matter of reporting or not.

5 A. No, I didn't have a choice, because the threat had been made that

6 we would otherwise be detained and sent to Pale, to wage war there.

7 Q. Where did this threat emanate from?

8 A. The members of the 4th Detachment, the members of the army. They

9 had made the threat.

10 Q. Can you recall when they made the threat?

11 A. The following day, when we came to the military department. The

12 threat was that if we failed to respond to the call-up, we would be sent

13 to Pale.

14 Q. I see. So the procedure was that you attended at the -- the

15 military department and presumably there were a number of other men in

16 company with you also reporting.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What was the ethnic background of the other men who were also

19 reporting along with you?

20 A. Muslims and Croats.

21 Q. I see. And it was following this reporting of you Muslims and

22 Croats that the threat was made.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you recall who actually made the threat?

25 A. I've just told you. Members of the VRS and members of the 4th

1 Detachment. I can't tell you the names.

2 Q. Thank you. I take it, then, that it was more than one person

3 saying this to you.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Following that, did you report for actual duty?

6 A. That day when we were standing in front of the military

7 department, it lasted for about half an hour, perhaps a little more.

8 After that, we were put onto trucks and taken away. We didn't know where

9 we were going.

10 Q. Where did you end up?

11 A. We ended up in Brvnik, but we only learnt that on the third

12 day. We hadn't known right away where we were.

13 Q. I see. But what I'm -- what I'm interested in knowing is this:

14 You reported. Within half an hour, you've been put on a truck and

15 presumably put in an area where there's fighting. Is that a correct

16 assessment of what you've said?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. And presumably they didn't tell you where they were taking you.

19 You only learnt that it was Brvnik some days later.

20 A. No. They didn't tell us where they were taking us.

21 Q. One further question I forgot to ask you about the other men who

22 reported with you. You said that they were all Muslims and Croats. Can

23 you tell the Chamber if they were also people who had been engaged in

24 forced labour along with you in the preceding months.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Were you armed once you arrived at Brvnik?

2 A. No. It was only when we arrived there that we were issued with

3 weapons.

4 Q. And what sort of weapons were they?

5 A. I got a semi-automatic rifle.

6 Q. How long were you stationed at Brvnik?

7 A. That day when we got there -- we remained there for five days. We

8 got back home on the sixth day. So we spent there five days in a row.

9 Q. I think earlier in your evidence you described how eventually you

10 got out of Yugoslavia -- the former Yugoslavia by going to Belgrade and

11 eventually to another part of Europe, out of the Balkans. And I think you

12 said that that took place sometime in 1994. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes. I left Bosanski Samac in December 1993, and I left Belgrade

14 in August 1994.

15 Q. During that year between December 1992 and December 1993 were you

16 engaged in fighting?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Where were you stationed most of that time?

19 A. I spent the entire time in Brvnik.

20 Q. Was it the situation that you would fight for a period of time and

21 then be given some sort of leave and return to Bosanski Samac for short

22 periods of time, for, I suppose, some sort of rest and then return to the

23 front lines?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Again, it may seem an obvious question, but were you exposed to

1 enemy fire and were you engaged in firing yourself -- fighting, in other

2 words, full-blown fighting?

3 A. Yes. I was exposed to gunfire from the other side. But I

4 personally did not take part in the fighting because I avoided shooting at

5 all costs.

6 Q. That brings us to the question of why. Why did you avoid shooting

7 at all costs? What was it that -- why was it that you didn't want to do

8 that?

9 A. That meant that I would be shooting at my parents, at my people,

10 at my friends. That's why I didn't want to shoot.

11 Q. And that was your feeling and your sentiment throughout that year,

12 December 1992 to December 1993?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you have any choice in returning to Brvnik to take up this

15 position as a soldier?

16 A. I did not understand the question. What do you mean whether I had

17 a choice whether to return to Brvnik or not?

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours. I believe

20 that there is a mistake in the transcript, because the witness said that

21 he did not want to fire at his brother, at his parents, at his friends.

22 And in the transcript it doesn't say that he did not want to shoot at his

23 brother. It only mentions the parents and the friends and people. So I

24 would ask my learned colleague to ask the witness whether this is correct

25 or not, whether --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

2 Yes, we did hear that the word "brother" was included, actually.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: That is the answer at --

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: You've seen it?

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I've seen where its absence is.

8 Q. Did -- just so that the transcript is correct, Mr. Dagovic, when

9 you answered about not wanting to shoot at your parents, at your people,

10 at your friends, did you include your brother amongst those people?

11 A. Yes, that's correct. I did not want to fire at my brother, at my

12 parents, at my people, at my friends. That's right.

13 Q. Let's return to this issue of choice and freedom. You've already

14 commented on what you say was a lack of choice in whether or not to answer

15 the call-up. I'm now talking about the actual act of going to the front

16 line and fighting or at least avoiding trying to fight. Did you have

17 any -- did you feel that you had any choice in leaving Bosanski Samac and

18 returning to the front line?

19 A. I had no choice.

20 Q. You've got to try and tell the Chamber why, why that was so. It

21 may seem perfectly obvious to you, but if need be then I want you to tell

22 the Chamber the obvious, please. Tell them why there was no choice.

23 A. Because the entire time we were under pressure. They followed us

24 while we were there. So we had no choice. They followed us.

25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio -- and I apologise if you might be

1 likely to ask this question. The witness has said that he avoided

2 shooting at all costs, as has just now been reiterated. Was a penalty

3 imposed upon him for refusing to fire while under fire from the other side

4 by whoever was the commanding officer in control of the group he was

5 with?

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

7 Q. I don't need to repeat that question. It's abundantly clear,

8 Mr. Dagovic. Can you -- can you assist the Chamber on that topic?

9 A. Yes, there was a penalty. There was a threat of the military

10 court, and I was detained for three days in prison.

11 Q. As a result of not shooting?

12 A. That's right.

13 Q. When did this happen?

14 A. I don't recall exactly the date, but it was between 1992, 1993,

15 while I was there. So I don't know correctly. I don't know the exact

16 date when that happened.

17 Q. Okay. I think we need to get some more details about this. How

18 was it that you were detected not shooting at the enemy? Who saw you?

19 Who reported you? Who denounced you?

20 A. Well, a soldier who had a bunker next to mine, he told on me when

21 we got there -- every time we would get there, we would be given a certain

22 number of bullets. So they saw obviously that I didn't use the bullets,

23 didn't fire them. So they could conclude that I wasn't shooting, there

24 wasn't firing.

25 Q. I see. So he reported you. To whom did he report you?

1 A. He reported me to the commander.

2 Q. And what followed upon -- upon that report being made?

3 A. I was detained for three days. I was in detention.

4 Q. Yes. But I think you said that you had to go to a military court.

5 Do I understand your evidence to be that the report was made, you were

6 taken to this military court, and as punishment you were put into prison

7 for three days?

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, we object that this is not what he

9 actually stated. He said there was a threat of military court, but not

10 that he actually had to go there.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps I jumped the gun.

12 Q. Perhaps you were just detained for three days without going

13 through a military court. So tell us what the sequence of events. The

14 soldier made the report that you weren't firing and weren't shooting.

15 How -- what happened thereafter to result in your being detained for three

16 days?

17 A. I was called to go and see the commander, and I was given three

18 days' detention, and I was threatened with the military court, although I

19 did not actually go to appear before a military court.

20 Q. So was it the commander who threatened the use of the military

21 court?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. And where were you detained for three days?

24 A. There, in Brvnik.

25 Q. In what? In a room? Were you shackled? What sort of detention

1 are we talking about here?

2 A. It was just a house. I was detained in a room. I presume they

3 made some kind of a prison or a detention room out of it. I'm not sure

4 exactly.

5 Q. Did any of the other men who were in your circumstances, that is,

6 Muslims or Croats who had been ordered to fight, ever suffer similar

7 punishments?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And what sort of punishment was usual? Was it just a question of

10 detention? Or did anything else happen?

11 A. Detention. It was detention.

12 Q. Apart from actually not shooting, did you do anything else to

13 sabotage the fighting effort of the soldiers with whom you were?

14 A. No. I just didn't shoot. I couldn't do anything else

15 personally.

16 Q. Did you believe in the cause of the soldiers whom you had been

17 ordered to fight with?

18 A. No, I did not believe in it. I did not actually know why they

19 were fighting or whom -- against whom they were fighting.

20 Q. Did you ever make any attempt to try and get out of this -- of

21 this requirement to that you fight on behalf of this army?

22 A. No. I didn't have any choice. I couldn't -- I couldn't get out

23 of it.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours will just bear with me for a

25 moment.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MR. DI FAZIO:

4 Q. Yes. And just before I leave this topic, I want to ask you do

5 you -- can you tell the Chamber if your sentiments that you've just

6 expressed, namely that you didn't want to fight, were shared by other

7 Muslims and Croats who had also been ordered to fight.

8 A. I presume that they were.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honours. This is

10 speculation, Your Honours. Asking the witness to speculate and to speak

11 about their feelings.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio. I think that is upheld.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please, might I just say

14 this -- I in fact wasn't asking the witness to divine the feelings.

15 Perhaps my question came across in that way. What I'm really interested

16 in is had he ever had any information --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think you can ask it directly like that.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps if I phrase the question like that.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes I take Defence counsel's point. I think

20 perhaps the question was not phrased properly.

21 Q. Let me ask you Mr. Dagovic, this: Did you ever hear from other

22 soldiers -- and by that I mean either Muslim or Croat soldiers who were in

23 your position -- as to whether or not they wished to be there engaged in

24 the fighting?

25 A. Yes, I did hear. They did not wish to take part in the fighting.

1 Q. Was this a matter that was discussed from time to time amongst

2 other soldiers in your position?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, you also mentioned on the last occasion your

5 eventual exit from the former Yugoslavia. You said that you worked --

6 sorry, that you were soldiered in Bosanski Samac until December 1994.

7 What happened in December 1994 to cause that to finish?

8 A. I have to correct you. I left Bosanski Samac in December 1993,

9 not in December 1994.

10 Q. Thank you for that. And please continue. How did you come to

11 leave Bosanski Samac?

12 A. I left with a false ID card in the Serbian name. I had to pay for

13 it. That was the only way for me to get out.

14 Q. How much did you pay?

15 A. 500 German marks.

16 Q. Who did you pay that money to?

17 A. I paid Fadil Topcagic.

18 Q. The man who was a member of the 4th Detachment?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. How did you know to go to him to get a false ID card?

21 A. Because Fadil Topcagic worked on this job before me. There were

22 several Croats and Muslims who used him for this purpose, for -- with a

23 false ID.

24 Q. Using the false ID, were you able to leave and drive to Belgrade?

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio, a little clarification, please.

2 Line 22 of page 19. The witness says, "Because Fadil Topcagic worked on

3 this job before me." It's a little bit unclear, I think.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

5 Q. When you used that expression that he worked on the job before

6 you, what were you referring to?

7 A. What I meant was that before me, in the same way. He helped

8 several other Muslims and Croats. So they approached him.

9 Q. You mean by providing false ID papers and so on?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. For money? In exchange for money?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So you heard about -- I assume you heard about this and decided to

14 use Mr. Topcagic's services.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, you said that you eventually were driven to

17 Belgrade. There did you take refuge at a home of relatives?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. How long were you hiding out in Belgrade?

20 A. I was there until the end of May 1994.

21 Q. Was it your intention to get out of the former Yugoslavia?

22 A. Yes, that was my intention. My intention was to get out, but I

23 did not have a passport.

24 Q. Who was to give you a passport?

25 A. Fadil Topcagic.

1 Q. Was that covered by the 500 Deutschmarks or not?

2 A. No. Just the false ID, the ID card cost 500 German marks.

3 Q. Did you have to pay more money to him to get out?

4 A. Yes. I had to pay to him money for a passport -- for the passport

5 in order to get out.

6 Q. Now, I don't want to go into the details of all of this, but did

7 you eventually make an attempt to get out using a false passport?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was that near the border with Hungary, at some exit point north of

10 Serbia?

11 A. Yes, that's right.

12 Q. Was that unsuccessful? Were you arrested and were you in prison

13 for a short time for having a false passport?

14 A. Yes. I was arrested and I was imprisoned for ten days in Subotica

15 in prison.

16 Q. That particular false passport that you were picked up with at the

17 border, was that one supplied by Topcagic?

18 A. No. No. I did not.

19 Q. Okay. Just very briefly, where did you get that one from, that

20 particular passport?

21 A. Because I received it from another person, from another man.

22 Q. So if you were picked up with this false passport and had to serve

23 a short prison sentence, how did you eventually make it out?

24 A. In the end, with the help of my brother, who had some connections

25 in the government where I was going to go, through their lawyer I managed

1 to leave Yugoslavia.

2 Q. Legally.

3 A. That's right, yes.

4 Q. Thank you. You said that during that year up until December 1993

5 you'd go back home for short periods of rest and recreation -- I'll

6 withdraw that. You said you'd go home for short periods of time. Did you

7 always go back to the family home, the home that you'd lived in as a

8 normal family up until April of 1992?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. When you fled Bosanski Samac with the false ID, did you leave

11 whatever positions were left at the family home?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you know what happened to the family home?

14 A. Well, a Serb family moved into the house.

15 Q. Throughout that year up until the time that you got the false ID

16 pass from Mr. Topcagic, had you made any more attempts at trying to get

17 out via an exchange?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Who had you approached to try to bring that about?

20 A. Well, I approached Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

21 Q. And what did he say?

22 A. What he said -- he said that he'd see, that he'd try and do

23 something. Until I left, there were another maybe ten exchanges, and I

24 was never on any list for an exchange.

25 Q. Did anyone ever explain to you why it was that you were not

1 permitted to be on an exchange or why you weren't chosen to be on an

2 exchange?

3 A. No, I never got an explanation why I didn't leave.

4 Q. In -- prior to the events of the 16th and the 17th of April and

5 all that happened thereafter, had you had any plans to leave Bosanski

6 Samac or make a life for yourself elsewhere?

7 A. Yes, I did have plans.

8 Q. What were they?

9 A. Well, the plan was to leave Bosanski Samac.

10 Q. When were you planning to leave Bosanski Samac?

11 A. Well, after the takeover of Bosanski Samac by the members of the

12 Serb army.

13 Q. I don't think we quite understand each other, Mr. Dagovic. I'm

14 talking about the period of time before April of 1992, right up until

15 then. Until then, until the men came to your house with the guns and the

16 armed vehicle, did you have any plans, any intentions to leave your life

17 there, to go and live somewhere else? Was that what was in your mind?

18 A. No. That's not what I was thinking about.

19 Q. However, you soon thereafter developed a desire to leave, did you

20 not, because you were trying to get out via exchanges and even paid money

21 for false IDs. That's a fair assessment?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I'd like you to think about what it was that was having an effect

24 on you to cause you to want to leave. Did your brother's arrest have

25 anything to do with it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did the forced labour that you had to perform have anything to do

3 with it?

4 A. Yes. Yes, it had. Because this was not the life until the 16th

5 of April. People were arrested, imprisoned, mistreated, killed. So this

6 was no longer that life that we had before the 17th of April.

7 Q. Did you consider that you had any choice in the matter of whether

8 or not you could go on living in Bosanski Samac?

9 A. Well, I did have a possibility of choosing, but my family and I,

10 we chose to leave town.

11 Q. Thanks very much.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further questions.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we go into cross-examination, or before other

14 things are discussed, I just wanted to remind the Prosecution and the

15 Defence that according to the indictment, the allegations are limited up

16 to December 1993. In the case of Mr. Simo Zaric, it's up to December

17 1992. So that any evidence beyond 1992 -- December 1992 for Mr. Simo

18 Zaric and for the rest, any evidence after December 1993 will be

19 disregarded, so that the Defence doesn't -- don't have to raise any

20 matters in cross-examination unless it is quite connected to the events

21 prior to those two dates.

22 Yes. On second thoughts, I think we can proceed with

23 cross-examination, see if we can clear the witness. Who will start?

24 Yes.

25 Cross-examined by Mr. Vukovic:

1 Q. [Microphone not activated]

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.

4 MR. VUKOVIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dagovic, before this Chamber, you stated that

6 in the course of your stay in Samac in 1992, you had certain work

7 obligations; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. You also said that between that, you were working on the digging

10 of trenches, connecting corridors, and building of bunkers.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Could we agree that you were doing the work in the place called

13 Grebnica?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Could you tell us what this work obligation involved?

16 A. We had to dig bunkers, to make bunkers for the members of the army

17 and to dig the trenches.

18 Q. Could you tell us, members of which army?

19 A. Members of the so-called VRS, Army of Republika Srpska.

20 Q. Could you tell us how far Grebnica is far away from Bosanski

21 Samac, if you can tell us that?

22 A. It's about 5 to 6 kilometres.

23 Q. Could you also tell us that according to you there was a

24 demarcation line before. Could you tell us -- there was a demarcation

25 line.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Could you tell the Chamber who was on the other side of that

3 line.

4 A. There were members of the Croatian Defence Council.

5 Q. In the period while you were doing your military -- your work

6 obligation there, was there an exchange of fire?

7 A. Yes, very frequently.

8 Q. From both sides?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Also you did similar work in a village called

11 Zasevice; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Could you tell us how far away is the village of Zasevice, from

14 Samac?

15 A. A few kilometres.

16 Q. What kind of work did you do there?

17 A. The same as in Grebnica.

18 Q. Was there a demarcation line there?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could you tell us who was on the other side?

21 A. Members of the Croatian Defence Council.

22 Q. Could you be so kind as to tell us what work did you do in the

23 place of Prud.

24 A. That was not Prud. That was in Bosanski Samac on the bridge that

25 was on the border with Prud. I also dig -- dig there. We made bunkers,

1 and we made some --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please put his microphone on.

3 A. We made some -- there was just the river Bosna that flows between

4 these two.

5 Q. Was there also an exchange of fire there?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was there mortar fire? Artillery fire?

8 A. No. This was gunfire, so from guns.

9 Q. Could you also be so kind as to tell us whether you did a similar

10 kind of work in Brvnik.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you tell us again how far is Brvnik from Bosanski Samac?

13 A. Approximately 10 kilometres, perhaps a little less. I'm not quite

14 sure.

15 Q. You also worked there on the digging of trenches and connecting

16 corridors; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And there was a demarcation line there.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Who was on the other side?

21 A. Members of the Croatian Defence Council.

22 Q. Could we then establish that Bosanski Samac in that period, in

23 1992, was surrounded in a blockade?

24 A. I wouldn't say it was surrounded, not under the blockade.

25 Q. Surrounded by whom? By the Croatian Defence Council?

1 A. Sir, they were in their own place. They didn't surround Samac,

2 [Realtime transcript read in error "Alija Izetbegovic"] as you say. They

3 were in their own locations.

4 Q. Mr. Dagovic, you also said in your statement that you knew many

5 people in Samac, particularly people who in the course of 1992 they were

6 doing work obligation like you.

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, we are having a problem with the record

9 because you are not pausing after the answer of the witness and the

10 witness is also not pausing before answering the question. The

11 interpreters cannot keep up.

12 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Did you hear the question or shall I repeat?

14 A. I heard the question.

15 Q. Did anyone else out of those people do any digging of trenches,

16 connecting trenches, et cetera, in different locations apart from those

17 we've mentioned?

18 A. What do you mean "these couple of locations"?

19 Q. I mean Grebnica, Zasavica, Prud, Brvnik?

20 A. Muslims worked in other places too, not only in Zasavica and

21 Brvnik.

22 Q. Can you tell us which?

23 A. They worked in the direction of Gradac, Brcko.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Vukovic. I wonder if we could get

25 a little clarification, page 28, line 3; just after the interpreters

1 had said they had a problem. And we have an answer which reads,

2 "Sir, they were in their own place. They didn't surround Samac, Alija

3 Izetbegovic you said" -- I'm uncertain as to why we have a mention of

4 Alija Izetbegovic, whether that's just an error or what. It doesn't seem

5 to make too much sense to me.

6 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] I assume it's an error in

7 interpretation. None of us mentioned Mr. Alija Izetbegovic. I think

8 we've clarified this.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note. Actually counsel's question

10 was missed completely by the court reporter.

11 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. You said that you worked during the day and you would return in

13 the evening to a flat in Bosanski Samac?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Could you tell us, then, was Samac shelled in 1992?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did that happen often?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I have to ask you a tricky question perhaps. Did anyone of your

20 family get killed during the shelling?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Your uncle didn't get killed?

23 A. Yes, he did.

24 Q. Could you explain how?

25 A. He was in a camp in Bosanski Samac. He was detained in the SUP

1 building. A shell hit the building, and that's how he died.

2 Q. You also stated in your testimony that you were mobilised, as you

3 put it, into the VRS.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You said a moment ago that you were not willing to shoot at your

6 brother, your family, and your friends; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And that is why you spent three days in detention.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Tell me, did you shoot after all when you got out of detention?

11 A. Very little. And when I did, I shot in the air. I didn't shoot

12 at the other side.

13 Q. So we can agree that after those three days of detention, you were

14 not detained again.

15 A. No, I wasn't.

16 Q. So we can agree that you did use guns after that.

17 A. Yes, but I shot into the air, not at the other side.

18 Q. Mr. Dagovic, you gave a statement to the OTP on the 12th of

19 September, 1994.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. You have a brother named Esad Dagovic.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. After leaving Yugoslavia, did you contact your brother Esad in the

24 foreign country where he was living then?

25 A. Yes, I did.

1 Q. Did you talk to him before giving the statement to the

2 investigators? Did you talk about anything concerning events in Bosanski

3 Samac?

4 A. No, we didn't.

5 Q. Do you know when your brother gave a statement to this Tribunal or

6 testified?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. You gave your statement on the 12th of September, whereas your

9 brother gave his statement on the 6th and 7th of September.

10 A. That may well be. I don't know.

11 Q. Did you and your brother give your statements together in the same

12 place?

13 A. I think we did.

14 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know that your father also gave a statement to

15 the Tribunal?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Just one thing: Mr. Dagovic, do you know that your brother used

18 to be a member of the units of the HVO?

19 A. No. That is not true.

20 Q. You said a moment ago that you were not willing to shoot at your

21 own brother?

22 A. When I said that, I meant it in general terms. I didn't want to

23 shoot at my parents, my friends, my brother, my people. I didn't mean my

24 brother personally. I meant all Muslims and Croats, and that was the

25 context.

1 Q. While you were forcibly mobilised, did you receive a remuneration

2 of any kind?

3 A. Yes. I did get some sort of remuneration in that period.

4 Q. Can you tell us in what intervals and how much approximately?

5 A. I can't remember how much, but it was perhaps every other month

6 that we got some money.

7 Q. Your brother, Esad, gave -- testified before this Tribunal last

8 year. You know that.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you talk to him before you came here about anything related to

11 the events in Samac and relating to his testimony or statement?

12 A. No, we didn't talk about it.

13 Q. Did you talk to any international organisation before testifying?

14 A. No, I didn't.

15 Q. Did you perhaps seek asylum?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. When doing so, did you give any statements relating to events in

18 Bosanski Samac?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. To whom?

21 A. I don't know. I think it was to this International Tribunal for

22 War Crimes.

23 Q. When seeking asylum, you gave a statement to the International

24 Tribunal?

25 A. Yes.

1 MR. VUKOVIC: [Interpretation] No further questions.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 Next counsel? Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Could you bear with me

5 for one second while I collect all the documents.

6 Good afternoon, Your Honours.

7 Cross-examined by Mr. Lazarevic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Dagovic. My name is

9 Aleksandar Lazarevic. I am an attorney, and I represent the Defence team

10 of Mr. Simo Zaric for the purpose of your cross-examination and on behalf

11 of that Defence team, I will conduct it on my own.

12 I will be asking you some questions formulated in such a way as to

13 allow you to answer them with a "yes", "no", or "I don't know" so that we

14 go through this as quickly as we can without wasting the precious time of

15 the Trial Chamber. If by any chance you don't understand a question,

16 please let me know, and I will rephrase it so as to be perfectly clear and

17 concise.

18 For the benefit of the interpreters and to avoid a problem that we

19 had during the cross-examination by my colleague, Mr. Vukovic, please wait

20 for the question to be interpreted. You can see the typing on the

21 monitor. And when you see the typing has finished, you can start

22 answering. We need to avoid overlapping.

23 Before I put to you my first question, I would like on behalf of

24 my client, Mr. Zaric, to express his personal regret over the difficult

25 and ugly things that you had -- you and your family had to go through

1 during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2 Now, if you don't mind, I will start. Mr. Dagovic, when you were

3 examined by my learned friends from the Prosecution, you noticed perhaps

4 that a topic has recurred very often, and that topic is the 4th

5 Detachment. I would like to ask you a couple of questions regarding the

6 4th Detachment that my learned friend Mr. Di Fazio omitted in his

7 examination. Do you know when the 4th Detachment was established?

8 A. It was established before the 17th of April, but I don't know when

9 exactly. I think it was a couple of months before.

10 Q. Yes, of course. But could you be more precise. Was it perhaps

11 the end of 1991 or the beginning of 1992, if you know.

12 A. I think it was the end of 1991.

13 Q. The 4th Detachment was part of the Yugoslav People's Army, wasn't

14 it?

15 A. No. That is not correct.

16 Q. Mr. Dagovic, in 1991, more precisely in the end of that year, the

17 Yugoslav People's Army was the only military force in the entire territory

18 of the former Yugoslavia. I'm asking you again, was the 4th Detachment at

19 the time when it was established part of the JNA?

20 A. Not as far as I know.

21 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know what the 17th Tactical Group is?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Mr. Dagovic, you have never seen a list of the members of the 4th

24 Detachment in black and white, all the members?

25 A. No.

1 Q. I really don't want us to be misunderstood. We have a double

2 negation here, and I want to avoid any inclarities. You never saw such a

3 list.

4 A. No, I didn't.

5 Q. Nor have you seen a list of members of staff of the 4th

6 Detachment, that is, the list of commanding officers?

7 A. No, I didn't.

8 Q. You have also never seen a line-up of all the members of the 4th

9 Detachment.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Nevertheless, there was a certain number of Muslims, Croats, and

12 members of other ethnic groups that resided before the war in the

13 territory of Samac in the 4th Detachment; is this correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know a person by the name of Radovan Antic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you know whether he held a rank in the reserve forces of the

18 JNA or held a position in the 4th Detachment?

19 A. I don't know about the rank, but I know he was a member of the 4th

20 Detachment.

21 Q. Do you know that it was he who was the commander of the 4th

22 Detachment?

23 A. No, I don't.

24 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Jovo Savic?

25 A. I don't.

1 Q. Since you answered no, I suppose it makes no sense to ask you

2 whether you know that he was deputy commander of the 4th Detachment.

3 A. I don't know that.

4 Q. In response to the questions put to you by my learned friends from

5 the Prosecution, when you identified the persons present here you said you

6 knew Simo Zaric and that you knew him, although not particularly closely,

7 even before the outbreak of the conflict in Bosanski Samac.

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. You also know - and I don't think that is disputed - that he, too,

10 is a member of the 4th Detachment.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you know what rank he held? We're now talking about military

13 rank.

14 A. I don't know about his rank.

15 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that he was a sergeant?

16 A. I told you that I didn't know anything about his rank, so I

17 wouldn't be surprised.

18 Q. Do you know that his job was called deputy commander for security,

19 morale, and information in the 4th Detachment?

20 A. Sir, Simo Zaric was the commander of the 4th Detachment.

21 Q. We'll come to that topic, sir. I was now sharing the information

22 that we have about his position, his official position in the 4th

23 Detachment. And you told me that you didn't know about it; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I have now asked you a number of questions, and you answered a lot

2 of them by saying you didn't know, that you had never seen a line-up of

3 the members, that you had never seen a list, that you didn't know who Jovo

4 Savic was, that you didn't know the ranks held by certain persons. And

5 nevertheless in your statement to the Prosecution, you maintain that Simo

6 Zaric was the commander of the 4th Detachment. Would I be right in saying

7 that it is only your assumption and not something that you know

8 firsthand?

9 A. No, that's not my assumption. That's the truth, sir.

10 Q. Let us deal with the 4th Detachment for a while longer. When

11 testifying here, you mentioned the names of certain individuals whom you

12 believed to be members of the 4th Detachment, specifically two persons.

13 The first being Mile Zoranovic. And in response to a question by the

14 Prosecutor, you said that he was a member of the 4th Detachment, page 7219

15 in the transcript -- and Dragan Tubonjic, page 7195, line 11. Let us

16 start with Mr. Tubonjic. My colleague already asked you something about

17 your statement given to the OTP on the 12th September 1994. Do you know

18 which statement I'm referring to?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I believe that at this moment,

21 since -- the best way to go quickly through this would be that I read one

22 sentence of this statement given to the investigators of the OTP, and at

23 that moment my colleagues from the Prosecution can confirm that this

24 statement actually exists -- this portion of statement actually exists,

25 and then I can continue instead of showing him this and making this, two

1 versions, one on ELMO or otherwise.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that is the statement of this witness.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, that is the statement of this witness

4 given --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can adopt that procedure.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think that that is the fastest way.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, why can't Mr. Lazarevic

8 simply ask the witness if he said that -- if that's his statement.

9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes I just want the confirmation from my

10 colleagues that this portion actually is in the statement, that the

11 statement contains this portion.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio that is not a problem. You can

14 just confirm, because you have the same statement, after all.

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: It is actually on page 2, last paragraph, from the

16 beginning. And it states here: "My brother was arrested on 5 May 1992 by

17 four men from the SUP. One of the men was Dragan Tugonjic (Tugonja), and

18 the three others I didn't know."

19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dagovic --

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: If my colleagues could confirm that it is actually

21 in the statement.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: That's what I read here, Your Honour.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Although there is a slight difference in only one letter in the

1 name of this person, a "G" instead of a "B" in the last name of Tugonjic,

2 we are talking about the same person who came with another three men and

3 arrested your brother; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. According to that statement of yours, those four men were from the

6 SUP, which means they were policemen; isn't that the case?

7 A. They came from the SUP. That much is true. But Dragan Tubonjic

8 was a member of the 4th Detachment.

9 Q. Sir, I have discussed this with my client, who undoubtedly was a

10 member of the 4th Detachment. And we've run some checks through our

11 investigators. And my client maintains firmly that Dragan Tubonjic was

12 not a member of the 4th Detachment for a single day. He was rather a

13 member of the police force under the command of Stevan Todorovic, chief of

14 police. And that seems to be indicated in your statement. You said they

15 had come from the SUP and that you had seen them in front of the SUP

16 building. So how do you conclude that he was not a policeman but the

17 member of the 4th Detachment?

18 A. Because he came wearing camouflage uniform. At that time

19 policemen also wore camouflage uniform, but they were blue. And it's

20 correct that Dragan Tubonjic was assigned to the SUP after this incident.

21 But until then, he was a member of the 4th Detachment.

22 Q. I think we will have to discuss these uniforms a bit more. But

23 let us now go to the second person I've mentioned, Mile Zoranovic. Is

24 that the man nicknamed Mile Pancir? Is that the man?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. That is the man who took you to work sites and back, when you

2 performed your work obligation.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And as you put it, he guarded you there.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, about this gentleman, Mile Zoranovic. There is a sentence in

7 the statement you gave to the investigators of the OTP which caught my

8 attention, caught my eye.

9 MR. LAZAREVIC: For my colleagues from the Prosecution, it is also

10 on page 2 of his statement from September 12, 1994, paragraph third, and

11 it states: "He wore a uniform, as all the Serbs did once the war

12 started."

13 Q. [Interpretation] From this sentence, I understood that when the

14 war began, all Serbs started wearing uniforms. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes, all Serbs did.

16 Q. But not all Serbs though were members of the 4th Detachment; isn't

17 that the case?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. There were people who had other duties and assignments, not

20 military assignments, and they too wore uniforms; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So solely on the basis of the fact that somebody was wearing a

23 uniform, we cannot conclude that he was a member of the 4th Detachment.

24 A. Sir, Bosanski Samac is a very small place. And all members of

25 Serb ethnicity who lived in Bosanski Samac were members of the 4th

1 Detachment. And they spoke about it publicly. It was an open secret.

2 Q. So your opinion, your viewpoint, is that all men of military age,

3 able-bodied men, all Serbs after the conflict broke out, they were members

4 of the 4th Detachment. Is that what you're saying?

5 A. No. That's not what I said. I'm not saying that they were all

6 members of the 4th Detachment. That's not what I said.

7 Q. Sir uniforms were worn by the guards as well.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Before -- before you proceed, I think we better

9 correct this with the witness, because the transcript does show what he is

10 now disputing. It says: "And all members of the Serb ethnicity who lived

11 in Bosanski Samac were members of the 4th Detachment." That is on page

12 41, line 1 and 2 and 3. So perhaps I can ask the witness.

13 What did you mean? Were all the Serbs wearing military uniforms,

14 and is that your position that all of them were members of the 4th

15 Detachment?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. They were not all members of

17 the 4th Detachment.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you -- what is the correct position, then? What

19 is your evidence on this?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, all Serbs who lived in the

21 town, they were all members of the 4th Detachment. But not all Serbs

22 who lived in the municipality of Bosanski Samac. Because around Samac,

23 there were a lot of Serb villages and not all of them were members of the

24 4th Detachment.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Counsel, you can proceed.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think maybe it is a time for a break.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take our break and continue at 16.15

3 hours.

4 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, you can continue

7 cross-examination.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dagovic, we had an interruption here. We had

10 a break. And that was at the time when we were discussing the ethnicity

11 of the members of the 4th Detachment. That is, we discussed whether --

12 whether there were Serbs in other ethnicities, members of the 4th

13 Detachment. And now when I look at the transcript more closely, I would

14 like to ask for a clarification, whether I had understood correctly

15 whether there was a misunderstanding here. Perhaps my question is to

16 blame. We were talking about the town of Samac and the municipality of

17 Samac. So what you're saying is that all citizens of the town of Samac

18 who were Serbs, of Serb ethnicity, they were members of the 4th

19 Detachment; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that the inhabitants of the surrounding Serb villages they

22 were in some other detachments?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I believe

25 this is what the witness had in mind.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. So Mr. Dagovic, we will certainly agree that during the war in

4 Samac there were people of Serb ethnicity who worked in factories, who

5 worked in the municipality, who worked in various other places. Were they

6 also members of the 4th Detachment?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Now, if we go back to Mr. Mile Pancir, according to my information

9 he worked for the Ministry of Defence. Does that mean also that he was a

10 member of the 4th Detachment?

11 A. He did not work for the Ministry of Defence. Mr. Zoranovic was a

12 member of the 4th Detachment. The information that you have is that he is

13 now working for the ministry.

14 Q. Could you tell me, when was the 4th Detachment disbanded?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. If I can help you perhaps, considering that you're the first

17 witness in the case of the Prosecutor -- and I believe that you will

18 probably remain the only one -- who was at some point a member of the VRS

19 from December of 1992. At that time when you became a member of the VRS,

20 that is, in December 1992, was the 4th Detachment in existence?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So you were a member of the 4th Detachment.

23 A. No.

24 Q. In December 1992.

25 A. No, no. I was not a member.

1 Q. And could you tell me, what was the army unit that you belonged

2 to?

3 A. I think they were -- it was called the 2nd Battalion, which was --

4 which was positioned in this line in Brvnik.

5 Q. The 5th Battalion?

6 A. The 5th Battalion was positioned in Grebnica.

7 Q. In the 2nd Battalion, who was your commanding officer?

8 A. Cvijetin Maslic.

9 Q. Thank you very much. Do you know who was the commander of the 5th

10 Battalion?

11 A. I do. Radic, aka Roda -- Mladen Radic, aka Roda.

12 Q. Mladen Radovic, aka Roda?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And do you know who was his deputy?

15 A. No, I don't.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I'm not objecting --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not objecting. It's just that it's important

19 to the Prosecution to have the transcript clear. In line 9, page 44,

20 there was a name that came before Maslic. I think it was something like

21 Cvijetin. I wonder if that could be clarified because I've heard that

22 name before and I want to check it out in the transcript later tonight or

23 tomorrow morning. Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: I can confirm that, because I don't believe this

1 is the time when the -- when the translators do not catch the name. But

2 actually, I will clarify again this with the witness.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Did you say that this was Cvijetin Maslic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could you perhaps confirm that Jovo Savic that we already

6 mentioned once in relation to the 4th Detachment as the deputy commander?

7 He was in fact later the deputy commander of the 5th Battalion.

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Mr. Dagovic, the Army of Republika Srpska was established on the

10 12th of May, 1992. I believe that this is not contested by the

11 Prosecution. I believe this is the official date when the Army of

12 Republika Srpska was established. So that was in May 1992. Could you

13 confirm that by the establishment of the 5th Battalion, the 4th Detachment

14 ceased to exist on the 12th of May, 1992?

15 A. No, it did not cease to exist. The 4th Detachment continued to

16 exist.

17 Q. Was it from then on perhaps called 5th Battalion?

18 A. I don't know what it was called, but it existed.

19 Q. I believe that we have dealt with this topic of the 4th Detachment

20 enough. I would now like to go on to another topic very briefly. On the

21 night of the 16th to the 17th of April -- and I believe that this date is

22 now uncontested in this case -- there was armed conflict that broke out in

23 Bosanski Samac. According to your statement, you heard shooting but you

24 stayed in your house because you were frightened of going out. Is that

25 what you said?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, can we again please be specific. If you

3 mean his evidence in court, according to his testimony, or is it his

4 statement which you --

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I do have in mind. Now I'm

6 talking about his testimony before the Tribunal.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: In Court. All right.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Sir, was your brother, Esad Dagovic, also in the house that

10 night? Did he remain in the house?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did he leave the house perhaps?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So the entire night your brother stayed in the house.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What about your father? Did he also stay in the house all night?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. That night passed, and there was the day of the 17th of April.

19 You said that you set off for work but that you saw soldiers, that you

20 were frightened and you returned home.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You also said during the examination-in-chief -- you said that you

23 were employed, that you worked at the amusement gate, that this was

24 property of Muhamed Bicic.

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

1 Q. This is my assumption. But perhaps you correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Such amusement arcades -- games arcades do not start work so early in the

3 morning. Could you tell me what the time was when you set off for work.

4 A. About 9.00 in the morning, 9.30 perhaps.

5 Q. And at that time when you set off for work and later on in the

6 course of the morning, did you see Muhamed Bicic?

7 A. No.

8 Q. What about Hasan Bicic?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So that morning, the 17th of April, you did not see Muhamed and

11 Hasan Bicic.

12 A. No, I did not see them.

13 Q. Sir, you and your brother, you worked in the establishment of

14 Mr. Bicic. We heard that already. And as far as I understand, your

15 relations with the Bicic brothers were more than just employer/employee

16 relations. Am I right in saying that with the Bicic brothers, you and

17 your brother were as a matter of fact close friends?

18 A. Yes, that's correct. We were close friends.

19 Q. So you knew the families of Muhamed and Hasan Bicic. You knew

20 their wives -- Muhamed's wife, Hasan's wife, the children, and all of

21 them, their mother, their father; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did their families in town in Samac on the 17th?

24 A. I don't know.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter corrects herself. Were their

1 families in town in Samac on the 17th?

2 A. I don't know.

3 Q. After the 17th, did you see them in Samac later on?

4 A. No, I did not.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Could I pause for one second, because I think that

6 there's something in the transcript.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Dagovic, you told me that you were close friends with Muhamed

10 and Hasan Bicic. I presume that you will be able to answer the following

11 question, considering this relations that you had with them. Did Hasan

12 Bicic own an automatic rifle?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. What about Muhamed Bicic?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. Sir, I would like us to go to another topic. I would like to ask

17 you a couple of questions in relation to your father. Your father is

18 Sabrija Dagovic; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. At the time when the conflict broke out in April 1992, could you

21 tell me approximately how old was your father?

22 A. 54, 55 years of age.

23 Q. So we could say that he was middle-aged; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Before the war, he was a worker in the textile industry; is that

1 correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. An honest and honourable man, respected in the -- in his -- in the

4 area where he was living and working; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Your father never had any convictions. He did not commit any

7 incidents. He had no misdemeanour record. He lived all his life as an

8 honourable and respected citizen of Samac; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. He's not a man who would lie, is he, or do some other immoral

11 things; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know that your father gave a statement to the

14 OTP?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Were you and your brother present when your father gave a

17 statement?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know that your father said in his statement

20 that --

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes Mr. Di Fazio.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I object to the question.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Particularly, as it can only lead one place, and

1 that is to ask this witness to comment on what his father says in another

2 document. It's not for this witness to explain what other people say in

3 other documents. He can only answer questions himself directly. And it

4 seems to me that this question: Do you know that your father said in his

5 statement whatever can only lead to that particular topic and otherwise

6 wouldn't make any sense. So I object to the question, and I particularly

7 object to the question because it's going to -- it can only go to that

8 issue of asking him to comment on what his father says.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, may I can reply to my learned

11 colleague. I didn't ask the witness still and I have no intention to ask

12 him to comment the statement of some other witness. I will wait for

13 that. I am just asking him whether he knows what -- that his father said

14 this and this. This question is not ask for comment. This is question:

15 Do you know that or not?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: And I believe that this question is quite proper.

18 On the other hand, having in mind that this statement has already

19 been discussed, that the Trial Chamber is aware of the content of this

20 statement, and that there is a ruling in this regard --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah, but --

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe that the fairness of trial would allow

23 me at least to ask him do you know that your father said this. That's all

24 I have intention to ask about this statement. And that's absolutely all.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: No any more than that.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. If that is all, then that is all right.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: And I just want to remind you that you do recall the

5 limited purpose for which the statement was admitted by the Trial Chamber.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, exactly.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dagovic, do you know that your father said

8 that his two sons -- presumably he means you and Esad -- were in a group

9 of people who offered resistance in the course of the first day that both

10 his sons had weapons and that they took part in the combat in town and

11 that they returned on Saturday morning at 9.30 on the 18th of April,

12 1992? Now, the question is only: Do you know that this is what your

13 father said?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Dagovic, let us go on to the 18th of April.

16 According to your testimony, soldiers came in front of your house to

17 collect weapons. That was on the 18th of April.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You also said that they called you and your brother to come out

20 into the yard. That's what it says in the transcript, page 7111. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. From this I can conclude that at the moment that when the soldiers

24 arrived, you and your brother were in the house. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. So both of you, who were in the house itself.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In your testimony during the examination-in-chief, you said

4 that -- that the soldiers were accompanied by a tank and that you saw Simo

5 Zaric and Miroslav Tadic standing on the tank with a few other soldiers.

6 Now, in relation to what you said, I would like to ask you a couple of

7 questions.

8 Mr. Dagovic, do you know what BOV is, a military term? You were

9 in the army, so that's why I'm asking you. Perhaps you know.

10 A. Yes, I do know.

11 Q. Could you tell us what BOV is.

12 A. That is a kind of a machine-gun, as far as I know.

13 Q. I was going to tell you that this is an APC. Actually, it is an

14 abbreviation for an armoured personnel carrier. But I see that that

15 wouldn't lead anywhere. But perhaps I could ask you what is Praga?

16 A. A type of a machine-gun.

17 Q. As far as I know, Praga is an anti-aircraft armoured vehicle. But

18 again, you don't have to know this. But this vehicle that according to

19 you came before your house, was that a tank or was it a BOV, or was it a

20 Praga? Was it another military vehicle which was -- which had a military

21 purpose? Perhaps it was an anti-aircraft vehicle. Was it an armoured

22 vehicle? Was it really a tank?

23 A. Yes, it was a tank.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: With the permission of Your Honours, I would like

25 to show to the witness one photograph.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: This photograph is actually the same one as

3 D17/4. But since the -- D16/4, I'm sorry. And I already referred to the

4 Registry, and we compared these photographs, and they believe can confirm

5 this. It's the same photograph. The only difference is that this

6 photograph is not marked. And so I believe that this one is more

7 appropriate to be used in cross-examination, since D16/4 is marked

8 already.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we confirm from the Registry assistant.

10 Is it the same photograph?

11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, it is indeed the first -- the

12 same photograph, D16/4 it was marked before, and it responds to the photo

13 currently held by counsel.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: May I see the one that's being presented to the

16 witness, please.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Then for purposes of the record, can we say that it

23 is a fresh copy of D16/4?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. And I assume that we need a fresh copy

25 because it's going to --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: For the witness.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: My learned friend is going to ask the witness to

3 mark it.

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. Well, in that case, I've got no problem with

6 another copy being used.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Dagovic, you can see before you on the ELMO, you can see on

10 the screen before you can see a photograph. And now I would like to ask

11 you to -- about the identification of what we see before us. This is

12 Pere Bosnica Street is that correct?

13 A. Yes, Pere Bosnica Street.

14 Q. This white house that we can see is the house that is located in

15 front of the family house. Is that you're house?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So this is your yard surrounding this house; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Your house is located inside the yard, and we cannot see it from

20 here on this photograph; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I would just like to ask you one thing. You mentioned the tank.

23 And the first question would be: When was the first time that you saw

24 that?

25 A. Well, there was a noise. The tank was going down the street. And

1 I saw the tank moving down the street.

2 Q. So you saw it going down the street.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. From which direction was the tank coming?

5 A. From the direction of the Social Services. That is, from up there

6 towards town.

7 Q. That's exactly what I want from you. So could you take a marker

8 and just on the street, on this Pere Bosnica Street, if you could mark

9 it with an arrow the direction from which the tank came.

10 A. [Marks]

11 Q. From left to right or right to left. That's all I was asking you

12 to do. If you can mark the arrow?

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, may the record reflect that the

14 arrow marked that the witness had just pointed shows the direction where

15 the tank came from.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's arrow marked on the photograph, yes.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you.

18 Mr. Usher, I don't need this photograph any more.

19 And may I have the number for this exhibit.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we can have the number.

21 THE REGISTRAR: It is D22/4, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. So sir, I've already asked you --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, I just want to make sure with the

1 registry assistant that the marking won't come off.

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, let's hope that it is or --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Because I'm wondering about the --

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: The quality of the marking.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: It will remain? It won't come off?

6 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

8 Yes, counsel, you can proceed.

9 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. My colleague already asked you about the statement you gave to the

11 investigators of the OTP on the 12th of September, 1992. And I asked you

12 a number of questions related to that statement. But let us clarify

13 certain things right here and now. You gave that statement of your own

14 free will; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And the statement recorded exactly what you said to the

17 investigators.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. They didn't force you to say anything.

20 A. They didn't.

21 Q. After the statement was drawn up in writing, was it read out to

22 you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And again, of your own free will you signed the statement and put

25 your initials on every page; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I suppose I will need some assistance from my colleagues from the

3 Prosecution in this. But let me point out one thing I've noticed when

4 reading your statement. You never mention the incident involving the

5 tank. You never mentioned the word "tank." And I will now read out to

6 you your own description of that event.

7 MR. LAZAREVIC: It is on page 1, paragraph 4. "When they came to

8 my house on 18th April, 1992, Goran Buzakovic and Fadil Topcagic demanded

9 that I hand over my weapons. They had with them a list of people that had

10 hunting licences. Fadil Topcagic asked my brother to hand over his

11 weapon. My brother had a pistol, which he had a permit for. My brother

12 also owned a 72 automatic gun, and I don't know if that weapon was

13 registered or not. After we gave them the guns - plural - they left.

14 Simo Zaric and Miroslav Tadic did nothing while at our house other than

15 stand in our garden and demand that we hand over our weapons. The four of

16 them went from house to house demanding weapons."

17 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, that is the version I've already asked you

18 about. In fact, I asked to -- I asked you to confirm that that was the

19 case. But you never mentioned a tank before. You're mentioning it for

20 the first time after ten years.

21 A. It is as I described it. And I stand by it.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wait, pause, counsel. The interpretation

23 hasn't completed the answer.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise.

25 Q. [Interpretation] There is another detail, namely the 72

1 millimetres automatic weapon. I suppose that is supposed to be 7.62

2 millimetres, and the weapon belonged to your brother who turned it over on

3 that occasion, which differs from your testimony. Is your statement

4 correct, namely that your brother owned an automatic weapon of the 7.62

5 millimetres caliber, or is your testimony correct saying that he only had

6 a pistol?

7 A. He only had a pistol. But if you read the statement more closely,

8 you will see that it was a 72 millimetres pistol, automatic pistol.

9 Q. But isn't it true that in your interview with the Prosecutor just

10 before coming here to testify, you said also that your brother had an

11 automatic weapon?

12 A. No, that's not true. I said that he only had a pistol, for which

13 he had a licence.

14 Q. Then I suppose my learned friends from the Prosecution

15 misunderstood what you said.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, he can't comment on what

17 the Prosecution --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Understood or did not understand.

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: My apologies. I withdraw that.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dagovic, in the basement of your house

22 beneath the pile of coal, had there been an automatic rifle that your

23 brother turned over to soldier Goran Buzakovic?

24 A. No. There was no rifle.

25 Q. Did you have a weapon of any kind?

1 A. No, I didn't.

2 Q. You were already asked by the Prosecution about your place of

3 residence, and you answered that you lived in one of the west European

4 countries. Without mentioning the name of the country, is it the same

5 country that your brother Esad resides in?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you live in the same town or city?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you have a good relationship with your brother?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You see each other, visit each other. Your families are

12 friendly.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So you have a truly brothers relationship. You trust each other

15 in everything.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Sir, would you lie for the sake of your brother?

18 A. No, I wouldn't.

19 Q. Have you ever discussed your or his testimony with your brother?

20 A. No.

21 Q. With your own brother, with whom you are good brothers, you never

22 spoke a word about the fact that he testified before this Tribunal and

23 that you too were supposed to testify.

24 A. We talked about it in general, but we didn't talk about our

25 testimony.

1 Q. Mr. Dagovic, did you perhaps harmonise your testimony with his to

2 protect his credibility?

3 A. No, I didn't. Why would I?

4 Q. I have only a few more questions to ask you.

5 You have described an incident which took place when members of

6 Serb special forces came to your house accompanied by Hasan Bicic and

7 demanded money. You said that they drove your brother's car away on that

8 occasion.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I would like to know if possible when exactly that happened. Was

11 it -- was this vehicle in the possession of your brother in this period

12 that started on the 16th or the 17th of April?

13 A. Yes, it was.

14 Q. Was it in the garage of your house?

15 A. Yes, it was in the yard.

16 Q. Relative to the 16th or the 18th of April, when this conflict

17 broke out, how many days after the outbreak of the conflict did these

18 members of the special forces come to your house with Hasan Bicic?

19 A. They came on the 28th of April.

20 Q. On the 28th of April? Are you saying that it couldn't have been

21 on the 20th of April, two days after the collection of weapons?

22 A. No.

23 Q. It was -- that's impossible. It couldn't have been then?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. There are a couple of more -- a couple of things more

1 that I want to clarify. One of them has to do with this collection of

2 weapons that was carried out by the army. In response to the Prosecutor's

3 question as to the accused Zaric's dress, you said that he was wearing a

4 camouflage uniform; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, he was wearing a camouflage uniform.

6 Q. As a matter of fact, it was only on the 27th of April that

7 Mr. Zaric received a camouflage uniform. Until then, he had a JNA

8 uniform.

9 A. That's not true. He had a camouflage uniform on.

10 Q. There remains one topic I will deal with briefly. It has to do

11 with the meetings held at the memorial hall. And today from your

12 testimony I understood there were two such meetings where Muslims and

13 Croats were invited to join the VRS. You said that the second meeting

14 took place somewhere in August or September 1992, but I didn't understand

15 when the first meeting was.

16 A. In June or July. I couldn't tell you precisely.

17 Q. Thank you very much. Generally it fits in the time frame

18 mentioned by some other witnesses. However, as far as the speech made on

19 that occasion is concerned, we have heard witnesses who said that this

20 speech inviting Muslims and Croats to join was made by Jovo Savic, deputy

21 command of the 5th Battalion.

22 A. It was made by Simo Zaric. Perhaps there was another speech --

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: The answer has come in. Perhaps I'm too late on

1 getting to my feet. But it's the same problem, witness -- sorry, counsel

2 asking the witness to comment on what other witnesses have said.

3 Essentially, that's the thrust of the question. All he can say -- all

4 this witness can be asked is well, who do you remember making the speech?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's okay, because the witness can agree or

6 disagree and give his own narration of the information he knows. So

7 there's nothing wrong with the question as it has been put.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. No, there's nothing wrong with asking the

9 witness, look, you're mistaken. It was in fact Jovo Savic who gave the

10 speech. No problem with that at all. What is a problem is saying

11 look, other witnesses have said that. Now, what do you say? That's the

12 effect of it. And that's what I'm concerned about, because it puts

13 pressure sure on him to in effect comment on what other people have said.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Not really. He doesn't have to comment. He can

15 just tell the Trial Chamber what his vision of the correct facts is, as

16 far as is concerned.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes well, that might be right. And with a case of

18 a strong witness, that's often the case if Your Honours please.

19 I'm just a bit concerned, though, that effect might arise, that

20 he's being asked the comment on what someone else says. I don't see any

21 problem with Mr. Lazarevic saying to him? Look, "it was Jovo Savic who

22 said this, you're wrong. And what you do you say about that." There's no

23 problem with that. And I don't see why he can't ask it or frame it in

24 that way.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: I think Mr. Lazarevic --

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: If I can reply very briefly because that is my

2 last question actually. Our dear colleagues from the Prosecution always

3 push us in about asserting to the witness the Defence of our client. And

4 when we do that, they object and say okay. Now you ask him to comment

5 this and this. I already said that I spoke to my client and that he said

6 that he possibly was there but it wasn't him actually who held that

7 speech, that there was the gentleman Jovo Savic was the one who held the

8 speech. And so this is exactly what I did now. And I really don't

9 believe that there are any reason for our colleagues to object to that.

10 Of course, I mentioned that this -- there were other witnesses who also

11 stated that it was that gentleman, but basically this is the defence of my

12 client.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. I think the exchange is sufficient. We can

14 proceed.

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: I have no further questions.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Any other counsel wishing to

17 cross-examine? Yes.

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Krgovic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Dagovic. I am Dragan

20 Krgovic, and I will ask you a number of questions relating to your

21 testimony in chief, and I will also touch upon some topics that you have

22 already mentioned.

23 You will agree with me that Bosanski Samac before the outbreak of

24 the conflict was a multi-ethnic community.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Members of all the three predominant ethnic communities --

2 Muslims, Serbs, and Croats -- lived there; is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Was there any ethnic tension before the 17th of April, 1992 in

5 Bosanski Samac?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Were there any clashes between members of different ethnic

8 communities?

9 A. Yes, there were.

10 Q. And a certain amount of tension?

11 A. There may have been. I'm not very well informed.

12 Q. Any events that might have disturbed the citizens of Bosanski

13 Samac, such as clashes between armed men, wounding of members of the 4th

14 Detachment, putting up of barricades, establishment of armed patrols? All

15 of these were developments prior to the outbreak of the conflict on the

16 17th of April; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did it occasionally happen that members of all the three ethnic

19 groups sent their families away or left together with their families for a

20 while?

21 A. Yes, it did happen.

22 Q. We'll move on to another topic. When you testified, you described

23 among other things the arrival of Miroslav Tadic on the 18th of April,

24 1992 to the yard in front of your house. Apart from that occasion on the

25 18th of April, 1992, in the period that you spent in Samac how often did

1 you see Miroslav Tadic?

2 A. I can't say precisely how many times I saw him, but it was very

3 frequent.

4 Q. Was it 10, 15 times?

5 A. It may have been more often.

6 Q. In your testimony on the 18th of April, on page 7175 of the

7 transcript, you said that Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric were standing on

8 the tank that stopped in front of your house; is that correct?

9 A. No. When we got out into the yard, when we were called out, they

10 were standing there. The tank was parked, and they were standing on the

11 tank. They couldn't have been standing on it if the tank had been

12 moving.

13 Q. You described how Miroslav Tadic wore a leather raincoat and had a

14 beard.

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. In your interview with the OTP -- in fact, in your testimony in

17 chief, you said that he had a long beard. It wasn't very clear then. How

18 large was this beard?

19 A. I didn't say it was large. It was trimmed, a normal beard.

20 Q. So it had been grown for a while.

21 A. Yes, it was very well kept, trimmed.

22 Q. It takes a while to grow such a beard, three or four months, would

23 you say?

24 A. Yes, approximately.

25 Q. Did he also wear glasses?

1 A. Yes, small round eyeglasses.

2 Q. Throughout the time when you used to see Tadic in town, he had a

3 beard.

4 A. No, not all the time. But on that day when he came, on the 18th

5 of April, he had a beard.

6 Q. You said at one point that you had seen Miroslav Tadic and Simo

7 Zaric entering the retirement home.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you remember when that was?

10 A. I don't remember the date.

11 Q. Did he have a beard then, Miroslav Tadic?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. Relative to the 17th of April, when you saw Miroslav Tadic, until,

14 let's say, December 1992, in that period when you used to see him, did he

15 have a beard?

16 A. I told you he didn't have a beard the whole time, but on the 18th

17 of April he did.

18 Q. But when you came to see him and inquire about the possibility of

19 getting exchanged, did he have a beard then?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And that summer when you saw him, during the summer did he have a

22 beard?

23 A. I think so.

24 Q. We'll move on to something entirely different. You said that just

25 after the 17th of April, a courier summoned you to the building of the TO

1 to the assembly. Do you remember that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you remember that citizens were also invited to gather in front

4 of the Buducnost factory in those -- during those days?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did you attend that assembly in front of the Buducnost factory?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you remember that on that occasion outside the Buducnost

9 factory, there were members of all the three ethnic communities, Serbs,

10 Muslims, and Croats?

11 A. I don't know about the Serbs. I know that there were Muslims.

12 THE INTERPRETER: No microphone for counsel. The question was not

13 recorded or heard.

14 A. There were members of the 4th Detachment.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, counsel, the interpreters said they hadn't got

16 your question.

17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Were there members of other ethnicities apart from these Muslims

19 and Croats?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Did you see any of your neighbours, fellow townsfolk, Serbs?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you remember anyone making a speech at that assembly and

24 issuing an order?

25 A. Yes. There was a speech. But I don't know who made it.

1 Q. Do you remember what it was about? Was there an agreement

2 announced or an order issued?

3 A. I don't remember. I don't know what had been agreed.

4 Q. Do you know what was the immediate reason for that gathering?

5 A. No, I don't.

6 Q. If I told you that this gathering discussed the fact that an armed

7 conflict had broken out and that all able-bodied citizens should take part

8 according to their abilities, either in the army or in terms of work duty,

9 would you agree that that was discussed?

10 A. I don't know. I don't remember.

11 Q. In response to one of the Prosecutor's questions you said that the

12 ban on gathering of two or more Muslims and Croats was something you heard

13 about two or more months after the 17th of April.

14 A. I don't remember. About two months.

15 Q. That makes it sometime in June.

16 A. Approximately.

17 Q. If I understood you correctly, that means that it was allowed in

18 the first two months after the 17th of April to assemble with members of

19 your own ethnicity.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was there an event that caused this ban perhaps?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. Was there an incident or an attack, if you know?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Document P40 that was shown to you by the Prosecution is dated 4th

1 of August, 1992. If you don't remember it, we will ask the usher to show

2 it to you again.

3 A. I remember it.

4 Q. If I understood you correctly, you claim that this announcement

5 was made on the radio a considerable time before you learnt about this --

6 before this ban.

7 A. Yes. It was announced on the radio, and only later posters were

8 put up around town.

9 Q. Did you see this order with your own eyes?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. Where?

12 A. Posters were put up all around town, everywhere.

13 Q. Where did you see it for the first time?

14 A. I don't know exactly. I saw it after about two months. It was --

15 the posters were all over town. The order was all over town.

16 Q. So this information from the poster, you knew about it from the

17 radio; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So in fact, if I understand you correctly, the way you understand

20 it, so this was just a repeat order from the radio.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So I don't find it very logical. So perhaps if you know, was this

23 order repeated because it wasn't respected and that's why the posters were

24 put up, or perhaps there's another reason that you know of? Perhaps you

25 could clarify this lack of logic.

1 A. I don't know what the reason is, why this order was repeated. I

2 don't know about it. I just don't know.

3 Q. Was this order respected?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you know about someone who did not respect this order?

6 A. No, I don't.

7 Q. Was anyone punished because they didn't respect this order?

8 A. No, I don't know about that.

9 Q. Were there other orders that were issued that you heard about on

10 the radio and that they were later put on posters?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Now, could you tell me, this order that was shown to you by the

13 Prosecutor, that is the order that you saw at that time in Samac; is that

14 correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That's a copy of that order -- that that's order; right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You mentioned in your testimony that there was an order that there

19 should be white armbands worn; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was this also broadcast on the radio, this information?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And were there posters?

24 A. No, there were no posters.

25 Q. How long was this obligation for, that people should wear white

1 armbands?

2 A. I don't know exactly.

3 Q. Were you wearing a white armband?

4 A. Yes. We all had to wear it.

5 Q. Until when?

6 A. I just told you. I don't know exactly. Perhaps for four or five

7 months. I'm not sure exactly.

8 Q. While you were doing your work obligation.

9 A. Yes. In the beginning, I had to wear this white armband in the

10 work obligation.

11 Q. What about later?

12 A. Later I did not. Whether this was abolished later -- later we did

13 not wear the white armband.

14 Q. Now, could you tell me whether the soldiers were wearing white

15 armbands in those first few days in Bosanski Samac?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Would you call them members of the 4th Detachment, those soldiers?

18 A. I don't know. I didn't notice.

19 Q. And who did it relate to, this order?

20 A. To Muslims and Croats.

21 Q. How did you find out about the order?

22 A. It was broadcast on the radio.

23 Q. Were there any sanctions? Were there any penalties if anyone was

24 not wearing a white armband?

25 A. That person would probably be arrested. I don't know. The order

1 was respected. It had to be respected.

2 Q. Do you know if anyone was arrested because they didn't wear an

3 armband or suffer any sanction?

4 A. I don't know whether anyone was arrested because of that.

5 Q. Could you tell me, when you gathered in front of the retirement

6 home to get the work task, there were mostly Muslims and Croats there;

7 right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And how many of you were there in that group?

10 A. There were up to 50, 60 of us. That depended. All people who

11 were able to work -- all those people were able to work.

12 Q. From when? Could you tell me from which period? When did you

13 start your work obligation? When did you start going to work?

14 A. A couple of days after the takeover of the town. Very quickly

15 afterwards we were sent to forced labour.

16 Q. And you had work obligation until December 1992; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And there were more than three Muslims or Croats in one place

19 during this period.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did anyone come, a soldier or policeman, to warn you that you

22 should not be gathering more than three in one place?

23 A. Yes. But that's different. This ban on relation to town -- but

24 we were there working at work obligation. So this did not -- did not

25 relate to us, to us working. It only was valid for the town, that people

1 in the town were not supposed to gather more than three Muslims or Croats

2 in the town. It did not apply to the forced labour.

3 Q. Does that mean that this ban on gathering just applied to people

4 who could be a threat to safety?

5 A. I don't know what it applied to.

6 Q. You gathered in front of the retirement home.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you know Dzevad Celic?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was his office located on the ground floor of the retirement home?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Did you ever go into his office?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Where did he come out when he came to give you your tasks?

15 A. Mr. Celic never gave me any tasks.

16 Q. But to read some kind of information, or anyone that was supposed

17 to read some -- something on the work obligation, where did they come out

18 of?

19 A. I don't know. Nothing was ever read out to me.

20 Q. Did you ever go upstairs in the retirement home?

21 A. No.

22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, during the break the

23 Defence photographed together with the investigators -- we photographed

24 the retirement home, that is, its surrounding area, the interior, and also

25 where this premises were that witnesses so far have spoken about. So I

1 would like to ask for the permission of the Trial Chamber to show these

2 photographs to the witness which he can just clarify some details. I have

3 already handed over these photographs to the Prosecutor's office, and I

4 believe that there would be no objections to us showing it. And I do have

5 enough copies for everyone.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ...

7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you know this building?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What is pictured on this building?

11 A. On the lower part was the retirement home. And upstairs were

12 apartments.

13 Q. So what you mean by the retirement home, when you say "retirement

14 home," and that we gathered -- when you say "we gathered in front of the

15 retirement home," this is this room to the right, on the ground floor.

16 A. Yes. The entire ground floor was the retirement home, this

17 premise.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, these photographs are not marked to assist

19 us to look at the correct one when they are being discussed.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It would be number 1. This

21 paragraph here would be number 1. And all the others as they come, they

22 would get -- they'll get the numbers that follow. But if I could be -- I

23 could be given a number for identification, if there are no objections to

24 that.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Why don't we -- why don't we approach it in this

1 way, if Your Honours please. Perhaps counsel could show the witness the

2 photograph, we could also see it on the ELMO, could get the witness to

3 describe it.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Say what it depicts.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: And then when that's occurred, he could tender it

8 fully into evidence. There won't be an objection so long as the witness

9 identifies and says this is something I know about and I can comment on

10 it.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: And I've go no objection now having heard what he

13 said for this photograph depicting the retirement home to go fully into

14 evidence.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes can we have the number as an

16 exhibit.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will be D36/3.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just ask for it to be

19 entered into the transcript that the witness identified this building as

20 the facility at -- whose ground floor was the room where the retirement

21 home was.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Could you please mark with an arrow on this photograph -- perhaps

25 you could just mark perhaps with an "X" exactly where the premises of the

1 retirement home were.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. Could you mark with an arrow where the entrance to the premises of

4 the retirement home is.

5 A. [Marks]

6 Q. I would like to ask you if you could next to the arrow put number

7 "1," and next to the cross a mark of number "2," please, with the marker

8 on the photograph. Thank you.

9 A. So next to the arrow number ...?

10 Q. Number "1."

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we go through this again. It's a bit

12 confusing. The arrow shows what?

13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The entrance -- the entrance to the

14 premises of the retirement home.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: And that's the one you want him to mark number "1."

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, number 1. While number 2, the

17 actual premises, the entire ground floor, which is occupied by the

18 retirement home.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Do you think, counsel, that afterwards he could

20 point to them with the pointer? Because there's a lot of glare on my

21 screen in front of me and I can't really see the arrow very well.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think using the ELMO. Yes.

23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

24 A. Yes. This is the entrance to the retirement home. While the

25 entire ground floor, this is where the premises of the retirement home

1 were.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can I just ask one question to the witness.

3 So as far as you know, the offices of the retirement home were

4 only on the ground floor.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, as far as I know it was only

6 the ground floor. Upstairs were all apartments.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So, counsel, maybe you could find out from the

9 witness -- when we're talking about a retirement home, that sounds as

10 though it's a residential place where senior citizens are residing. Is

11 that the case, or is it a place where retired persons congregated during

12 the day, a community centre for retirees?

13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. You heard Judge Williams. I presume that perhaps we both know

15 what this is. So this is the premise that was used by pensioners, by

16 their -- for their activities, where they gathered, play chess, cards, and

17 so on. So this was used as recreation.

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. Do you know that there were offices, this part above the

20 retirement home, and that at some point before the 17th of April they were

21 premises of the local commune?

22 A. No. I don't know. I don't know what was located above.

23 Q. You don't know that there was another entrance from which you can

24 go to the offices upstairs?

25 A. No, I don't know.

1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm finished with this photograph.

2 Could you please show photograph number 2.

3 Q. On this photograph, if you look at it, you can see -- perhaps I

4 could suggest that there is -- there is a pole on which you're supposed to

5 put a flag. Is that correct? Do you agree with me?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is this the same building, this retirement home?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Could you tell me, when you used to come in front of the

10 retirement home when you came for your work obligation, did you see there

11 that there was a Red Cross flag by any chance?

12 A. No, I didn't notice.

13 Q. Could you put a circle on that photograph. Could you just put a

14 circle around that, around these poles that are used for flags.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. This is just for the transcript, that the witness identified a

17 base for flag poles on this building that we will continue to call the

18 retirement home, since this is the term that we've used.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am finished with that photograph.

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Before you do, could you ask the witness to tell

22 us what the wording means to the right of the flag pole. We can see the

23 name of the town, of course, "Bosanski Samac." But there is something

24 above that that might be useful for us to know what it says, in English.

25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Could you read what it says here on the photograph. If I tell you

2 that it says "local commune, Bosanski Samac," do you agree?

3 A. Yes, that's correct. It says, "Local commune, Bosanski Samac."

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Could we have a number for this exhibit, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D37/3.

6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. So you were never in this office, in these premises above the

8 retirement home while you were in Samac from the -- after the 17th of

9 April, 1992 until you left in December 1993?

10 A. No. I was never on these premises.

11 Q. Could you tell me, since you mentioned in your testimony earlier

12 that your mother and yourself, that you went to put your name down for an

13 exchange. Where did you go to?

14 A. To the building where Social Services used to be.

15 Q. Where is that?

16 A. In the Pere Bosnica Street.

17 Q. That is in your street?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Could you tell me who did you go to?

20 A. To Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

21 Q. Do you know Sveta Vasovic?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you go and see him?

24 A. On one occasion. But on several occasions, to Mr. Tadic.

25 Q. Was Mr. Vasovic's office in this premises of Social Services that

1 we spoke about?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you know Anka Jovanic?

4 A. No.

5 Q. What about Dusanka Petkovic?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know Velja Mastic?

8 A. Yes, from security.

9 Q. Do you know that he was a director of the Social Services, of that

10 institution that you went to?

11 A. No, I did not know that.

12 Q. Did you know that this was Social Services, or was this Red Cross,

13 this institution that you went to?

14 A. I know that in that building until the 17th of April, there was

15 the Social Services premises. But what happened -- what was -- what else

16 was located there, I don't know.

17 Q. These premises that are shown on the photograph, you don't know

18 about them. I'll tell you. These are photographs. This corridor is

19 above -- located above the retirement home in the local commune. So you

20 were never there and you don't know anything about this premises.

21 A. No, I don't know them, and I was never there.

22 Q. On that occasion when you went to see Miroslav Tadic, he was

23 sitting in this office in the Social Services building; right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. This building has several storeys, several floors. Can you just

1 describe it for us?

2 A. It's a -- it has just one floor. It's one upstairs. So there

3 just are no other floors. It's just one floor.

4 Q. Where was Miroslav Tadic seated? Where is his office?

5 A. I don't know exactly as you go in. He was in that building. He

6 had his office in that building there.

7 Q. What about Sveto Vasovic?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Was he in that building?

10 A. Yes. He was in that building. He was not in the same office as

11 Mr. Tadic.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I'm not objecting to this

13 evidence at all. But I think that we should all be clear so -- I hope

14 I'm not experiencing -- the only one experiencing difficulties. Is the

15 witness talking about the Social Services building just off his own

16 memory and describing offices there, or is he referring to the photograph

17 when he talks? I'm just not clear about all of this.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't know if he's acknowledged that this is

20 the -- this shows the interior of the Social Services building or whether

21 he's not acknowledging that. I think we ought to be clear, because it's

22 still on the ELMO, and I -- I'm a little uncertain.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, counsel. You can clarify with the

24 witness what this photograph on the ELMO now depicts.

25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Could you tell us if you know this office that -- on this

2 photograph that you see.

3 A. No.

4 Q. These are not the offices of the Social Services that we spoke

5 about earlier.

6 A. No, they're not.

7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I no longer need this photograph.

8 Thank you.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have it marked for -- as an exhibit, please.

10 THE REGISTRAR: It is --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Could it be marked as a -- merely as a -- for

12 identification at this stage. I mean, if witness doesn't know what it is

13 or says -- maybe another witness at a later point will be able to come

14 along --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. You -- okay. So you're raising an

16 objection to this one now.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: To this one.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the witness doesn't know.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: He doesn't know. Someone else may know, so we'll

20 be able to have it in as a full exhibit.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll mark it for identification only. Can we have

22 a number.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D38/3 ID.

24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Let us go back to the retirement home. When you used to come in

1 front of the retirement home, who gave you instructions as to where to

2 go? Who organised -- who organised you all here on the actual site? Who

3 led you?

4 A. I don't know who organised it. I don't know who organised it.

5 But I know that when I was working in Grebnica I know the entire time I

6 was led there by Milo Zaranic.

7 Q. Do you know Dzevad Celic?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. Was he also involved in this work obligation in some way? Did he

10 do anything? Did he participate, or was he kind of a clerk?

11 A. I don't know what he did. While I was in forced labour, he did

12 not work with me. Perhaps he worked somewhere else.

13 Q. Did you see him in front of the retirement home?

14 A. Yes, I did. On a couple of occasions I saw him in front of

15 retirement home.

16 Q. Did he give you any instructions, tasks? Did he explain anything

17 to you?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Who told you what you were going to do on such and such a day,

20 what work obligation you would do, whether you would go to, for instance,

21 Grebnica? Are you going to go to a farm, are you going to collect

22 firewood, are you going to go and do agricultural things? Who you give

23 you these instructions?

24 A. I just told you. While I was in Grebnica, instructions were given

25 by Mile Zoranovic, because he had already made the list.

1 Q. And who showed you this list?

2 A. Mile Zoranovic. He would come out in the street. He would read

3 the list of names. They would be loaded onto buses -- onto the lorry and

4 then they would go and work.

5 Q. Tell me, do you know Bozo Ninkovic?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Did Bozo Ninkovic give you any instructions or perhaps to the

8 people who led you to the work obligation?

9 A. Not me personally.

10 Q. What about those people who led you to your work obligation?

11 A. I don't know. Perhaps he did.

12 Q. You remember as you were asked by my colleagues that you gave a

13 statement to the Prosecutor's office in September 1994?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. On that occasion, you told them what you knew and what you had

16 indirect knowledge of; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. At that time, presumably your memory was fresher, since this was

19 just prior to that that you had left the former Yugoslavia, and you gave

20 them the -- your knowledge or information correctly.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you signed that statement?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in general terms, it is correct what is written in that

25 statement.

1 A. In general terms, yes.

2 Q. I will now read a portion of your statement. Now, for the -- for

3 my colleagues from the Prosecution, because the versions in B/C/S and

4 English differ in pagination, so that would be on page which is marked by

5 number 00182961, the last paragraph, which continues onto the next page.

6 "Bozo Ninkovic, representative of the Ministry of Defence of

7 Bosanski Samac, for the Serbs. He was also the one who was in charge of

8 giving the work orders for the forced labour. I know that he is the one

9 giving the orders because he gave orders to the people picking us up for

10 work. They always had a piece of paper with his signature on it."

11 Do you remember that you stated this?

12 A. It is possible. It was eight years from that. So it's hard to

13 remember all the details.

14 Q. Is this correct, what you stated?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you see this piece of paper with your signature on it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. This paper which had orders for forced labour, if I understand you

19 correctly.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Further on, when you were speaking about the work obligation, you

22 spoke before this Trial Chamber on page 7212 that you were involved in

23 gathering firewood and distributing it to the citizens of Bosanski Samac.

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Do you remember that firewood that you took, you also took to the

1 families of people who were killed in battle or people who were wounded in

2 battle?

3 A. I don't remember. I know that first what we distributed, firewood

4 and fuel, that was always to the Serb families. It was possible that

5 these were families of fallen soldiers. But they were certainly of Serb

6 ethnicity, these families.

7 Q. Could you tell me, these citizens did they sign for that fuel, for

8 that firewood that they received?

9 A. No, I don't know that they signed.

10 Q. Do you know whether there was an organised signing for firewood

11 for all ethnicities?

12 A. No, I don't know about that.

13 Q. And do you know whether in the organisation of the Red Cross,

14 there was distributed milk and bread to all citizens in all areas?

15 A. Yes. That was in the beginning. That was for about two or three

16 weeks and then it stopped.

17 Q. I presume that after that, there were milk shops and bread shops

18 were working. Bakeries and perhaps there was a shortage of food perhaps.

19 Do you know the reason?

20 A. I don't know the reason why that stopped.

21 Q. In your testimony before this Chamber, you said that you were

22 working as a seasonal worker on agricultural lands.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Asked by Judge Williams whether these were -- what kind of farms

25 these were, you said that these were mostly state-owned farms.

1 A. Yes, that's correct. These farms before the war were state

2 owned.

3 Q. What kind of work did you do? What kind of jobs?

4 A. You mean on the farms?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. We had to feed the cattle, clean the farms, do all the jobs that

7 need to be done on a farm.

8 Q. If I understood you correctly, you practically worked there to

9 meet the needs of the farms themselves.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So you did whatever needed to be done for the farms.

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, earlier on in the

14 proceedings, we introduced a document marked D33/3, albeit only in the

15 B/C/S version. Now we have it in English as well, and we would like to

16 avail ourselves of this opportunity to make it available to the Trial

17 Chamber and to show the document to the witness.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't know if my learned friend has noted the

20 time.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. I don't know if my learned friend has

23 noted the time.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: This might be an appropriate moment to deal with

1 this.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We will take a break and resume our

3 proceedings at 18.10.

4 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 6.11 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed, Mr. Krgovic.

7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Dagovic, will you please take a look at this document. I

9 suppose you haven't seen it before.

10 A. No, I haven't.

11 Q. Could you please read the document, and then I'll ask you some

12 questions.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, I want to find out -- when you say you

14 should read the document -- oh, you want him to read it to himself.

15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, to himself.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And then I'll ask him.

18 Q. Have you read it?

19 A. Yes, I have, although it's very difficult to make out the words.

20 It's very illegible.

21 Q. Take the document which is on the ELMO. It's a better copy.

22 A. I have read it.

23 Q. Could you read out loud the highlighted portion at the top.

24 A. "Ministry of national defence section, Bosanski Samac."

25 Q. If I understand correctly, this is a letter addressed to the

1 section of the Ministry of national defence by the secretariat for the

2 economy.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Read the second highlighted portion.

5 A. "The sugar beat from these plots of land needs to be harvested, so

6 the Bijeljina sugar refinery wrote to this --"

7 Q. Read it to the end?

8 A. The sugar refinery wrote to this secretariat asking for a work

9 schedule -- work obligation to be assigned to engineer --

10 I can't make out the name.

11 Q. Jovo Krstic. Please go on.

12 A. "Jovo Krstic, who is deployed in the 3rd Company, 15th infantry

13 brigade, (previously the 4th Detachment), and who was previously involved

14 in the organisation of sugar beat production and harvesting." Shall I go

15 on?

16 Q. Please.

17 A. "In view of the above, please establish a work obligation for the

18 said employee to organise the work in question."

19 Q. You have heard about the Bijeljina sugar refinery, haven't you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. It was -- it was state-owned -- public owned at the time.

22 A. Yes, it was.

23 Q. Did you ever do any work on harvesting of sugar beat perhaps?

24 A. No, never.

25 Q. I would like to know one more thing related to this letter. This

1 Jovo Krstic, do you know the man?

2 A. No.

3 Q. This part which says who is deployed in the 3rd Company of the 5th

4 Infantry Battalion, is that the battalion commanded by Mladen Radovic?

5 A. Probably.

6 Q. It says "previously the 4th Detachment."

7 A. Yes, I can see that.

8 Q. Can I perhaps refresh your memory by a question asked by my

9 colleague Mr. Lazarevic. Was the 4th Detachment perhaps renamed into the

10 5th Battalion, if you can remember?

11 A. I don't know that the 4th Detachment was ever renamed into the 5th

12 Battalion. I don't know anything about it.

13 Q. But having seen this document, can you perhaps cast your mind back

14 a little.

15 A. This document doesn't tell me anything.

16 Q. Could you please read the date.

17 A. 25th September 1992 -- 21st September, correction.

18 Q. I have finished with this document. If there are no objections, I

19 would like to tender it as an exhibit, because we only had the B/C/S

20 version so far?

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because the witness did say he doesn't know

22 it. He hasn't seen it so far.

23 So anyway, the Prosecution, what was your position?

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, we don't want to object to

25 the full admission of the document; however, for what it's worth, it seems

1 to me that there's not much evidence surrounding the actual document

2 itself. It's a matter that we will be greater able to evaluate. But as

3 far as its full admission is concerned, no, we don't have any objection.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the number, please, as an

5 exhibit.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the B/C/S version will be D33/3 ter,

7 and the English translation D33/3.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

9 Yes, counsel, you can proceed.

10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. I would like to take you back to one topic that was covered in the

12 examination-in-chief. That is the event that occurred when your mother

13 was exchanged and you too expected to be exchanged but you weren't. They

14 were calling out names outside the bus.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Was it one or more buses?

17 A. I think it was one or two buses. I don't know.

18 Q. Maybe I misunderstood you. You will tell me if that is so. It

19 was mainly women, children, and elderly men whose names were called out.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was there perhaps another bus which had brought detainees from

22 Batkovic?

23 A. The bus for the prisoners was not outside the secondary school.

24 Q. So on that occasion when your mother was exchanged, you were doing

25 your work obligation.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you were a conscript since you were mobilised immediately

3 after that; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you know if you have learnt firsthand or heard from someone,

6 that in order for able-bodied men who were involved in work obligation or

7 military duty to leave Samac they needed an approval from the military

8 command?

9 A. I don't know that.

10 Q. Did you need some sort of consent or approval from them when you

11 were leaving Samac?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And when you were going on leave from the army, who did you ask

14 for permission?

15 A. What do you mean?

16 Q. When you were on the front line and then you were allowed to go

17 and leave after a while, who did you ask for permission to go home for

18 your own private purposes?

19 A. I didn't ask anyone. If you were there for 48 hours, you

20 automatically were able to take 48 hours off. That was the way it was --

21 it went. You didn't have to ask anyone for permission.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, if Your Honours please -- I'm not objecting,

24 but a few questions further up my learned friend put to the witness or

25 said to the witness: "If able-bodied men who were involved in work

1 obligation or military duty needed approval from the military command to

2 leave Bosanski Samac." I'm not sure if my learned friend was putting to

3 the witness in order to get out via an exchange you needed permission from

4 a military -- a military command or whether just to leave the town. That

5 might be important. And if there is -- if my learned friend is trying to

6 make some point around that, then perhaps that issue ought to be

7 clarified, because it wasn't clear to me.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will divide this issue into two

10 questions.

11 Q. Do you know that in order to be exchanged, in order for military

12 conscripts and people involved in the work brigade to be exchanged, the

13 approval was necessary from the competent military command?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. And did you know at that time in that period when you were in

16 Bosanski Samac that in order to leave Bosanski Samac, which was engulfed

17 by the conflict, military conscripts and men involved in the work brigade

18 or under work obligation needed approval from the competent authority in

19 the national defence department?

20 A. I don't know about that.

21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. I have

22 completed my cross-examination, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes before you sit down, you were giving these two

24 other photographs which you haven't discussed, so we will return them to

25 you.

1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps I will need them for another

2 witness.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So I'll take them back and tender

5 them again.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Actually, they were not tendered. They were

7 not discussed by the witness. So you can have them back.

8 Ms. Baen, any cross-examination?

9 MS. BAEN: No questions, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Thank you.

11 Re-examination by the Prosecution?

12 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

13 Q. You were asked some questions about the remuneration that you

14 received while working -- sorry, fighting. You were paid. Did you

15 receive the same pay as everyone else in the army for which you were

16 fighting?

17 A. I don't know if we got the same remuneration as Serbs.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for one

19 moment, please.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

22 Q. You were asked questions about the role of Mr. Zaric in the 4th

23 Detachment. And Defence counsel put to you that you were assuming that

24 Simo Zaric was the commander of the 4th Detachment, not something that you

25 knew firsthand. And you said, "No, that's not my assumption. It's the

1 truth." On what basis do you assert that the truth is that Simo Zaric was

2 the commander of the 4th Detachment? In other words, what do you know or

3 what did you see or what did you hear that makes you say the truth of the

4 matter is that Simo Zaric was the commander of the 4th Detachment?

5 A. Members of the 4th Detachment said so publicly. And when there

6 was a gathering at the memorial hall, Mr. Zaric introduced himself as the

7 commander of the 4th Detachment.

8 Q. Are you referring to the meeting at the Spomen Dom hall where the

9 issue of mobilisation or the indication of mobilisation was raised?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I understood your evidence in cross-examination to be that the

12 prohibition against the assembly of two or three persons of Muslim or

13 Croat ethnicity occurred in this way: First there was an announcement on

14 the radio, and later in time you saw posters around the town to the same

15 effect. Is that your position?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. About what period of time would you say separated the radio

18 announcement from your first sighting of the posters?

19 A. Very briefly.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown D36/3. That's the

22 photograph that was tendered this afternoon. Thank you.

23 Q. Using the marker, can you -- the pointer, that instrument that you

24 have there, can you just show us where you would assemble in the morning,

25 where the workers would assemble in the morning.

1 A. We would be standing here outside the building. We waited for our

2 assignments to forced labour.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: For the purposes of the transcript, can the -- can

5 it be reflected that the witness indicated the area in front of the

6 building facing the road at a point at which it can be seen a small dark

7 green car. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO:

10 Q. You were also asked --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Mr. Usher. I've finished with that

12 paragraph.

13 Q. You were also asked questions regarding a paragraph that had

14 been -- regarding a certain paragraph in your statement regarding the role

15 of Bozo Ninkovic in issuing instructions in relation to forced labour.

16 That was part of the statement.

17 I want to read a certain portion of the statement to you, and tell

18 me -- could you tell me if you agree that this was part of your

19 statement.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: This is the statement dated ...?

21 MR. DI FAZIO: The statement dated the 12th of September, 1994,

22 referred to by Defence counsel earlier this afternoon.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: They read a portion of the paragraph. I think it's

25 fair that the witness be able to put that phrase or sentence into context

1 and that the whole paragraph be read. And that's all I want to do.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. DI FAZIO:

4 Q. And this is the paragraph that I want to read to you. So just

5 follow it -- follow what I'm reading out to you, Witness, please.

6 "I know that Stevan Todorovic or Stiv was the chief of the SUP.

7 Before the war, he worked in a plant --"

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Krgovic.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object. My reading

10 of -- a portion of the statement was only directed to the work

11 obligation. And that part of the witness's statement where he mentioned

12 people in charge of issuing work obligations was the only part I read, and

13 that's when we mentioned Bozo Ninkovic. I didn't mention any other detail

14 in my cross-examination and I don't think it is appropriate for the

15 Prosecutor to come back to it, because that was not one of the topics I

16 raised in my cross.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly. The portion that I'm going to read will

18 touch upon the -- the sort of functions performed by other people,

19 including some of these defendants. However, the paragraph was dealing

20 with what this witness asserted was people in power. And it only dealt

21 with the aspect of Bozo Ninkovic's activities, as far as this witness's

22 assertion of who those people in power were. So from that point of view,

23 I think they should be put into context.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber will allow the question.

25 MR. DI FAZIO:

1 Q. I'll continue reading to you, referring to Todorovic, you

2 continue. "He came to the Rendezvous restaurant frequently. He became

3 the chief after the war. He gave most of the orders, even when my brother

4 was imprisoned. Other people in charge were Blagoje Simic, president of

5 Bosanski Samac municipality; Mladen Radovic, commander of the 5th

6 Battalion (Roda) for Bosanski Samac: Bozo Ninkovic, chief representative

7 of the Ministry of Defence of Bosanski Samac for the Serbs. He was also

8 the one who was in charge of giving the work orders for the forced

9 labour. I know that he was the one giving the orders because he gave

10 orders to the people picking us up for work. They always had a piece of

11 paper with his signature on it. It was widely known that these people

12 were in charge along with Simo Zaric. I didn't have to see it because

13 everyone knew that Stiv was ordering arrests along with Blagoje Simic and

14 Simo Zaric."

15 Now, what I want to ask you is this: Were you there describing

16 people who in your opinion, in your view, were in charge in Bosanski Samac

17 during that period of time?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When you say that Bozo Ninkovic was the man giving orders to the

20 people in regards of work obligation, forced labour, is your statement to

21 be read as being -- as saying that that's all he exerted control or had

22 power over? I'm talking about Bozo Ninkovic.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for a moment.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

4 Q. You mentioned also the topic of the distribution of milk and bread

5 for a period of two weeks after the outbreak of hostilities. Who was

6 distributing that milk and bread?

7 A. I don't know exactly. I think this was distributed by the members

8 of the Red Cross. I don't know who was in charge of that. I'm not sure

9 about it. In fact, the important thing is it was distributed.

10 Q. Did you manage to get some milk and bread yourself?

11 A. Yes, on a couple of occasions.

12 Q. And that distribution ceased after a period of two weeks; is that

13 your position?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did it ever resume again, or was that the end of it?

16 A. No, that was the end of it.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further re-examination.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Mr. Dagovic. You can leave the

20 courtroom. You are now released, and you're free to go.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other witness?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: I recall what was discussed before.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So if there is no witness available, that's the

2 position.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We can move on to our discussion on the

5 possibility of --

6 MR. DI FAZIO: 92 bis.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, 92 bis. Rule 92 bis.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Yes, I've prepared for that. May I

9 just have a moment to gather my papers which I had to shift earlier.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

12 Can I just provide the Chamber with these three -- this document.

13 It's in -- I've got -- provided Defence counsel with copies. This is

14 purely an aid to my submission. It can be disposed of after I've finished

15 making my submission. It's purely to assist the Chamber in following what

16 I have to say. It's not a document that needs to be entered into evidence

17 or anything like that.

18 You see from that document, Your Honours, that we have some 30

19 witnesses left.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: The witnesses in group 1, Kemal Mehinovic, Witness

22 E, Hajrija Drljacic, and Witness C are what I call impending witnesses.

23 They're about to come and give evidence. In fact, Mehinovic is booked to

24 fly in from the United States today. She -- the Witness E is booked to

25 come in, in six days' time, and he'll be flying in from a European

1 country. And Hajrija Drljacic is coming in on the 10th of this month. It

2 -- in the Prosecution's submission, given the immediacy and -- sorry, and

3 I should also mention Witness C. He's also coming in on the 10th of this

4 month.

5 Given the impending arrival of this particular witnesses, it would

6 be just impractical for the Prosecution to even try to get statements from

7 these particular witnesses in the form of -- that would be -- would suit

8 the provisions of Rule 92 bis. And so we say we can't do anything in that

9 respect.

10 Group 2 consists of a number of witnesses that the Chamber has not

11 indicated via a letter I received from -- a letter that was caused to be

12 sent to me, I understand, from the Registry. Those particular witnesses

13 are not included. And so --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the letter from the legal officer?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. Yes. I think that's the correct

16 term, yes. The letter from the -- yes, the legal officer. They are not

17 included on that list, and so therefore I assume that the Trial Chamber

18 has not suggested that we try to deal with those witnesses pursuant to the

19 provisions of Rule 92 bis. And may I say respectfully, they are the sort

20 of witnesses, I think, that we should deal with in the normal way.

21 I'll deal with group 3 in just a moment.

22 Group 4 consists of three witnesses. Ewa Tabeau is a witness in

23 the usual way, but the Prosecution has taken on board what you have said

24 regarding the speed of the trial and the need to hasten it. If she is to

25 give any evidence at all in chief, it will be very, very brief, extremely

1 brief. She has prepared a report that's been provided to the Defence, and

2 the only examination-in-chief that would be elicited from her would be

3 just tidying up aspects or explaining one or two aspects of her report,

4 and it is not intended that she would take a long time, as far as the

5 examination-in-chief is concerned. How long it would take in

6 cross-examination, I don't know.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. This is a problem we've been having in other

8 trials as well.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: On experts.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: An expert will give in the report, which is -- which

13 will be produced and the CV. There is no need for viva voce evidence

14 because it is an opinion of the expert, and then the expert is

15 presented for cross-examination where the Defence has indicated -- as in

16 this case they have indicated. So we don't want anything already in the

17 report being discussed orally. If there is any addition that has to be

18 made, then you better get the additional statement.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Very well. Well, we could deal with that in

20 that way. Do Your Honours -- do Your Honours' comments extend as far as

21 cross-examination of the --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, not cross-examination.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm talking about examination-in-chief, where we

25 have --

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: An opinion already.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: In that case, I understand that. If there are

4 matters of clarification, we could deal with it by way of an additional

5 statement and clarify anything in the report that we feel needs to be

6 done. That can be attended to fairly -- fairly quickly.

7 So in effect, that particular witness would only be -- having now

8 heard what you have to say about that, only in -- given evidence as far as

9 cross-examination is concerned.

10 The other two witnesses in relation to international armed

11 conflict, they are already the subject of a 92 bis order. They will be

12 coming in for cross-examination only. There will be no evidence led by --

13 from them by the Prosecution.

14 Group 6 consists of four witnesses. As I indicated, we have

15 conducted a review of the Prosecution witnesses, and in an effort to get

16 the trial moving, bring about the close of the Prosecution case, the

17 Prosecution is minded to withdraw those witnesses from the list

18 altogether.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: That is group 6. 27, 28, 29, 30.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: I think let's have the names.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Zvonko Susak, Sead Mujkanovic, Muharem Jasarevic,

23 and Witness F.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: So these are no longer going to be called by the

25 Prosecution.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes now, that should have in the Prosecution's

2 submission a substantial effect on the time required for the Prosecution

3 case.

4 Group 5, witnesses that the Prosecution submits would be

5 appropriate to be dealt with by the provisions of Rule 92 bis. As far as

6 number 26 is concerned, he is a witness who is in ill health and the

7 Chamber has already indicated that -- I think the Prosecution has

8 indicated to the Chamber and the Chamber has reacted favourably I believe

9 to a suggestion that his evidence be taken by way of videolink. He is a

10 man who suffers kidney problems and has to have dialysis three times a

11 week. He can't be far from his machine. And the only practical way of

12 getting his evidence would be via videolink.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: I would have thought he would be the most suitable

14 under Rule 92 bis and then we have videolink for cross-examination.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: That might -- that might indeed hasten the matter.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes then he will spend very little time in the

17 witness box.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. That's true. Yes. I understand that. It

19 would also mean having to get a Registry officer to go down to Bosnia

20 to --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Swear the statement and make sure all the proper

23 procedures are adhered to.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That will -- that will mean for the

25 Prosecution to do that, because --

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: -- the -- the very serious concern here is the

3 length of time the trials are taking.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: So that is why there is emphasis on if use of Rule

6 92 bis.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I appreciate that, Your Honours.

8 So that will be six witnesses in addition dealing -- to be dealt

9 with by way -- by utilising the provisions of Rule 92 bis.

10 So we turn then to group 3. They are witness that is the

11 Prosecution would like to deal with -- to have dealt with in the normal

12 way. I can tell you something about those particular witnesses.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: All of them - all of them - are witnesses who gave

15 their statements years ago. Of those particular witnesses, two of them

16 gave statements in 1994; five of them gave statements in 1995; and three

17 of them provided statements which have not been signed -- in other words,

18 formally accepted by those particular witnesses. They are statements that

19 were taken before the rule was in existence. They are statements which

20 were taken without the rule and the provisions of the rule being

21 considered by the statement taker. They are statements that were taken in

22 ignorance of many of the exhibits in this particular case. They are

23 statements that don't deal with much of the documentary evidence in this

24 particular case. And they are statements that were taken at a time when

25 the trial issues have not crystallised as they have over the last few

1 months. Because of that, the Prosecution would not be happy in simply

2 producing the statements as they -- as they stand, simply getting the

3 witness to come along and adopt the procedures in Rule 92 bis, formalise

4 them, and we simply hand them in, because they simply don't come to grips

5 with the sorts of issues that we've been dealing with and have arisen as

6 the important issues, even on background material in this trial. That

7 means we would have to take statements again from them and --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I thought that the provisions of Rule 92 bis

9 have got specific requirements that have to be fulfilled.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: And it would mean taking statements under 92 bis,

12 not using those statements which were recorded by the investigators.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes, precisely. I understand that if that

14 were to happen, the sort of procedure that would have to be adopted is

15 this: One of the team members -- Prosecution team members would have to

16 take the statement. If -- and I say that because we can't -- we can't

17 leave the task to someone else because of the fact that we're so far into

18 the trial and the three Prosecutors are well aware of each --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: All the issue that is have arisen, even on the

21 background matters.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: And the Prosecution feel that is in order to put --

24 present the evidence in the best possible way, one of us -- one of the

25 three, my colleague Mr. Weiner, my colleague Ms. Reidy or myself would

1 have to engage in that task.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Experience has shown in proofing witnesses here

4 that that takes around two days at least, if not two and a half day or

5 three, and sometimes up to three days of fairly solid work. That means

6 that it would be a big drain on the Prosecution in sending Prosecutors

7 down to Bosnia, if that were to happen. But whatever happens, whether the

8 statement is taken in Bosnia or whether the statement is taken here,

9 there's going to then follow a period of some delay. The statement will

10 have to be put into proper shape and form. It will have to be translated.

11 I've made inquiries of various people in the know as to what sort of

12 backlog or period of time is required for translation. I can't seem

13 to get a clear answer, and I think people in the translation services have

14 indicated there's a good reason for that, and that is that it just --

15 there never is a specific period of time required for translation in the

16 normal course of events. It's not always the case that there's a

17 four-week backlog or a two-week -- a two-day backlog or whatever. It

18 changes from time to time.

19 My case manager informs me that as a customer of the services and

20 a man handing in documents, that realistically if you can get a document

21 certified or designated or considered as a high priority document, it will

22 take four to five days. If it goes through in the normal course of

23 events, it will take a longer period of time. So that will add a period

24 of time to -- once the statement is taken.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Then the statement has to be sworn and the usual

2 procedures --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes the procedures are there under 92 bis.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Under Rule 92 bis. And that has to be done.

5 Then the statement has to be provided to the Defence, who under

6 the rule have a period of two weeks -- two weeks' grace.

7 Sorry, I should phrase it this way: Under the rule, under Rule

8 92(E), have a period of -- or rather, the Prosecution would have to give

9 them a period of two weeks' notice before the statement can be used.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes that is -- that is in a situation where the

11 matters are not being discussed in the presence of the Defence. And that

12 is in a situation where there haven't been any previous brief summaries,

13 for instance.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: That is why that rule is provided, and there is

16 nothing to stop the Trial Chamber to bridge that time.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I can see -- I realise that, from looking at

18 the rules, and you can avail yourselves of further provision under Rule

19 127 and vary that time.

20 Having spoken to some Defence counsel, in particular Mr. Lukic, I

21 understand that the Defence could like that two-week period.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, the -- the Trial Chamber will have to make a

23 ruling on.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the Defence will have to convince the Trial

1 Chamber that they have no knowledge at all of this evidence.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes so the scenario is in practical terms, if you

3 get a witness here or if we go down to Bosnia, there's going to be some

4 period time -- and I just can't say how -- what sort of period time --

5 after for translation to occur, for service -- for delivery and service of

6 the statement on the Defence, and then of course a period of time, if they

7 get it, for them to digest the material and make whatever inquiries that I

8 want and so on and so forth.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: So there will be a period of time --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: This is -- all those points, Mr. Di Fazio, is being

12 looked into by the Trial Chamber. And I'm sure that the Defence counsel

13 know that where they've already had an indication of whatever evidence the

14 particular witness will give, it will even serve them better to have a

15 full statement.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Leaving out, of course, what is accepted under Rule

18 92 bis.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: So the question of them having time to prepare for

21 the cross-examination will not arise.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: That still leaves the period of the translation

23 to --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because the other thing we can do is to swap

25 the witnesses. We don't have to follow this order.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, this is not an order of witnesses. This is

2 just the category --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: The category of witness.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: This is definitely not an order of witnesses at

5 all. It's just a category

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: So the upshot is that out of the 30 witnesses,

8 we've gotten rid of four, added six -- that's ten. That's a third of

9 those witnesses whose evidence we propose to take utilising the provisions

10 of Rule 92 bis. And essentially that would leave the 17 that you see on

11 the first page --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mm-hm.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: -- to give evidence in the normal fashion.

14 Out of those 17, there's really nothing that we can do with the

15 first four, in any event, simply from the term -- point of view of

16 practicalities and time constraints and so on and so forth.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. Yes, the Trial Chamber can see that. So

18 that group 1 and group 2, roughly indicated by the Prosecution, we can

19 continue with them.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: And then group 3 and group 5, they should go under

22 Rule 92 bis without fail.

23 And then we can have group 4 witnesses brought forward --

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: -- in order for the time you are discussing of going

1 to collect the statements under Rule 92 bis. If this was done, really it

2 would cut down on the hours we spend in court --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: -- collecting -- receiving evidence viva voce.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. You understand, Your Honours, that group 3

6 is the witnesses that the Prosecution wishes to call in the normal

7 fashion; in other words, full examination in the way that we've been

8 going so far and full cross-examination. In other words, the usual

9 procedure.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I thought group 3 witnesses were the ones you

11 were discussing about them having given their statements 1994, 1995.

12 And also the Trial Chamber is aware that it is possible under Rule

13 92 bis to have partly statement, partly oral.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes, I understand.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So it's a question of the Prosecution

16 reorganising this group 3 and adding them on to -- adding them to --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could Your Honour slow down, please.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry. The interpreters. I'm too fast.

19 So the Prosecution has to reorganise group 3 witnesses, group 5

20 witnesses, and put them under 92 bis fully or partially, as the rule

21 provides, and then we can bring forward group 4 witnesses. These are the

22 experts, the witness on international armed conflict, the witness on

23 international armed conflict - the other one again - forward, for whom

24 it appears to the Trial Chamber the statements are already ready.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So that by the time we finish Kemal Mehinovic,

2 Witness E, Hajrija Drljacic, Witness C most of this work will have been

3 done for group 3 witnesses and group 5 witnesses to -- for -- where the

4 Prosecution has to get the statements recorded under Rule 92 bis. And

5 then we have group 2 as well, who will still be coming along in the normal

6 way.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. There's some nine witnesses in group 3, if

8 Your Honours please.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: We -- getting approval for missions and getting

11 down there would -- it -- to start the process of proofing and getting the

12 statements from these people --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no problem, Mr. Di Fazio. All you do is

14 put the machinery in motion. That's all. And one of you has to go down

15 there and get the -- the statements recorded. It's a question of asking

16 the Registrar to appoint a presiding officer. And this is what the

17 Tribunal actually in almost all cases is trying to embark on, to cut down

18 on hearing time, to get the trials completed as soon as possible, so that

19 the detainees waiting for their trials can have their trials commenced.

20 So there is nothing new that you are discussing, Mr. Di Fazio, that hasn't

21 happened in other cases. It's a question of reorganising and getting the

22 work done and then bringing group 4 witnesses forward, like I said.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 I'm sure the Defence are following -- they've got the document, so

1 they know the names of the witnesses involved so that there will be no

2 confusion at a latter stage as to which witness we are discussing for

3 which procedure.

4 And also the suggestion of the Trial Chamber must be marked that

5 the witnesses in group 4 numbered 18, 19, and 20, will have to be brought

6 forward. So I want the Defence to prepare themselves for cross-examining

7 these witnesses if need be at an earlier stage than otherwise has been

8 indicated before.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll convey your remarks to those instructing me.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: The Prosecution has heard what the Chamber has to

14 say.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecutor is very, very keen to have the

16 trials going, as you can see from the amount of work she herself is doing

17 in getting those who are not arrested arrested and those who are not --

18 those who are willing to surrender.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because there is capacity for the Tribunal to

21 hold all these trials if we all reorganise ourselves and get the work

22 going.

23 Tomorrow we will proceed with our Variant A and B. I notice that

24 Ms. Reidy was not here, but she was here at the beginning, so she should

25 come.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: She will be available tomorrow at the --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And I also note that Ms. Baen is there,

3 because it had been agreed that she was the one --

4 You are the one taking up this matter.

5 So your submissions will come in tomorrow, and thereafter we will

6 proceed on the rule -- on the Variant A and B as far as we can go

7 tomorrow. All right?

8 And I also just want to note -- that's the language assistant

9 you are sitting with, Ms. Baen? Because I notice that Mr. Zecevic is not

10 here.

11 MS. BAEN: Yes. She's our case manager, and she also serves as an

12 interpreter for me.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.

14 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: I also want to point out to the Defence especially

16 that the Trial Chamber is observing the cross-examination. There may be a

17 time as we go on with the Prosecution case when the Trial Chamber would

18 like to narrow down the issues, so that in areas of the Prosecution where

19 there is no -- it's not -- the facts are not being contested, then we

20 will proceed without cross-examination. So I think the Defence counsel

21 should be looking into that so that should the Trial Chamber decide that

22 we will narrow down the issues -- the contentious matters, then the

23 Defence will be ready with that.

24 So we'll adjourn until tomorrow at 14.15 hours.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

1 at 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

2 the 2nd day of May, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25