1 Wednesday, 3 July 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

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

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo

9 Zaric. Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: This morning Judge Williams is unable to proceed

11 with us due to urgent personal reasons, but we shall continue the

12 proceedings, because we consider it to be in the interests of justice to

13 do so, under the provisions of Rule 15 bis.

14 Ms. Reidy, you can continue.

15 MS. REIDY: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours.

16 WITNESS: JELENA KAPETANOVIC [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Re-examined by Ms. Reidy: [Continued]

19 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, I just have a few more questions for you about

20 things put to you by Defence counsel. You were asked about the incident

21 with a former neighbour of yours, Vera Avdic, and the stove that you saw

22 her unloading from her tractor, and you explained how that linked into

23 your experience when you had to loot houses. Did you loot houses or loot

24 property from Croat and Muslim houses?

25 A. Yes, precisely from Muslim and Croat houses.

1 Q. And you were instructed to remove the property from those houses,

2 did anybody tell you that they were being removed from the houses so that

3 they could be returned to their rightful owners?

4 A. No. We were not told that, but just to leave the items along the

5 road, in an orderly manner.

6 Q. You were asked also a question about the time that the ICRC

7 visited Zasavica, and you were asked about whether or not you addressed

8 Mr. Simo Krunic, who was there. Did you also address the ICRC delegates

9 in English directly yourself?

10 A. I addressed them in English.

11 Q. So as well as speaking to Simo Krunic in B/C/S, you spoke -- or

12 you communicated to the ICRC delegates directly in English?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You were also asked about an obligation to participate in

15 harvesting, which you -- this was asked you by counsel for Blagoje Simic.

16 For this work obligation to harvest, did you receive any form of payment

17 whatsoever for carrying out those tasks?

18 A. I never received anything.

19 Q. When you performed the harvesting, were you exclusively with other

20 persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity or did you also conduct this

21 harvesting with members of the Serb ethnicity?

22 A. Among women, I was the only Catholic, and the others were Muslim.

23 And amongst men, there were Muslims and Catholics. I've never seen Serbs

24 working.

25 Q. And when you conducted this harvesting, were you supervised by

1 armed guards in military or police uniform?

2 A. In military and police uniforms, the armed guards were always

3 along with us.

4 Q. And finally, just two or three questions on more issues raised by

5 counsel for Blagoje Simic. Are you or have you, at any time, ever been or

6 been asked to be an agent for the Croatian government?

7 A. No, never, neither in the past nor during my freedom, when I

8 gained my freedom, after the exchange, nor today. I don't know what it

9 means to be an agent.

10 Q. After you were exchanged, Mrs. Kapetanovic, did you try to make

11 money by weaving baskets?

12 A. Yes. That was the only way to earn money, in order to pay my way

13 to Zagreb, in order to go for my check-ups. It was the first time that I

14 began doing this. My fingers were all bleeding, and I was helped at the

15 time by my then boyfriend, whenever he was free.

16 Q. Thank you. So you didn't go into the pay of the Croatian

17 government, then, I take it.

18 A. No. Otherwise I wouldn't allow myself to do such work.

19 Q. The information which women were able to bring back to all of you

20 persons isolated in Crkvina, was this kind of gossipy information about

21 what they witnesses in their villages, in their houses, when they went

22 back to collect food?

23 A. The information related exclusively towards -- exclusively to the

24 fact whether their houses had already been looted or had they been burned.

25 So this information related to their homes.

1 Q. Thank you. And the information that you conveyed to the people on

2 the other side when you were exchanged, was this a normal procedure? You

3 said talking to people who were responsible for civilian authorities about

4 how you had been treated whilst you were in Bosanski Samac and what your

5 personal experience was.

6 A. Precisely a normal procedure which applied to us who had been

7 prisoners.

8 Q. Finally, Mrs. Kapetanovic, I take it that Pegi was your only pet,

9 was she? You didn't have any carrier pigeons or any other mode of

10 communicating with the Croatian authorities?

11 A. I had two parrots, who died two days after I had been arrested.

12 Q. Were the parrots used for communicating any information to the

13 Croatian authorities?

14 A. Regrettably, these parrots didn't talk yet.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MS. REIDY: That's the end of my cross-examination --

17 re-examination.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Mrs. Kapetanovic, for giving

19 evidence to the Tribunal. You are now released. You can go.

20 [The witness withdrew]

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yesterday after the proceedings the Trial Chamber

22 was informed by the Registry that -- by Mr. Christian Rohde from the

23 Registry that Mr. Sredoje Novic should be given audience before the Trial

24 Chamber because he has been accepted by the Registry, although he's a

25 legal assistant, to replace Mr. Vukovic, the co-counsel. So Mr. Pantelic,

1 Mr. Novic can have audience whenever it suits you.

2 MR. PANTELIC: I'm grateful, Your Honour, for this information,

3 and I think that Mr. Novic will take part in some of the cross-examination

4 coming.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That will be fine.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: The other matter the Trial Chamber wanted to give

8 its ruling on the documents that were discussed on Friday, D25/4,

9 attachment number 1, copy number 2, and attachment number 2, copy number

10 2, and attachment number 3 of this document will not be admitted into

11 evidence. The Defence can discuss them further if they so wish during the

12 Defence case. Although they are attached to D25/4, the three attachments

13 have separate topics and can be severed from the rest of the document

14 which forms D25/4.

15 D26/4, with its counterpart in terms of B/C/S, this document is

16 also admitted into evidence. The weight to be attached will be considered

17 with the totality of the evidence at the conclusion of the trial.

18 D42/1 with its counterpart will still remained as identified. It

19 will not be admitted into evidence.

20 The next witness?

21 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. The next witness is ready, but I

22 need some guidance on the Trial Chamber as to whether or not the written

23 statement of this witness, which was accompanied by a declaration pursuant

24 to Rule 92 bis subsection B is to be admitted in part -- is to be admitted

25 into evidence as part of this testimony, as that would obviously dictate

1 how I would examine in chief this witness.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Has it been filed?

3 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, when you say "filed," my understanding

4 from last Thursday's discussion, or Friday's discussion, was that I would

5 file it through the Senior Legal Officer, and I did. By filing it,

6 meaning through Senior Legal officer so that the Judges would have their

7 copies and it was so done. A written motion didn't accompany it because I

8 understood Your Honours to say that that was not necessary and there would

9 simply be a ruling on Tuesday. I did have a draft motion to file --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Later on the matter was discussed by the Trial

11 Chamber with the Legal Officer, and instructions were given that the

12 statement should be actually filed. Because the statement we have, which

13 was given to us does not have the declaration attached to it.

14 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I handed up the statement with the

15 declaration attached, which is in B/C/S, and the English translation with

16 it. The 92 bis version has, in the bottom right-hand corner, the stamp --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. The B/C/S version has the declaration.

18 MS. REIDY: That's correct. That's one that the witness has read

19 and signed.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. Okay.

21 MS. REIDY: And the English version is obviously provided for the

22 purposes of the official language.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. I just want to hear from the Defence.

24 They had the statement served on them.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I can confirm that we have the -- yes,

1 on behalf of all Defence team, I can confirm that we were provided with

2 the B/C/S version of the statement, witness statement, in accordance with

3 the Rule 92 bis, as well as the English version.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. PANTELIC: That is identified. But, Your Honour, for the sake

6 of clarity, I would like to draw the attention of this Trial Chamber, and

7 also maybe we could have some clarification from the -- our learned

8 friends from the Prosecution, since we are entering into the, I would say,

9 a new area in this trial proceedings with the --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. PANTELIC: -- Rule 92 bis, and I kindly ask you to forgive me

12 if I will give certain comments which might be very useful. I mean,

13 instructions from this Trial Chamber for the coming proceedings. In fact,

14 Your Honour, I would like to draw the attention of this Trial Chamber, and

15 also ask for some clarification from my friends, with certain method how

16 we should proceed with this kind of documents.

17 Point number 1, Your Honour: We are in possession, we, Defence,

18 are in possession of two B/C/S versions of this statement, signed by

19 witness Mr. Jasarevic Osman. These two versions are slightly different

20 because one version, B/C/S version, has internal numbers on the upper

21 right-hand side; the other version, although signed, hasn't this kind of

22 ERN numbers. So that's first difference, and I would like to hear from

23 the Prosecution which, in fact, version it will be introduced during the

24 examination-in-chief, also in the cross-examination.

25 Another matter which I think it's --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you leave that topic, the two versions, are

2 they dated the same date?

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, the same date, and they both signed by same

4 witness.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe we can clarify this point first.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

8 MS. REIDY: Yes. I am guessing at what Mr. Pantelic is referring

9 to, but my guess is that what he's talking about is that the minute the

10 statement was signed in B/C/S, it was copied and disclosed to Defence. We

11 then entered it into our evidence vault, at which stage it gets assigned

12 an ERN number. That is a numbering with which the Bench will be familiar.

13 All it is is a stamp put in the right-hand corner so that internally we

14 can retrieve that document, et cetera, from the system. I believe my case

15 manager, out of a matter of protocol and thoroughness, also gave a copy

16 later to the Defence also with a document with the ERN number in the

17 corner so they know what the ERN number is. There is no difference

18 whatsoever between the actual statements that Mr. --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's one and the same document except that the

20 other one has ERN numbers.

21 MS. REIDY: Exactly. And whichever version the Court would like

22 to take into evidence is a matter for the Bench. We have both available.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's much easier to deal with the one with

24 ERN numbers, because then you can discuss the pages clearly.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. It is very important, and

1 it will be very, very important for us to make this reference. And my

2 understanding as well is that these two versions are completely same.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. As I said, so we take that these

6 two signed B/C/S versions, one with ERN number, the other without ERN

7 number are practically the same. So that's our conclusion and our

8 understanding.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But for purposes of the trial, we shall use

10 the copy with ERN numbers, because it's much easier to identify it.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

12 Point number 2, Your Honour: Probably the Bench is in possession

13 of B/C/S version and English version of Mr. Jasarevic Osman.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Would you be so kind, Your Honour, to just

16 take a short look on, for example, page 1 B/C/S version, which is the last

17 three digits are 510. This is actually the -- in B/C/S version. On the

18 upper right-hand corner, in B/C/S version -- well, it means in English

19 probably "draft translation." I think that maybe it's an omission or it's

20 a kind of typing error, or I don't know to which category I will assign

21 this two words. But since we've been yesterday in quite a situation which

22 was not so clear with regard to the version English and B/C/S version, now

23 I would like to clarify that prior to beginning of the testimony of this

24 witness, from the Prosecution, to see whether it is draft translation or

25 it is official translation or which version we have in B/C/S language.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Because I take this -- this particular B/C/S

3 version is signed by the witness, but nevertheless, there is a note there

4 that it's a draft translation in B/C/S. And then, for example, Your

5 Honour, if I'm going to cross-examine this witness, I will make reference,

6 of course, to his native tongue, and then my learned friend will say,

7 "Well, we don't have that in English version," and so on and so forth.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

9 MR. PANTELIC: So in order to avoid and to spare our precious

10 time, Your Honour, I would like to clarify that now with my learned friend

11 from Prosecution. And thank you very much --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

13 MR. PANTELIC: -- for your attention.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: So these words which mean draft translation are on

15 the statement with the ERN numbers, the one we're going to use.

16 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: The one we intend to use. All right.

18 Explanation from the Prosecution?

19 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honours. The reason that there is a draft

20 translation in the corner is because this was originally a draft

21 translation before the witness had an opportunity to have a look at it.

22 It's been translated by an authorised translator from the witness unit.

23 It did not come back from the revision process before the witness was here

24 to sign the 92 bis procedure. However, the witness has read the

25 statement, read through it carefully, and signed it. We are happy to go

1 with this version. I do not believe that there are any differences

2 between the English version --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Is it the position of the Prosecution

4 that these words meaning draft translation should actually -- should have

5 been removed?

6 MS. REIDY: I think they should have been removed after the

7 witness had read the statement.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So that the position of the Prosecution is that the

9 statement with the ERN numbers in Serbo-Croat is the official translation.

10 MS. REIDY: Absolutely.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

12 MS. REIDY: It's the official statement of the witness and what's

13 in there he signed and read, and let's see if he stands by what's in

14 there. I would also just for the record, since my learned friend brought

15 it up, advise the Bench that I've shown to my learned colleague the

16 revived version of yesterday's statement that was in dispute. It does

17 contain the missing words about his client. So the revision process, in

18 the Translation Unit, clearly picked up that oversight in the draft.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: And that was accepted by Mr. Pantelic yesterday,

20 that the English version actually was all right, and I can see him

21 agreeing that it was a mistake to omit the sentence.

22 So we shall treat this statement as filed --

23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I'm not so --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Just wait, and we ask the Prosecution that they

25 should get it filed.

1 MS. REIDY: Do you wish me to file it now by way of oral motion?

2 That's what I understood that the Senior Legal Officer said that we could

3 do to file it. Or would you wish me after our session this morning to --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No. We take it that the discussions do indicate

5 that the oral motion is on and then we grant it and just have it filed

6 today. Because we're going to start using it.

7 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, Your Honour. Maybe I'm not interpret

9 your words correctly. I agreed that it was a mistake to omit the sentence

10 in B/C/S version, but --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: You are referring to yesterday's cross-examination?

12 MR. PANTELIC: To yesterday's cross-examination.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

14 MR. PANTELIC: But I don't know who is in fact responsible for the

15 discrepancies between B/C/S version and the English version. So I can

16 confirm that after the analysis I found these discrepancies, and my idea

17 was to clarify that with the witness. But if you think that, with your

18 words, that I made a mistake, I respectfully disagree, Your Honour, that

19 it was a mistake from my side.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, but Ms. Reidy has explained that the Translation

21 Unit has agreed that they omitted the statement from the B/C/S version.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. That was my understanding. Thank you,

23 Your Honour. Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I've just said that the statement will be

25 treated as filed.

1 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, then may I hand you the ERN copy that so

2 we'll all working off the same --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It is important that we are all looking at the

4 same copy of the document.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since we still have the

8 time to deal with the general topics relating to statement under Rule 92

9 bis, I would like to go back to what I said on Friday, and regarding the

10 next two witnesses, Mrs. Ediba Bobic and her husband Kemal Bobic, we only

11 have draft versions of their statements, which have not been signed yet,

12 and we said that once this statement has been given to the witness to

13 authenticate and there are no significant differences, then that's fine.

14 But if we only receive that on the day when we're supposed to

15 cross-examine, then I think that our rights will be significantly

16 affected, and we think that our clients need to be given draft versions in

17 B/C/S in a timely manner. So we have not received any of the witnesses --

18 any of the statements under Rule 92 bis for any of the upcoming witnesses.

19 My colleague Pantelic now just suggested to me, as a technical aid that

20 would assist us in dealing with this in a more efficient manner, is to

21 have the Prosecution mark to us any changes, any modifications that have

22 been made, so that we can go through these statements in a quicker way.

23 But we still insist that these statements need to be delivered to us at

24 least several days before the witnesses are due to be examined.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, what is the explanation from the

1 Prosecution?

2 MS. REIDY: Your Honour --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: First of all, on the drafts that -- for the other

4 witnesses' statements that have been given to the Defence.

5 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I have to express some surprise and a bit

6 of frustration about this. It's very clear that the reason that the

7 Defence counsel do not have signed statements of the witnesses is that the

8 witnesses have not yet arrived in The Hague and they have not been

9 therefore available to go through the Rule 92 bis procedure. This was

10 always going to be the case with the witnesses. I've had numerous

11 discussions with Defence counsel about this, showing them calendars, which

12 of course, because of the length of witnesses, have changed, explaining to

13 them that witnesses would arrive, would sign their statements, would be

14 disclosed to them, and hopefully they would have 48 hours in which to, you

15 know, reread the signed statement. It was agreed that draft statements

16 would be disclosed as soon as possible so that they had ample time to look

17 through them, see any differences from the original statements that were

18 given in 1995, et cetera. So the reason that the statements of the Bobics

19 or of Witness A have not -- the signed versions have not been given to

20 Defence counsel is because the witnesses have not yet arrived in The Hague

21 to do so, and maybe at this juncture I should advise the Chamber that the

22 first witness to arrive in The Hague will be Witness A, because the two

23 Bobics have experienced the visa problem that I alerted the Court to,

24 because their passports were issued before the 21st of June, 2001, I

25 believe, and that puts them in a different category.

1 So the Witness A will arrive on Friday. He will go through the 92

2 bis procedure. That will be disclosed to the Defence on the same day.

3 They will have at least the weekend then to -- and obviously to file it on

4 that day and they will have the weekend to compare that to their already

5 disclosed, unsigned draft statement.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But can the Trial Chamber be assured that the

7 drafts which are given to the Defence as soon as they are available will

8 not differ from the signed statements? Because this is where the problem

9 is, because it will undermine the rights of the accused in relying on that

10 draft statement and giving instructions to the Defence counsel based on

11 those draft statements. If the changes occur, then that will mean they

12 haven't had sufficient time due to them.

13 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. I can't undertake such a

14 guarantee that they won't change, because that's up to the witness when

15 they come and reread it. But I can tell you that the effort -- every

16 effort is made when these statements are taken, however difficult the

17 circumstances, and with the interpreter, to make sure that it is an

18 accurate reflection of what the witness has said. I do not believe that

19 there has been any significant change in that of -- in the statement of

20 Mr. Osman Jasarevic, who is due to testify. There was one change

21 concerning the presence or not indeed of a -- or a conversation that took

22 place with one of the defendants. In fact, it wasn't one of the

23 defendants. It was a defendant's associate. But the changes tend to be

24 minor and modalities of expression. Should there be a material change,

25 that would of course be notified to the Defence and to the Bench, and we

1 would not -- we would then -- the Bench said they would rule on a case by

2 case basis as to whether or not it was more appropriate therefore to

3 continue viva voce.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

5 MS. REIDY: I have also got instructions from the Senior Legal

6 Officer that with the motions we should try to indicate if there have been

7 any changes between the draft and the signed statement and that will

8 certainly be undertaken and we can make references to paragraphs where

9 there are changes --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Of the witnesses.

11 MS. REIDY: -- that the witness desires. Thank you.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: So the procedure will be once the witness comes and

13 the particulars are taken and then the application will be made for the

14 statement to be admitted or whatever the Prosecution wish to do with their

15 statement. So can we have the witness brought into the courtroom.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can the witness make the solemn declaration?

18 WITNESS: OSMAN JASAREVIC

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I solemnly declare

21 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.

23 Yes, the Prosecution.

24 MS. REIDY: Thank you. Could I ask the registrar to produce to

25 the witness the signed statement recently filed, bearing the ERN number

1 01369509 through to 01369541.

2 Examined by Ms. Reidy:

3 Q. Sir, is your -- could you state your name and date of birth for

4 the record.

5 A. My name is Osman Jasarevic. I was born on the 17th of November,

6 1950, in Bosanski Samac.

7 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Jasarevic, you'll see in front of you a

8 document. Could I ask you to have a look at that document briefly and to

9 see whether or not you identify it as your statement and a statement that

10 you recently signed here in The Hague.

11 A. Yes, it is the document that I signed.

12 Q. Thank you very much.

13 MS. REIDY: Could I ask that the document be given an exhibit or

14 identification number at this stage so that it's clear for the record, any

15 references made to it.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, we don't have any objection. It can

18 be admitted as the full exhibit.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.

20 Can we have the number, please.

21 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P129 and P129 ter, Your Honours. Thank

22 you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

24 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

25 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you were born and brought up in Bosanski Samac from

1 a family who had been established quite a long time in Bosanski Samac; is

2 that correct?

3 A. Yes. My family, my father, my mother, my ancestors were all born

4 in Bosanski Samac. My family was among the first to inhabit that area

5 that is now known as Bosanski Samac.

6 Q. Thank you. And you lived there with your family, including two

7 sons, in 1992; that's correct, is it?

8 A. That's correct. I had two sons. The older one, Ahmet, was born

9 on the 27th of August, 1977, and the younger one, Moamer, was born on the

10 29th of May, 1980, in Bosanski Samac.

11 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, for the record, your eldest son, Ahmet, was he born

12 on the 20th or the 27th of August? Because I think your statement you

13 said it was the 20th.

14 A. Yes, it is the 20th. I made a mistake.

15 Q. That's no problem. I just wanted to get that clear for the

16 record. Thank you.

17 I'm going to ask you about some people --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, I was just wondering, because all this

19 information you're asking the witness is in the statement.

20 MS. REIDY: I appreciate that, Your Honour, and I apologise. This

21 is the first time that I have a witness under this procedure, and my

22 understanding was that we would have a limited examination-in-chief just

23 to establish a little bit about the witness and the oral evidence about

24 acts which would go to the acts and conduct of the defendants, including,

25 of course, any mental elements of the crimes of which they're charged.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's only in a part, I think, where oral

2 evidence can be given.

3 MS. REIDY: And of course any documents we wish to put to the

4 witness.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MS. REIDY: Now, having established that, Your Honour, I'm just

7 going to proceed to ask the witness if he's familiar with the defendants.

8 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I need to ask you about some people, to see if you

9 know them. I need to ask you about Mr. Blagoje Simic. Did you know

10 Mr. Blagoje Simic, who used to live in Bosanski Samac in 1992?

11 A. I know him, Dr. Blagoje Simic.

12 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us whether you see him in this court

13 today, and if so, could you describe for the record where he's sitting.

14 A. He's sitting in the middle, between Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MS. REIDY: I think the record can reflect that Mr. Blagoje Simic

17 has been identified.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 MS. REIDY:

20 Q. I take it, then, from your answer, that you're also familiar with

21 both the personalities of -- or both the persons of Simo Zaric and

22 Miroslav Tadic.

23 A. Yes, I do know them.

24 Q. And did you know them in 1992, in April 1992, when you were living

25 in Bosanski Samac?

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. Now, you've said that Mr. Blagoje Simic was sitting between the to

3 men. Could, for the record, you tell us which of them is sitting on which

4 side of Mr. Blagoje Simic. Just make it clear for us who is who.

5 A. Miroslav Tadic is sitting to the right of Blagoje -- or rather, to

6 the left of Blagoje, looking from here.

7 Q. So from -- to your right, but on Blagoje Simic's left; is that

8 correct?

9 A. That's right. That's right.

10 Q. And then Simo Zaric is the third gentleman to the right of

11 Mr. Simic?

12 A. Yes, that's right.

13 MS. REIDY: I think the record can reflect that the defendants

14 have been identified.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MS. REIDY:

17 Q. I first want to ask you some details about Mr. Miroslav Tadic.

18 Are you familiar with -- that he was -- of a cafe that he was the owner in

19 Bosanski Samac in April 1992?

20 A. Yes, I am familiar with that cafe, and I know that he was an owner

21 of the Cafe AS, Miroslav Tadic, I mean.

22 Q. In the time period of 1991 and 1992, did you have much occasion to

23 go past or indeed visit Cafe AS?

24 A. I never entered the cafe, but I passed by the Cafe AS daily,

25 because that was on my way to work. I would go to work in the morning and

1 go back home in the afternoon and pass by the Cafe AS.

2 Q. And when you used to pass by the cafe, did you notice anything

3 about the clientele who used to go there, whether or not they were members

4 of the military or any particular group?

5 A. There was a gambling place there too, so a lot of gamblers would

6 normally frequent that place, and all members of the 4th Detachment, as

7 well as members of some special forces that were in Bosanski Samac.

8 Q. Thank you. These special forces you mentioned in your answer,

9 what do you mean by "special forces" exactly? Could you explain to the

10 Chamber?

11 A. Well, those were special forces that came when Samac was attacked.

12 Q. Were they from locally or were these -- when you say that they

13 came when Samac was attacked, were these forces from Serbia?

14 A. They came from Serbia. They were not locals.

15 Q. And you witnessed these people in and around Cafe AS prior to the

16 takeover of Bosanski Samac?

17 A. Yes, in front of Cafe AS, in front of the cafe. I would normally

18 see almost all members of the 4th Detachment, Simo Zaric, Fadil Topcagic,

19 Djuric Avdo, Tota Ramusovic Nizam, Tota, these are the people that I would

20 normally see there.

21 Q. Now, you've mentioned this 4th Detachment a number of times. Do

22 you know whether the defendant Simo Zaric had any particular connection

23 with the 4th Detachment?

24 A. He founded the 4th Detachment, and he was the main person in the

25 4th Detachment.

1 Q. And on what basis would you say that he founded the 4th

2 Detachment? What was your reason for reaching that conclusion?

3 A. Well, he was the only one who had some links to the State Security

4 Service. He had retired from the State Security Service and he had

5 contact with the Brcko garrison, with Stevan Nikolic, Kriger, who was in

6 charge of that area. So he was a go-between between the army and the 4th

7 Detachment.

8 Q. Did you ever see Simo Zaric making public statements on behalf of

9 the 4th Detachment or conduct any public activity on behalf of the 4th

10 Detachment?

11 A. There were several public gatherings, rallies in Samac, in the

12 cinema, in a square downtown, at which Simo Zaric held speeches, as well

13 as others who volunteered to give speeches. Simo Zaric explained that the

14 4th Detachment was there to defend Samac. He said that his 4th Detachment

15 was there to defend Samac from the army and from the enemy. However, the

16 4th Detachment was the one that opened the door for those Serbian

17 paramilitaries and the army to enter Samac.

18 Q. Thank you. We know from your statement that you performed your

19 JNA military service. Did Simo Zaric ever approach you to join this

20 detachment simply for the defence of the town?

21 A. Before the war, nobody approached me about joining the 4th

22 Detachment. After completing my military service, during which I served

23 in the navy for two years, I was a member of the reserve police force.

24 Simo Zaric, at the time, frequently held lectures for the reserve police

25 forces about enemy from outside and the traitors, and later on this came

1 to pass in Bosanski Samac.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness identify the time?

3 MS. REIDY: Certainly.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Can he identify the time when these things were

5 happening, as he has alleged in his answer?

6 MS. REIDY:

7 Q. Mr. Jasarevic --

8 A. The last open gathering before the fall of Samac was seven days

9 before Samac fell.

10 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, this is this open gathering now, you're talking

11 about the public gatherings which Mr. Simo Zaric spoke at and talked about

12 the 4th Detachment; is that right?

13 A. Yes, that's right. I'm talking about these gatherings.

14 Q. And during which period of time did you receive lectures from Simo

15 Zaric about threats and external enemies and traitors?

16 A. That was before, before any conflict, in peacetime, when these

17 lectures were mandatory for the reserve police force, to which I belonged.

18 I was a member of the reserve police force. And I think that a month or

19 two before the events I was removed from the reserve police force.

20 Q. Thank you. Could you just explain to us the grounds on which you

21 were removed, or were you given any reasons as to why you were removed?

22 A. They said that it was due to my age.

23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, do you recall an incident you've

24 mentioned in your statement where two boys of Muslim ethnicity were killed

25 in Cafe Valentino?

1 A. Yes. I was in the vicinity of that spot because my wife worked in

2 a shop in that part of the town. I was waiting for her. I heard a

3 detonation, and all of a sudden a panic ensued. Young men fled from the

4 cafe. They broke the window of the supermarket. And it was a state of

5 general panic. I didn't know what was going on. Later on I learnt that

6 at the time two young men had been killed, Bobic and Hadzialijagic,

7 Mensur. Both of them were Muslims from Bosanski Samac.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. After that --

10 Q. You can proceed. That's what I was going to ask you. Were you

11 present then at a spontaneous gathering in front of the SUP building?

12 A. Yes, I was.

13 Q. If you could perhaps -- thank you.

14 A. As I wanted to tell you, the owner of the cafe, Prole, told me

15 that it wasn't the first time that the patrons were playing with the hand

16 grenade and that they had deliberately activated the hand grenade and it

17 wasn't a case of somebody throwing a bomb into the cafe.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, and my learned friend from

20 Prosecution, I do apologise for interrupting the proceedings. It is not

21 objection to this particular issue which my learned friend is pursuing.

22 It's rather the understanding of the Defence when we started with the 92

23 bis procedure, our understanding was to expedite proceedings, to cut

24 certain time, et cetera, et cetera.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Agreed, yes.

1 MR. PANTELIC: In that light, we, as Defence, we think that we

2 have all details in this particular witness statement here. Given the

3 fact the other experience, in the other proceedings, where, in order to

4 familiarise this witness with the proceedings, you know, obviously they

5 have certain -- it's normal, new environment, et cetera, not more than 10

6 or 15 minutes to short explain what is in the statement and then we are

7 going to cross-examine the witness. Otherwise, Your Honour, I really --

8 and my colleagues agree with me, we really don't see any sense with 92 bis

9 statement. And then why -- what we have? A kind of combination viva voce

10 and 92 bis standards? Or maybe --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Agreed.

12 MR. PANTELIC: -- you can give us more detailed instructions in

13 that regard.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Because you know, Your Honour, to speak about the

16 atmosphere, with all due respect, family background of this witness, and

17 the other witnesses, atmosphere in Samac, accident in Cafe Valentino, not

18 to -- not to mention the terrible events against --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I think your point has been

20 taken.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy.

23 MS. REIDY: May I respond, Your Honour?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MS. REIDY: Rule 92 bis clearly states that - and the Appeals

1 Chamber has made this clear as well - that evidence under Rule 92 bis can

2 be given in part written and in part oral.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

4 MS. REIDY: It also clearly states that where there are aspects of

5 evidence which go to the acts and conduct of the accused, including

6 aspects -- material aspects of the Prosecution case and aspects of the

7 mental state of any of the defendants, including, obviously, knowledge of

8 things, that that also is not something purely for written format under 92

9 bis. Having the statement in front of us will expedite the matter. It

10 will help with a lot of the background information which normally

11 witnesses provide to the Bench. But with respect, I feel that the

12 Prosecution must be allowed to lead viva voce evidence on incidents where

13 the defendants are directly involved. In this incident, as it's clear

14 from the statement, this incident was followed by a confrontation

15 between -- I wouldn't say confrontation. That's a misclarification, but

16 meet at a situation -- encounter. Thank you. An encounter between this

17 witness and one of the defendants and indeed the witness has evidence that

18 this encounter was later brought up when he was detained and interrogated.

19 Now, to ask one question about whether he remembers the incident which

20 gave rise to this encounter is not abusing Rule 92 bis. We are, as I

21 said -- witnesses have taken up to three days here, three, four days

22 longer before this Chamber. We hope 92 bis, it can be done maybe in a

23 day. I don't know how long the Defence intend to cross. But I don't

24 think that anything I've done so far, albeit it's a completely new way of

25 proceeding with the witness, breaches the spirit of Rule 92 bis rule.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the problem is outlining what amounts

2 to activities of the accused in this case, and that is left to the

3 Prosecution. As far as the Trial Chamber is concerned, the statement --

4 it's part of the evidence of the witness, the activities of the accused

5 and other matters accepted under Rule 92 bis have to be given orally, but

6 as much as possible briefly, because the witness is here for

7 cross-examination. And if the incident being discussed somehow has

8 already been stated in the statement, it should be discussed orally as

9 briefly as possible. Actually, indicating how it connects with the

10 activities of the accused as charged in the indictment.

11 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. That is what I will

12 endeavour to do, and had Mr. Pantelic not interrupted, he would have seen

13 it's clearly, clearly linked to the incident, the encounter where the

14 witness meets Mr. Zaric. It's all contained within one paragraph,

15 paragraph 25 of the statement, which Mr. Pantelic has had for many weeks

16 now, and it's clear the linkage was there. So I think perhaps the

17 intervention of Mr. Pantelic was somewhat premature.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I think he was right to intervene, because he

19 wanted clarification which areas should be viva voce, which may be

20 contained in the statement, but whose details have to be given viva voce

21 because of the exceptions of Rule 92 bis. So his intervention was quite

22 proper.

23 MS. REIDY: Well then for the benefit of Mr. Pantelic, it's

24 paragraph 25 of the statement, and the link with the defendant is there.

25 So perhaps that should indicate to him why it would fall under the

1 exception of Rule 92 bis.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps that will help us, if you indicate the

3 paragraph to which the viva voce evidence is alluding to.

4 MS. REIDY:

5 Q. Mr. Jasarevic --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a suggestion. We

8 are all now first progressing in this manner. I think it would be very

9 useful if the Honours set a limit also for us when cross-examination, and

10 setting us a time limit, so that we could all focus on individual issues.

11 This, I believe, would be good for us and also for the Prosecution. So

12 this is how I understood also the initial instructions of the Bench, and I

13 think that would be useful indeed for all of us.

14 MS. REIDY: Your Honour --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I do agree partially with the intervention of

16 Mr. Lukic as to timing each party as to how much time they will take, but

17 I do understand that the Prosecution may need, according to the way they

18 understand their case, enough time to go through the activities of the

19 accused and the matters excepted in Rule 92 bis.

20 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. And also, from the

21 Prosecution's position is that, you know, we would oppose any strict

22 limitation of time. We are going to endeavour to get through this as fast

23 as possible and stick to the spirit of Rule 92 bis. However, many of the

24 times the witnesses have taken a long time it's because of Defence counsel

25 cross-examining for much longer than they said they would, et cetera. We

1 don't know, with objection, et cetera, how long it might take.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let's proceed and see how we fare.

3 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

4 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, if you can remember where you left off after this

5 procedural discussion. You had talked about being in the vicinity where

6 two young men had been killed, Mr. Bobic and Mr. Hadzialijagic. Can I

7 just ask you: After you had realised this incident occurred, did you

8 proceed to the front of the SUP building, where people had gathered?

9 A. Yes. I went towards the SUP building because I already saw that a

10 bigger group was gathering there.

11 Q. And when you were in front of the SUP building, did you meet one

12 of the defendants there?

13 A. Yes. There were people shouting, mainly members of the 4th

14 Detachment, and Fadil Topcagic, Ramusovic, Nizam Tota, Dzuheric Avdo, Simo

15 Zaric, Mihajlo Topolovac, Radovan Antic, all of them were members of the

16 4th Detachment and all of them were shouting that a blue Lada vehicle, it

17 was from there that this hand grenade was thrown, and a blue Lada would

18 imply the Brcko licence plate, and therefore there was the policeman. The

19 policeman even broke some doors. At a certain point, Simo Zaric said a

20 commander of the city should be appointed. And as I knew what really

21 happened, I told Simo -- I told him, "You would all like to be commanders

22 of the city." And that was what was thrown back at me when I was

23 interrogated by Milos Savic after I was being arrested.

24 Q. Thank you. You said here that a blue Lada would imply the Brcko

25 licence plate. That's at least what's recorded in the statement. Do you

1 mean that the blue Lada had a Brcko licence plate and that would imply

2 something about the driver of the Lada?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What would a Brcko licence plate --

5 A. A driver -- because a Brcko licence plate belonged mainly to

6 Croatian villages towards Orasje, so it would have to be a Croat, and that

7 is why it was presented, as if the Croats launched this hand grenade,

8 place the blame squarely on them and to create havoc. And I recognised

9 this, these special forms of war, intimidation, unrest, and that was

10 something also that Simo Zaric lectured about when I was still in the

11 reserve police force.

12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, excuse me. Just for the record,

13 from the question that my learned colleague Ms. Reidy asked. The question

14 was: "Do you mean that the blue Lada had a Brcko licence plate?" It

15 could suggest that this witness actually saw a certain blue Lada with

16 Brcko registration plates, and he never actually said that, so maybe she

17 clarify that.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

19 Ms. Reidy, you heard Mr. Lazarevic's intervention.

20 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour.

21 Q. Could you clarify for us, Mr. Jasarevic: Did you see a blue Lada

22 with a --

23 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Excuse me, Ms. Reidy, but isn't that quite clear

24 from paragraph 26, who said and who indicated what? It was Simo Zaric.

25 MS. REIDY: I think so, Your Honour. That's my reading of it.

1 But I've been asked to clarify by Defence counsel and the Bench.

2 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, perhaps you could just turn your statement to

3 paragraph 26. If you could find paragraph 26. Do you see paragraph 26?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you see a sentence in there that says: [As read] "He circulated

6 the story that a blue Lada with a Brcko licence plate, indicating that it

7 was therefore a Croat had thrown a bomb into the cafe"?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And is that what you meant? That's your position?

10 A. Precisely that is what I wanted to say. That's why I put it

11 down. Yes.

12 Q. Just to concentrate again on that paragraph, just to clear the

13 record: You said that you spoke with Simo Zaric and said that no one

14 threw a bomb. Did you also tell him that no one had thrown the bomb, as

15 well as telling him --

16 A. Yes. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 A. I clearly stated that nobody threw the bomb and that I spoke with

19 the owner of the cafe. And immediately after that, there was a formal

20 statement that nobody launched the grenade but that those persons

21 activated the hand grenade themselves.

22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, I'd like now to take you up to the

23 events of the 16th and 17th of April, and perhaps you could just turn to

24 your statement, paragraphs 31 and 32. In those paragraphs, you describe

25 taking your family out of Bosanski Samac on the evening of the 16th of

1 April and yourself returning to Bosanski Samac on that same night.

2 That's correct, is it?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. And you were at home by yourself in Bosanski Samac on the evening

5 from the 16th to the 17th of April?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. On the morning of the -- I ask you to look at paragraph 34 of your

8 statement, and I understand that on the morning of the 17th of April,

9 1992, you had left your house early.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... witness to certain movements

12 of people in Bosanski Samac that morning that you've described in your

13 statement; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. On the 17th of April, did you learn that Bosanski Samac had been

16 taken over by Serb forces?

17 A. On that night when the police station was taken over in Bosanski

18 Samac, I was at my apartment, at home. I heard the shooting and a few

19 detonations, and these were Zoljas, hand grenades; I didn't know at the

20 time. And in the morning I went to work. Usually I go to work very

21 early, 5.30 a.m. or even earlier. Then I passed along the health centre.

22 An ambulance was stopped there. A person was taken out. That was Ilija

23 Vuckovic, a Croat, who was killed; and his son, who was a reservist in the

24 police force, was wounded. And then I was looking, and somebody from the

25 darkness said, "Do you also want to be killed?" Then I turned around and

1 went home, and I stayed in my house up until 9.00 a.m.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic. Can I just stop you there? It is in

3 your statement that you then, about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, went out

4 again to find your family, and that is at paragraph 36. Could I just ask

5 you to look at your statement and see if that's correct? Paragraph 36.

6 A. As I couldn't contact by phone my brother and my mother, there

7 where they lived, around 9.00 a.m. I tried to reach them by foot, because

8 they lived close by the police station. That was two streets further

9 down. I went --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, all that is in the statement.

11 A. -- along the road --

12 MS. REIDY: I know. I was going to indicate to the witness that

13 it's in his statement, so I'll jump to it and bring him to another

14 paragraph.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please. Do it such that the witness is not led

16 to believe that he has it repeat what is in the statement.

17 MS. REIDY:

18 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you said the -- what you began to describe, is

19 that -- paragraph 36 of your statement, is that correct? I'd just ask you

20 to look at paragraph 36. And then throughout your statement, to paragraph

21 40, you discussed --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- your movements through the town of Bosanski Samac that

24 morning.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, I'd ask you to move on to paragraph 41 of your statement, and

2 you say that on Saturday, the 18th of April, members of the 4th

3 Detachment, working together with Serbian special forces, were looking for

4 weapons. Is that your statement?

5 A. Yes. Yes. They were -- the 4th Detachment and the special forces

6 of Serbia were looking for weapons. However, at that day, at that time, I

7 wasn't at home. I was with my neighbours, in view of the fact that I was

8 alone. And then Dragan Delic, who was living above me, said that they

9 came to the building and were searching for weapons. He was afraid that

10 some problems would arise. Therefore, I called the police and handed over

11 my weapons. I had a hunting rifle and a carbine. I had also the permits.

12 They took over the rifles and threw away the papers, there right on the

13 street.

14 Q. Thank you. After you had handed over those two rifles, did you

15 have any other weapons or anything else in your house that could cause you

16 to be --

17 A. I didn't have any other weapons except for those two hunting

18 rifles.

19 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I see counsel on his feet.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a clarification. In

22 the statement, it says that he handed over one rifle, and that's also in

23 the statement -- and Ms. Reidy asked whether he handed over two rifles.

24 And here in the statement we have one.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said a carbine rifle and a shotgun

1 rifle, and these are two rifle.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Proceed, Ms. Reidy.

3 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

4 Q. So -- yes. You said that you had no other weapons remaining in

5 your house after you had handed over the carbine and the hunting rifle.

6 A. No, nothing else.

7 Q. Notwithstanding you had handed in your rifles, did you receive

8 information from your brother that the 4th Detachment had still come to

9 his place looking for you?

10 A. Yes. They were looking for me, and they were looking for weapons

11 from my brother, who was also a hunter. And they also took all his

12 weapons.

13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, I understand that on the 20th of April,

14 1992, you were arrested. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The details of your arrest are before the Court in paragraph 47 of

17 your statement, and perhaps I could ask you to turn to that paragraph just

18 so we all find the same statement. Were you arrested by both members of

19 the special forces and a member of the 4th Detachment?

20 A. Yes. I was having lunch at my aunt's place, and I then had a nap.

21 They came, they called out my name. I reacted. I saw a person -- a red

22 beret. He wore also the insignia of the Serbian eagle and a cockade, and

23 a member of the 4th Detachment, Niksa Bjelic was with him, and they asked

24 me to come in for interrogation. I boarded their car. Later on I heard

25 that this Vuk -- man was Vuk, who hit me, Vukovic, who hit me in the face

1 with -- I was bleeding -- with my fist -- with his fist, and I was

2 bleeding, and that is the way in the shape I was in when they brought me

3 into the police station.

4 Q. At the time you were arrested, apart from being told that you were

5 to come for interrogation, were you given any explanation as to why they

6 were interrogating you, or did they explain to you any information about

7 why -- any suspicions that they had about your activity?

8 A. I received no explanation, just a fist in my head.

9 Q. And that fist came from this Mr. Vukovic; is that correct?

10 A. Yes. Later on I heard that his name was Aleksandar Vukovic who

11 hit me with his fist in my face. Later, when he was killed, Vuk's

12 foundation was set up in memory of this person. It was a foundation set

13 up by the Crisis Staff, Foundation Vuk. And later on, a village was named

14 Vukovo.

15 Q. Thank you. When you arrived upstairs, in your statement you

16 explained that you were taken upstairs to the SUP building, to a room

17 which looked onto the garages behind the SUP. Is that correct? And it's

18 at paragraph 53 of your statement.

19 A. Yes. Prior to that I was taken to see Stevan Todorovic. Some

20 special forces were there, with painted faces. They were beating me a

21 bit. Stiv kicked me with his leg. And then they took me to the other

22 part of the building, where the garages are. There they placed me at a

23 table. I thought that they would be interrogating us. On that table I

24 could see my hunter's knife, in which I also engraved my name. It is how

25 I understood that they had entered my apartment, because that knife was in

1 my hunter's jacket. The moment I sat down, Vuk hit me with a police baton

2 on my head, and instinctively I raised my hand. There were ten of them.

3 They all came -- closed in on me. One of them placed a pistol in my

4 mouth. The other ones -- another one fired a pistol.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

6 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. After all these months of our work

7 here, the Defence - I'm speaking on behalf of all my colleagues - were

8 never cross-examined any of the Prosecution witnesses with regard to the

9 details, beatings, and all other events in police station, and that is a

10 fact here.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MR. PANTELIC: We think that these people here are absolutely not

13 responsible for any of these, you know, crimes in SUP or with these

14 special forces, et cetera, et cetera. That's the line of our Defence.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MR. PANTELIC: So we have now here 92 bis statement. This witness

17 is going into the details about special forces, what did -- who did what,

18 and when, et cetera, et cetera. We think that it's absolutely useless for

19 these proceedings. We have all details here in the statement. We have

20 repetitive statements of previous witnesses, and now we have to move on to

21 substantial matters, Your Honour. Otherwise, I really don't see the

22 reason why we are using 92 bis and not viva voce. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Thank you very much. Now that

24 the Defence has stated what their case is, Ms. Reidy, it's much easier.

25 We can move on.

1 MS. REIDY: Thank you. But I'm very glad that that's the Defence

2 case. Of course, the Prosecution case is the opposite, that these people

3 worked together with the special forces. We've been trying to put

4 evidence to that effect, and it's our case that that's what happened.

5 It's clear in the indictment. Mr. Pantelic has still not conceded that

6 we've established the allegations and the charges, for example, 16

7 subparagraph B about the beatings. He's completely just said -- his

8 client has no responsibility. So while again we'll try to shorten it, we

9 do need to put on the record, or in evidence, incidents of people having

10 been beaten, as we allege in the indictment, and by people who we allege

11 were working together with the defendants.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 Mr. Pantelic.

14 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honour. This document here is the

15 admitted as the exhibit. We have a number of --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

17 MR. PANTELIC: My learned friend can, in closing arguments, in

18 whatever stage of proceedings, make relation exhibit -- with regard to the

19 exhibit that this paragraph is related for possible link, et cetera, et

20 cetera, kind of theory.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, these people are not right people to

23 be here. We have a special forces, we have a local criminals. They

24 should sit here, Your Honour, not these people with regard to these

25 beatings and all these tragic events. That's the position of Defence, and

1 all artificial relations that Prosecution try to make is false. Thank

2 you.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Mr. Pantelic. We shall take

4 our break and I hope that during the break the Prosecution will revise

5 their way of looking at the case against the defendants. We'll continue

6 our proceedings at 1100 hours.

7 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, may I? I will not revise my case with

8 respect to the defendants, but if I could approach the witness during the

9 break, I could perhaps speak with him about how I'm conducting the

10 examination and try to --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You can do that when we resume at 1100 hours.

12 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour. We object. We firmly object

13 to --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has already informed the

15 Prosecution, Mr. Pantelic. Let's have our break.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

17 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, in view of the submissions of the

19 Defence, and also having considered the fact that the witness is available

20 for cross-examination, the Trial Chamber has decided that for all the

21 matters that are already in the statement, you don't need to go over them,

22 even if they include the activities of the accused. Because the reason

23 for the exception here is it was contemplated that it was a situation

24 where the witness was not being presented for cross-examination.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: From the very start of this procedure, it was

3 contemplated that we would accommodate the Trial Chamber in taking the

4 statements in severing Ms. Reidy from the trial team and sending her down

5 to Bosnia on those weeks on end to get those statements, in the hope that

6 it would speed things up.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: We have been repeatedly assured by the Trial

9 Chamber, repeatedly assured by the Trial Chamber, that we would be

10 permitted to lead evidence where the evidence covers the direct activities

11 of the defendants, and furthermore, and I remember this so very

12 distinctly, so very clearly, saying to Your Honour - I believe maybe

13 Ms. Reidy may even have left on her mission on that occasion - that we

14 couldn't physically take down all the documents, and furthermore, that we

15 would not be able to proof the witnesses and include in their statements

16 material relating to the documents. And so having been assured by the

17 Trial Chamber that we would be permitted to lead evidence directly from

18 the witnesses of -- where it touches directly upon the activities and

19 actions of the defendants, and secondly, the documentation, the

20 Prosecution did its utmost to accommodate the wishes of the Trial Chamber,

21 notwithstanding that it was not obliged to. That has our understanding

22 for the last I can't recall, month and a half --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Since the matter was discussed, yes.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Since the matter was discussed.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: And of course it's a matter of serious and, let me

2 say, gravest concern to the Prosecution --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that these witnesses come into this Court, the

5 first thing they encounter, if that procedure is to be adopted, is Defence

6 counsel, the horrors that they have endured for months on end don't get an

7 airing except for on a piece of paper. And it's -- on the other hand, the

8 Prosecution is mindful, extremely mindful, of the need to get the case

9 moving, and so on, and because of that we have, as I have already said,

10 accommodated the Trial Chamber as much as we possibly could.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: It's therefore with very -- with alarm that I hear

13 that Your Honour says that we cannot lead evidence directly and simply

14 bring in a witness and have to answer questions from Mr. Pantelic and so

15 on. That will, A, have the effect of effectively gutting any ability of

16 the Prosecution to lead important points, emphasise important points. The

17 Trial Chamber will only ever see these witnesses when they're being

18 cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic, and so on, and the ability of the Trial

19 Chamber to form any meaningful assessment of the credibility of these

20 witnesses will be seriously, seriously undermined. And so I urge the

21 Chamber to reconsider any suggestion that we do not lead any evidence at

22 all in examination-in-chief.

23 The way things are going at the moment, it's, in my submission,

24 extremely likely that we will finish the Prosecution case by the end of

25 the month, by the end of July --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think, Mr. --

2 MR. DI FAZIO: I haven't finished, Mr. Pantelic, if you don't

3 mind.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Anything else you wish to say?

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I was about to say that we'll finish the

6 Prosecution case by the end of July, then we'll come to summer break, and

7 so on. And it's taken --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not the point. I think the point we have to

9 discuss is the manner in which these witnesses will be led --

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: -- by the Prosecution.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: And, of course, on that point we have no quarrel

15 and we will try to accommodate the Trial Chamber.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because what was envisaged by the Trial

17 Chamber is the part of the evidence which does not touch the activities of

18 the accused will be in the statement.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: In which case, the Prosecution would lead oral

21 evidence on the activities of the accused.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Now, it happens that the witness is available

24 for cross-examination, and this particular statement does also include

25 activities of the accused.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In part. Of course, I think it doesn't

3 discuss whatever documents you wanted to discuss with the witness.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, of course not. No.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That can be done. That will be allowed. The

6 only problem seems to be that having the statement with the activities of

7 the accused already in it, it seems to be a waste of time to go over them

8 unless there are particular issues that the Prosecution wishes to

9 highlight by discussing them orally with the witness.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Because -- yes.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: But the problem with that is that was not the

13 understanding of the Prosecution.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: The understanding of the Prosecution when we

16 embarked upon this 92 bis procedure was that we would be given freedom to

17 lead all the evidence where it directly touches upon the activities of the

18 accused and that the rest of the evidence, the background material and so

19 on, would not be led. Now, that effectively will speed up matters. Now,

20 I didn't realise that -- and I don't think my colleagues realised that

21 when we took these statements, that we -- that the activities of the --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Accused.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: -- direct activities of the accused, we couldn't

24 lead evidence on that, or that there would be some further limitation on

25 that segment of the statement.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. What I'm saying is this statement in

2 particular, the one that we have for the witness, it does include the

3 activities of the accused, doesn't it?

4 MR. DI FAZIO: It does.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. This appears to be the problem because

6 originally it was envisaged that these statements would not include that.

7 Now that they include that, there's no need to go over them in detail.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: No. No, perhaps --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the witness is here.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: And the witness will be cross-examined.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, then we have been --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: And then, when we come to exhibits, whatever

14 exhibits you want to discuss with the witness, that is okay. You can go

15 ahead and deal with that.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, all I can say is that then the

17 Prosecution has been operating under a misapprehension, because we thought

18 that we would be permitted to lead evidence, in toto, in full, completely,

19 where it directly involved activities of these defendants.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: But where that evidence is already contained in the

21 statement, because perhaps there was a problem in severing that evidence

22 from the rest of the evidence because of the way the witnesses speak,

23 there is no need to go -- to reiterate it in detail.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, may I just have a moment to confer with

25 my colleagues, please.

1 [Prosecution counsel confer]

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. Would Your Honours just bear with me

4 one further moment?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

7 [Prosecution counsel confer]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

9 MR. WEINER: Your Honours, sorry to add to this. Your Honour, the

10 reason that we are adding all the statements and all the information and

11 activities of the defendants is not just because of 92 bis but also

12 because of the rules of discovery. If we are to delete from those

13 statements the statements, the activities, the actions of the defendants

14 on 92 bis statements, then we will be in a violation of the discovery

15 rules, the due process rules, and the rules of fairness, which technically

16 fall through all of the rules of procedure, before this case or any other

17 case. What we will do is we will have to, in our 92 bis statements,

18 remove any statement or action of a defendant. These Defence counsel will

19 immediately get up and object, claiming discovery violations, claiming

20 that they're being ambushed, that we're not filing full statements, which

21 will then force us to do something a little bit different, file a 92 bis

22 statement and then, in addition to that, a discovery statement, where

23 we'll list statements of each of the defendants, statements of actions,

24 which then it becomes almost ridiculous. What we would like to do is file

25 one complete statement and then highlight, if you want to call it, the

1 actions of the defendant. Because the Rule of 92 bis clearly indicates

2 that it does not apply to -- it goes to matters other than acts and

3 conduct of the accused as charged in the indictment, and that's right in

4 the Rule.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. WEINER: And what you're forcing us to do, if we want to

7 highlight during direct examination strictly those acts, those statements,

8 those comments of each defendant, we have an option here. We can delete

9 those from the 92 bis statement and then have a discovery violation or

10 delete them from the 92 bis statement and file a 92 bis statement and a

11 discovery statement, which is ridiculous.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, Mr. Weiner. We don't have to go through

13 all that. It's just that where the statement contains even activities of

14 the accused, as this statement appears to contain, the Prosecution can go

15 through those activities briefly. Because it appears to the Trial Chamber

16 that the details are here in the statement, isn't it?

17 MR. WEINER: Yes, it appears. However, here's the situation, Your

18 Honour: Number one, that still seems to violate the Rule, be in direct

19 violation of the Rule.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: But that is a situation where the witness is not

21 called for cross-examination.

22 MR. WEINER: I agree with that, but that's still -- that's how the

23 Rule was originally established, when a witness --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, perhaps.

25 MR. WEINER: But in addition, in addition, the other part of that

1 is some of these statements, as to the actions of the defendant, in

2 relation to the statements that a defendant made, are going to be

3 contested, and you, as fact-finders, are going to have to determine where

4 the credibility lies, who you should believe, who you should not believe.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. WEINER: And the fact that these people didn't have a chance

7 to get up there and explain their statement in relation to the actions of

8 the defendant, explain them in detail, on direct, it is -- it hurts the

9 Prosecution, because you don't get a chance to see them fully, to make a

10 full decision, a complete decision, as to their credibility. All you're

11 going to hear is some cross-examination, and which would probably force us

12 to do an extensive re-direct, which would have been our direct

13 examination. So we should be able to at least get into any actions and

14 statements of the accused, because it has to be fair for the Prosecution

15 as well as the Defence, and it has to be a full statement to go in, so

16 it's fair to you, as fact-finder, so you can make that determination as to

17 credibility.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm grateful to Mr. Weiner

20 for having raised that issue, but if you look at Rule 92 bis, it seems

21 that the matter is settled, in the Prosecution's submission. It says: "A

22 Trial Chamber may admit, in whole or in part, the evidence of a witness in

23 the form of a written statement in lieu of oral testimony, which goes to

24 proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused." So

25 it's absolute.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: It's absolute. The provision is absolute, in my

3 submission. There is no compromise that can be reached. As soon as we

4 go -- as soon as we touch upon the acts and conduct of the accused, as

5 charged in the indictment, then it's got to be oral testimony.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: So I think that that must mean that we can only

8 lead oral evidence --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: On the activities of the accused as charged in the

10 indictment.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. And it is certainly the position of

12 the Prosecution that even if the Rule didn't exist, that's what they would

13 want to do. But it seems to me that the debate must now be put to rest,

14 because the Rule is clear.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.

16 Mr. Pantelic.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Just a few words, if I may add.

18 Our understanding is that if we shall adopt the standard just proposed by

19 our learned friends from the Prosecution, then the notion and the spirit

20 of Rule 92 bis will never existed. Then we shall not have Rule 92 bis; we

21 shall have some hybrid of examination-in-chief, viva voce testimony, then

22 cross, re-direct, stuff like that. I mean, my suggestion -- I

23 respectfully suggest to this Trial Chamber to have all forthcoming witness

24 statements in -- based on Rule 92 bis, and then for each particular

25 testimony, the Trial Chamber will have a view and then will give

1 instructions with regard to the issues which should be covered and the

2 length of examination, and stuff like that. I mean, this is a living

3 matter, Your Honour. We are all aware about that. We cannot put all

4 these particular statements in one box and say that's it.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

6 MR. PANTELIC: So that would be my suggestion for the moment.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Another thing. Your Honour, frankly, after reading

9 all these statements based on the 92 bis Rule - there are several of them,

10 five, six, I don't know - believe me, Your Honour, and I really stand on

11 it. All these statements are repetitive and nothing new is in there with

12 regard to the defendants, and we think, Your Honour, that with this active

13 approach, we should finish this case in seven working days, seven working

14 days will be enough to finish the case and then it will be the end.

15 Because there is nothing new substantial in this new witness statement

16 with regard to certain events, certain position of events. They are all

17 the same, more or less the same. So that is the position of the Defence.

18 Of course we are mindful of the concern of our learned friends. We don't

19 want to undermine principle of fairness and cooperation and good spirit

20 which we --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

22 MR. PANTELIC: But here I think the Trial Chamber will have the

23 final word and final voice with regard to all this. Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, if I might just reply to

1 Mr. Pantelic, it's difficult to imagine a more misconceived interpretation

2 of Rule 92 bis than what he has just proposed.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: It is not for the Trial Chamber to pick and choose

5 which bits it wishes to hear; it's for the Prosecution to present its

6 evidence, just as it is for the Defence to produce the evidence to the

7 Chamber that it wishes to produce, so long as, of course, it is relevant

8 and so on.

9 Secondly, I just can't understand, if Mr. Pantelic has read or has

10 not read Rule 92 bis. I don't want to repeat it, but --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio, what you are trying to say is you are

12 repeating your earlier submission.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is sufficient.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I had hoped that it had been heard, but apparently

16 it had not, so I just thought I had to re-emphasise --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It is just that. Mr. Pantelic had to be given

18 the opportunity to make his own submission.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. And as for the assessment of seven days, that

20 is, I think judging from --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: We would look forward to that.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Indeed, we would, but given the history of the last

23 eight months and the length of cross-examinations, I rather doubt it.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 Mr. Lukic.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'll be very brief, Your Honours. I

2 firmly agree with what my colleague Pantelic said and I just wish to reply

3 to what I heard Mr. Di Fazio say at the beginning. It is something that

4 concerns me. It is very clear to us that both the Statute and the Rules

5 of Procedure and Evidence specifically set forth that it is important to

6 pay attention to the rights of victims in the proceedings. However, we

7 may not take that as a criteria and have somebody who comes here to

8 testify, even if that person is a victim, be allowed to have his rights

9 fully upheld in this matter. I don't think that there should be a direct

10 examination if a 92 bis had been taken from that witness. So we don't

11 think that that person should be directly examined and then

12 cross-examined.

13 The standard that we are about to establish today should apply to

14 the Defence witnesses as well, and the Defence is prepared to allow its

15 witnesses, who will come here to testify under Rule 92 bis to be

16 cross-examined immediately and not to be examined in chief first. The

17 statement of a witness and a victim exists in the written form, and this

18 is why I oppose the direct examination of such witnesses.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is of the view and has decided

21 that the Prosecution will be allowed to lead evidence which touches on the

22 activities of the accused, even though the statement may contain the same

23 in detail. They will be allowed to do so brief, as briefly as possible.

24 They will also be allowed to discuss whatever exhibits they wish to

25 discuss with the witness because that was not done at the time that the

1 statement was being taken and thereafter the witness will be presented for

2 cross-examination.

3 The Prosecution can go ahead.

4 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.

5 Could I ask the registrar if the witness could be shown

6 Prosecution Exhibit P25 ter. That would be the B/C/S version. For the

7 purposes of the Bench, and for the record, this exhibit is a decision of

8 the Crisis Staff dated the 27th of June, 1992, on the establishment of the

9 Aleksandar Vukovic Vuk Foundation. It bears the seal of the assembly of

10 the Serbian people of Bosanski Samac and Pelagicevo, and is signed by the

11 president of the Crisis Staff, Dr. Blagoje Simic.

12 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, have you seen this document before?

13 A. I have not.

14 Q. But you have referred this morning to your knowledge about the

15 establishment of a Vuk Foundation; is that correct?

16 A. That's right. This was announced on Radio Samac, the fact that

17 this foundation was established.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Number one, this witness doesn't have any personal

20 knowledge of this document, of this exhibit; number two, it is a

21 well-established fact that he was released, he was exchanged, prior to the

22 date of this decision. So I don't see any particular reason that this

23 witness will go into the examination of this particular document. I do

24 object on this basis. Thank you.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: The objection is overruled. The Prosecution will go

1 ahead.

2 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

3 Q. So you heard about the fact orally. This Mr. Aleksandar Vukovic,

4 was he one of the persons who beat you in the room in the SUP building

5 upstairs when you were made to sit at the table, the incident you've

6 described in your statement at paragraph 53?

7 A. That's right. Aleksandar Vukovic beat me the most. He was the

8 first one who started beating me, and he broke a stick or a baton over my

9 head, after which he started laughing. He said my head was so hard that

10 it broke his baton.

11 Q. Thank you. Could I just ask you to have a look at this document.

12 Have a look at who took the decision, who signed the decision, and advise

13 the Chamber whether this corresponds to your personal knowledge of the

14 establishment of this foundation and the man in whose name it was

15 established.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Again, Your Honour, objection, on the same basis.

17 Now with regard to the profound way of examination. This witness clearly

18 said that he never saw this decision, so I don't know -- I don't see a

19 reason --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you've already been overruled. You

21 allow the Prosecution to go ahead. After the evidence is given, if you

22 still feel the same, you can refer to it in your closing arguments.

23 Ms. Reidy, please proceed.

24 MS. REIDY:

25 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, does this decision that you see in front of you

1 correspond with the knowledge you have about the establishment of the

2 foundation for the man who beat you?

3 A. Yes, it does. This was announced on Radio Samac, the fact that

4 the foundation had been established and who were the founders.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 MS. REIDY: I'm now finished with that document before this

7 witness.

8 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'd like now to move to the incident described at

9 page 59 and 60 of your statement.

10 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry. I've just realised the witness does not

11 have in front of him his own statement. Could I ask that it be provided

12 to him?

13 JUDGE MUMBA: B/C/S version?

14 MS. REIDY: Yes. The one that he himself has signed, Your

15 Honour. For the record, it's P129 ter. It's paragraph 59 and 60,

16 Honours, of the ... That's page 11 of the English version.

17 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, at one stage of your imprisonment were you taken

18 from a small cage-like cell and dragged into the corridor on the upper

19 floor of the SUP building in Bosanski Samac?

20 A. Yes, they did take me up there, where Izet Izetbegovic,

21 Hadzialijagic Safet, and Pavo already were.

22 Q. The Bench has before it, Mr. Jasarevic, your description in

23 paragraph 59 of how you were beaten in the corridor that evening. Can you

24 look at your statement and just make sure you're following it? This was

25 the beating that you received from people you call Laki, Kico, Japan, and

1 others. Have you found that in your statement?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Thank you. What I'd like to concentrate on is your knowledge of

4 where Mr. Simo Zaric was when this beating was occurring. Did this

5 beating occur in front of an office in which Mr. Simo Zaric was sitting?

6 A. Yes. They beat me in front of the office where Simo Zaric sat.

7 The door was upholstered. It was opened by force and not completely

8 closed. I heard the conversation, but I couldn't see the other person he

9 was talking to because the door was only slightly open.

10 Q. Thank you. So I understand you heard Mr. Simo Zaric in

11 conversation with an unknown other party. Is that correct?

12 A. That's right. That's correct.

13 Q. As well as hearing the conversation, did you yourself catch sight

14 of Mr. Simo Zaric through the door, or was it only his voice that you

15 recognised?

16 A. I heard his voice and I saw him as he spoke on the telephone.

17 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about the conversation you first

18 overheard. What was the topic of this discussion that you overheard?

19 A. The first topic was that -- to the person that he spoke to, and I

20 couldn't see, he told this person that a woman who worked at the kiosk

21 across his cafe was a Croat and spied on them and conveyed all of the

22 information that she thus acquired to her husband, who was a Croat from

23 Prud, which was in Croatia. He also spoke on the telephone about exchange

24 with Luka Gregurevic, and another Croat, who was supposed to be exchanged

25 for two Serbs. Later on, Luka was killed.

1 Q. Thank you. Were you being beaten in and around the same time that

2 this conversation -- these conversations were ongoing?

3 A. Yes. They beat me there for some two hours. They took it out on

4 me and screamed. They stood on my hands, which were quite swollen, and

5 hit me with baton on my head and back. The other two also kicked me.

6 Q. Did you let out sounds while you were being beaten, screams or

7 moans?

8 A. I did not. I did not let out any sounds. I didn't scream or

9 moan. I simply concentrated on something else, which helped me, and this

10 is how I came to overhear that conversation. This helped me diminish the

11 pain and everything else that I was experiencing at the time.

12 Q. Were the men who were beating you saying things to you, making

13 insults to you?

14 A. They didn't question me about anything. They simply told me I

15 would be swimming in blood. They kicked me, hit me with batons, stood on

16 me.

17 Q. Did the beating that you underwent create a lot of noise and

18 commotion, so people would have heard the beating?

19 A. It did. Every time they gave me a good beating, they would start

20 yelling out loud, "Get up, get up," and I would get up and then they would

21 knock me down again. They were yelling, talking loudly. So anybody could

22 hear it, not just people in that room, but everywhere around it, because

23 they screamed so much and yelled for me to get up. So they would beat me,

24 yell at me to get up, and then once I got up, they would kick me anywhere

25 they could, in my chest, stomach, face, and then knock me down again onto

1 the corridor floor. And this could be heard everywhere. Two men, Savo

2 Cancarevic, police commander, stood a few metres away and watched a bit as

3 they beat me, as well as Milos Culapovic, called Culap. He stood also

4 some 2 metres away while they beat me.

5 Q. And these two persons you mentioned, you saw them standing there,

6 did you, with your own eyes?

7 A. Yes. I was facing them. I was down on the ground.

8 Q. Thank you. I just have one clarification to seek on your

9 statement. You mentioned a Luka Gregurevic, who was later killed. Was he

10 later killed in the massacre in Crkvina?

11 A. Yes, he was.

12 Q. And was he a police officer who had been on duty the night of the

13 takeover of Bosanski Samac?

14 A. Yes. Luka Gregurevic was duty officer at the station, and he

15 turned the station over to the Serb forces that night, or morning.

16 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, the Trial Chamber has before it again

17 the details of how you were placed back in the room and how you were later

18 transferred across to the Territorial Defence building, and the beatings

19 that you witnessed and experienced whilst you were in the Territorial

20 Defence building. So I'd like to ask you just about some incidents, and

21 it's -- when I say "incidents," it's the day on which you were taken back

22 to the SUP building for interrogation.

23 When you were brought across for interrogation, what injuries did

24 you -- had you sustained already from your treatment up to that date in

25 detention?

1 A. I had bloody swellings under my eyes, in my ears; my hair was all

2 bloody; everything around my neck was bloody, on my chest; my hands were

3 black and blue; my nails, my palms were black and blue from the beating by

4 batons. I was all black and blue and bloody.

5 Q. I understand you appeared before a gentleman called Milos Savic.

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. Did Mr. Milos Savic ever inquiry with you about why you looked the

8 way you did, how you had sustained any of those injuries?

9 A. He didn't ask me anything about my injuries.

10 Q. Did he ask you anything about whether or not you had illegal

11 weapons in your possession?

12 A. He didn't ask me about any weapons, either legal or illegal. He

13 asked me about a cannon that I made for the religious community, who

14 issued a permit for me to make that cannon. And I think that he took out

15 the questions from a list that had been drawn up by Simo Zaric. He asked

16 me about saying to Simo Zaric that all of you want to be commanders now.

17 He also asked me what my opinion about the Yugoslav army was. He didn't

18 ask me anything else specifically about my other activities.

19 Q. What gave you the impression that the questions were from a list

20 into which Mr. Simo Zaric had had some input?

21 A. Because I only said this to Simo, and Milos Savic could not have

22 known what I said to Simo. And he took out some papers, and something was

23 written down there. He asked me about the cannon, who had issued the

24 permit for me to build the cannon, and then he asked me about what my

25 opinion was about the Yugoslav army, and I didn't tell him anything about

1 that. He also gave me some statements to sign, which I did, but I was

2 barely able to hold a pen in my hands. I couldn't pull my fingers

3 together as I was signing it.

4 Q. Was what you signed ever explained to you or read out to you?

5 A. No. Nothing was read to me or explained. He simply said it was

6 all over and that I would be sentenced soon.

7 Q. Did he tell you what you would be sentenced for?

8 A. No, he didn't tell me anything about why I would be sentenced.

9 Q. Whilst you were in the SUP building being interrogated, could you

10 hear screams of other people being beaten?

11 A. I did hear. At one point Milos Savic left the office and told the

12 guard to remain by the door. He left. Later, I heard screaming, noise,

13 calls for help from the neighbouring room. Later on, I learned that Salko

14 Hurtic had been beaten there so severely that that office, that room, was

15 completely bloody. Other people had to go and wash that room.

16 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, in your statement you have described

17 the murder of one of your co-detainees, a man called Dikan. I'm not going

18 to ask you to repeat that incident because the Judges do have your

19 explanation of how poor Dikan was killed on the 26th of April. However,

20 is it correct that you were moved out of the Territorial Defence building

21 to the Brcko barracks soon after Dikan was murdered?

22 A. Yes, that's right. I was moved that night to the Brcko barracks,

23 belonging to the military police.

24 Q. At the time of your transfer, did you see Simo Zaric present?

25 A. Yes. I saw him. Simo Zaric came, as did Mihajlo Topolovac. Simo

1 Zaric wore a uniform of a senior officer. I think that's what it was.

2 Mihajlo Topolovac was with him. They made a list, called out our names,

3 put us into a military truck. Everybody's names were called out except

4 for Izet Izetbegovic; Luka Gregurevic; Baja, from Domaljevac; Orsolic; and

5 Mate Pejic, I think. They remained in the TO. Luka and Pejic were killed

6 later on in Crkvina.

7 Q. Thank you. When you got onto these -- this truck, did some of the

8 detainees visibly need assistance to climb onto the truck because of their

9 injuries?

10 A. Most of the detainees had a very difficult time getting on the

11 truck. The truck was quite high off the ground. I had great difficulty

12 getting on the truck, because my ribs had been broken and I was unable to

13 move my right arm. We also had to get Grga up, to lift him up to get on

14 the truck, because he was unable to do that on his own.

15 Q. Can you recall whether, when Mr. Simo Zaric was there calling out

16 the names, that the state of these detainees, including yourself and the

17 man you called Grga, would have been very -- would have been evident? Was

18 he there when people were getting onto the truck and would have witnessed

19 how these persons looked like?

20 A. Anybody could see the condition we were in. While we were beaten

21 at the TO, we were not allowed to clean the blood off ourselves. The

22 blood was everywhere: On our faces, everywhere on our bodies. People were

23 unable to move. And those who were less severely beaten had to help me

24 get up on the truck as well.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, again, your statement is in evidence with the

1 Judges, so they know about your transfer to Brcko and the conditions in

2 which you were held, but I'd like to ask you to go to your statement, to

3 paragraph 95, and I'd like to ask you about the incident you described

4 there, where again, whilst in detention in Brcko, you had a meeting with

5 the defendant Simo Zaric. Have you got -- you've got the paragraph.

6 Mr. Jasarevic, how did you learn that Mr. Simo Zaric was present

7 at the Brcko barracks?

8 A. Well, I think that somebody, a captain probably, came to fetch me.

9 His arm was in plaster. And previously I had seen him in Samac. His arm

10 was in plaster as well. So he came to fetch me and took me to the office

11 of Stevan Nikolic, where Simo Zaric, Fadil, Lazo Trojan, and some other

12 people that I didn't know, already were sitting.

13 Q. Was it explained to you the reason that you were brought to the

14 room to meet these men?

15 A. Yes. Simo told me that he had promised my aunt he would bring me

16 back to Samac, alive. Fadil told me right away that they would put a

17 uniform on me and that I would spend some time with him, until my injuries

18 healed.

19 Q. When you spent some time with him, do you mean in the company of

20 Fadil Topcagic, outside of detention, or how did he mean that you would

21 spend some time with him?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. What sort of uniform did they say that they would put on you?

24 A. He said he would take me to his house in Samac, put a uniform on

25 me, and keep me there until my injuries healed. Well, they would put

1 their uniform on me. That actually meant that I had to go over to their

2 side, to join the 4th Detachment that was still in existence at the time.

3 Q. Did Simo Zaric ever suggest to you that you could simply be

4 released from detention and live as a free citizen back in Bosanski Samac,

5 as you had before the takeover?

6 A. That's right. He said I would go back and live as a free citizen,

7 but a free citizen in their uniform.

8 Q. So do I understand that it was a condition of your release that

9 you would join the 4th Detachment?

10 A. I think that that's how it was.

11 Q. Did you accept the offer to join the 4th Detachment and in that

12 way obtain freedom?

13 A. I didn't want to accept that offer at any price and go back to

14 Bosanski Samac, because the others were in a very difficult situation, and

15 I was afraid they would kill them, so that I would become their informant

16 or I'd be the one blamed for that. They have used these methods before.

17 This is how they used Pasaga. They used him while he was useful to them,

18 and later on, he had to spend several years in the camp.

19 Q. When you say the others were in a difficult position, do you mean

20 the other detainees?

21 A. That's right. I mean the other detainees who were with me in

22 Brcko.

23 Q. And when you say that you were afraid that the others -- that they

24 would be killed and that you would become their informant, were you afraid

25 the impression would be given that if you left with Mr. Topcagic and Zaric

1 that you had provided them with some sort of information about activities

2 that the other detainees were alleged to have committed?

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I must admit that I did not

4 understand this question?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe, I don't know, but I was reading in front of

7 me, and I still don't understand what our colleague wants this witness to

8 answer.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

10 MS. REIDY:

11 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you've said that you were afraid that the other

12 detainees would be killed and that you'd be the one blamed for it. And my

13 question was directed at finding out why you thought that might happen.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I have to object to that. He never

15 actually said that he would be blamed for killing of the other detainees.

16 He said that he was afraid that he was going to be used as informer.

17 MS. REIDY: Or "I'd be the one blamed for that." It's at line 6

18 of page 62.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think what -- yes. Ms. Reidy, just clear

20 that with the witness.

21 MS. REIDY:

22 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, were you scared that you would be blamed for other

23 detainees being killed on the basis of information that it would be

24 alleged you had provided?

25 A. Yes, that's right. That's what I was afraid of, although there

1 was no information to provide. They already knew everything about us.

2 However, they used these kinds of methods to provoke.

3 Q. Thank you. Whilst you were before Simo Zaric and the other men in

4 the room, what sort of injuries did you have and what were the conditions

5 of the clothes that you were wearing?

6 A. I was beaten even more severely that night. Lugar beat me up. I

7 barely survived. I had a bloody -- totally bloody -- the arcade [As

8 interpreted] was also broken, and my kidneys were injured. I showed Simo

9 the blue and all the blue stripes on my back and bruises. I showed that

10 to Simo.

11 Q. How did you show that to Simo?

12 A. When we were going out from that room, when they were taking me

13 back with other prisoners, I showed Simo -- I raised my shirt and showed

14 the bruises on my back and in the area of kidneys. He saw that, but he

15 didn't comment on it.

16 Q. Thank you. Now you said that you had been beaten by Lugar. Can I

17 just clarify? This was in the TO, just before you had been transferred,

18 not in Brcko barracks; is that correct?

19 A. This was not in the TO of Bosanski Samac, not in the barracks of

20 Brcko.

21 Q. There seems to be a problem with the transcript again,

22 Mr. Jasarevic. Can I confirm that the beating by Lugar took place in the

23 TO of Bosanski Samac and not in the barracks at Brcko?

24 A. Yes, in the TO of Bosanski Samac.

25 Q. You said you showed Simo your bruises. What was the state of your

1 clothing when Simo Zaric saw you in Brcko?

2 A. As I described earlier, the clothing was bloodied. Everything, my

3 hair was bloodied, around my shoulders, and on my face, traces of

4 beatings, beatings which occurred the night before.

5 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jasarevic, I'd like now to move on later to

6 incidents that happened to you in 1992 in Bosanski Samac. After this, I

7 know that you were transferred from Brcko, and then you spent some time in

8 Bijeljina, and that you finally were returned back to Bosanski Samac.

9 That's in your statement, and that statement is before the Judges. So I'd

10 like to turn -- ask you to turn just to page -- paragraph 110, and could I

11 just ask you to confirm: Is that your recollection that you believe that

12 you were returned to Bosanski Samac on the 13th of May, and you spent

13 another 12 days there before you were exchanged?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. During those 12 days, you witnessed and experienced a number of

16 other beatings in detention; is that correct?

17 A. That is correct. I witnessed the beatings, and I was beaten also.

18 Q. And the beatings were conducted, amongst others, by members of the

19 local Serb forces; is that correct, including a man who went by the

20 nickname of Obad or Hornet?

21 A. Yes, Obad, Hornet and other local ones brought, Sasa Maslic, who

22 was from Bosanski Samac, and he brought in a list of persons that should

23 undergo beatings.

24 Q. Could you repeat the name of the man who brought in -- what you

25 said was a list of persons who should be subjected to beatings, because

1 the record -- it's not reflected in the record.

2 A. Sasa Maslic.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, if you can turn to paragraph 116 of your

4 statement. You'll see that the beating that you and others endured is

5 described and before the Bench. And this happened the exact day before

6 you were exchanged; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct. The following day I was taken for exchange.

8 However, I spent a day in the secondary school, and the following day,

9 then I was taken for the exchange.

10 Q. Thank you. Your exchange took place across a river, where you

11 were transferred, I believe, across the river from Zasavica to Dubica; is

12 that correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. Present at your exchange were two of the defendants, Simo Zaric

15 and Miroslav Tadic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I'd like to ask you just some details about the circumstances of

18 your exchange. Were you the only Muslim amongst the persons who were to

19 be exchanged that day?

20 A. Yes. I was the only Muslim that was exchanged from our

21 municipality on that day.

22 Q. The other persons exchanged with you, were they all male Croats?

23 A. All males and Croats from the surrounding villages and from

24 Bosanski Samac.

25 Q. Had you seen these men previously detained in the secondary school

1 during that day that you said you spent there prior to your exchange?

2 A. Yes. I've seen these persons when I was brought in from the

3 primary school to the secondary school, in the gym. All these people, all

4 these Croats, most of them I knew. They were detained. This was called

5 isolation, but it was, as I understood it, real ethnic cleansing.

6 Q. The term "isolation," was that used by the people guarding these

7 men?

8 A. Yes. They used this term, "isolation." They were guards,

9 policemen, and members of the 4th Detachment, who had different types of

10 uniforms from those which the policemen wore.

11 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you now just some details about the

12 role of the defendants in your exchange. The defendants, they were

13 actually present at the crossing of the river in Zasavica; is that

14 correct?

15 A. Yes, correct. They were present.

16 Q. Who called out your names from the list of people who were to be

17 exchanged?

18 A. Miroslav Tadic had the list in his hands.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would only like a clarification in

21 the question, page 66, line 24, that the defendants were actually present

22 at the crossing of the river in Zasavica. Did they also cross the river?

23 I wonder, could we clarify that? Or if you want to, Your Honours, we can

24 do it during our cross-examination.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it can be clarified now. Ms. Reidy.

1 MS. REIDY: I can certainly ask if the defendants crossed over

2 with the detainees.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

4 MS. REIDY: I was going to come to that question, but anyway,

5 could you just clarify.

6 Q. Were the defendants at Zasavica when you were crossing or did they

7 actually cross the river with the detainees to the other side?

8 A. The injured -- the defendants didn't cross. They stood by the

9 truck, where we were, and they called out the names. And then they formed

10 groups of five or six.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. And for the sake of clarity,

13 maybe we should have more details. The notion "defendants" are very, very

14 general.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. The names.

16 MS. REIDY:

17 Q. Which of the defendants are we talking about here, Mr. Jasarevic?

18 I think you've mentioned them already.

19 A. We're talking about Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Another point of clarification, on side 67 line

22 9. It reads: "At the crossing of the river in Zasavica." As far as I

23 can see, and according to the map, there is no river in Zasavica.

24 MS. REIDY: Certainly. I'll --

25 JUDGE LINDHOLM: There's some confusion there.

1 MS. REIDY:

2 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, maybe it would be easier -- you were put on -- were

3 you transported from the secondary school to the village of Zasavica on

4 the morning of your exchange?

5 A. Well, the River Bosna is quite close to Zasavica. We weren't

6 taken to Zasavica; we passed by Zasavica. We moved -- and the river is

7 half a kilometre or a kilometre away from Zasavica, and that was the place

8 that the exchange took place.

9 MS. REIDY: Could I ask if the witness could be shown perhaps

10 Exhibit P9, I believe it is. It's the map of Bosanski Samac.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MS. REIDY: There's a version where -- not a close-up version but

13 a slightly broader perspective of the area.

14 THE REGISTRAR: May I ask exactly which letter of the Exhibit P,

15 please.

16 MS. REIDY: I think perhaps the best one is P9A.

17 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Is that the same as the map D32/1?

18 MS. REIDY: I'd have to check what D32/1 is, Your Honour, but I

19 could put it on the ELMO.

20 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Let's have a look at it.

21 MS. REIDY: Could you show the exhibit to His Honour on the Bench

22 so he can see it?

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it's actually slightly different.

24 MS. REIDY: Yes. The P32 one is [sic] a different map entered by

25 the -- yes, exactly. No, it's a different map that was entered into

1 evidence by Defence counsel. But I hope that if we put P9 on the ELMO,

2 you'll be able to follow.

3 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, could you have a look at the map in front of you?

4 Perhaps you could turn to your right and just look at the actual document

5 itself on the ELMO, which is beside you. Mr. Jasarevic, if you turn

6 right. You can take a minute to look at the map.

7 MS. REIDY: As well, if the usher could supply Mr. Jasarevic with

8 the --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: The pointer, yes.

10 MS. REIDY: -- the pointer.

11 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, perhaps you could find for us, if you can, the

12 village of Zasavica. Is that where you were taken the morning of your

13 exchange, through Zasavica?

14 A. [In English] Yes.

15 Q. And as best as you can orient yourself, if it's on the map, can

16 you show us just where the crossing occurred? Mr. Jasarevic, maybe I

17 should ask you one question before that. The river running behind that -

18 I think it's marked on the map the river Bosna - is that the river that

19 you crossed over and that runs behind Zasavica village?

20 A. River Bosna, close to Zasavica. You can't see it properly here on

21 the map. Bosna, and the road, a road, and a gravel pit along the river.

22 So this is a road which passes by Zasavica. This is the place where

23 gravel is mined. And on the other side is the village of Dubica.

24 Q. So it's -- could you just perhaps one more time take the pointer

25 and mark, as best you can, where you think the crossing point took place.

1 I know it may be difficult to orientate yourself on the map.

2 A. This -- we went along this road where the gravel pit is, the

3 place where the gravel was excavated. And on the other side is Dubica,

4 and the place is called Neteka. This is Dubica and this was Neteka, and

5 it was here that we crossed the river.

6 MS. REIDY: Thank you. I hope that maybe clarifies things. It

7 makes it easier to ...

8 JUDGE LINDHOLM: I was just because -- asking for several reasons,

9 because I had misunderstood the situation and I got the impression that he

10 was taken over the river Sava. But he was taken over the river Bosna,

11 into Odzak.

12 MS. REIDY: Eventually he -- yes. It's right in the direction

13 of. Thank you.

14 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you said that Miroslav Tadic had the list of

15 persons to be exchanged in his hands. Did Miroslav Tadic ever ask you

16 whether you wanted to be exchanged, or did he ever issue instructions that

17 everybody on the list had to be exchanged?

18 A. He didn't ask me whether I wished, and he said also that everybody

19 has to be exchanged. He even shouted later that nobody should -- namely,

20 if somebody decided not to, that the exchange would immediately be

21 stopped. And I was -- we were the last, the last of the -- I was

22 exchanged as a prisoner of war, and I learned that from the ICRC later on.

23 Q. So you learnt about your status, your alleged status as a prisoner

24 of war, from the ICRC; is that correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. Do I understand that at one stage someone from the ICRC asked you

2 whether you wanted to be exchanged?

3 A. Yes. They asked me while I was in the secondary school in

4 Bosanski Samac, and told me that I was a prisoner of war and whether I

5 wished to be exchanged.

6 Q. Thank you. And the words that you said you heard Mr. Tadic utter

7 about that everyone had to be exchanged or that the exchange would be

8 immediately stopped, where did you hear him utter those words?

9 A. I heard it when I was on the truck, while we were on the truck,

10 while the civilians were formed in lines according to the list, and at a

11 certain point the exchange was stopped because somebody didn't want to go

12 in. But then the exchange continued. I really don't know how that ended.

13 Q. Do you know the person who had expressed a desire not to be

14 included in the exchange?

15 A. Yes. When I crossed, an elderly person didn't want to -- he

16 wanted to return back. He was old, older. He wanted back, to go back.

17 He said his wife remains, and he didn't know what was happening to his

18 family, his wife, and the telephones weren't working. And he returned

19 back to the boat, to be taken back.

20 Q. Was he permitted to go back?

21 A. Well, he wasn't allowed to return. They told him to go back.

22 Q. Who told him to go back, and where did they tell him to go back

23 to?

24 A. Here, on the bank. Those who were helping the elderly people, I

25 don't know who the people were, but they brought him back to this group.

1 Q. The people who brought the people back, were they from --

2 MR. PANTELIC: Again, Your Honour --

3 MS. REIDY: -- the Croatian side --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Sorry, my learned friend. For the sake of

6 clarity, it's a little bit confusing, all these questions and the answers.

7 Maybe the witness could be directed to say which bank of the river, which

8 side of these two sides. I mean, otherwise, we are a little bit in mist

9 or fog. So maybe we can clarify that and then not to examine that later.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy. Can we have clarification from the

11 witness?

12 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. And with respect to my

13 learned friend, I'm aware, reading the transcript, of where the

14 inconsistencies are. The question I was midway through before he

15 interrupted was exactly to clarify which people who brought him back were,

16 and further, where they brought them back to. So I can do my job.

17 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, the people who were helping the elderly people and

18 brought this man back to the group, were they persons from the Croatian

19 side or from the Serb side?

20 A. On the Croatian side.

21 Q. Thank you. So he tried to return from the Croatian side back to

22 the Bosnian side -- back to the Serbian -- or the Serbian-controlled

23 Bosnian side?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. But he was advised that they wouldn't allow him to return?

1 A. Yes, and they returned him back.

2 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues] ... again, it's a

3 problem, Your Honour. Who are "they"?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Why don't you let her finish that part?

5 MR. PANTELIC: Because in question, Your Honour, it's not clear

6 and then obviously it's a misleading of this witness.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. Will you sit down? Let Ms. Reidy

8 proceed.

9 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I was just going to ask you a quick question.

11 Whose decision was it in the end that, as best you know, that this

12 gentleman should not stay in Bosanski Samac?

13 A. Well, he already crossed from the Serbian side, at Zasavica, the

14 Croatian village. Now, he crossed over to the Croatian side, and he

15 wanted to return back on the Serbian side, from which he was originally

16 transferred. I think that's clear.

17 Q. Thank you. And why was he not allowed to return back to the

18 Serbian side?

19 A. Probably --

20 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection, Your Honour. Calling for speculation.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy?

22 MS. REIDY:

23 Q. What, to the best of your information, prevented him from going

24 back to the other side? Did you know if he was given any reason as to why

25 he couldn't go back to the other side?

1 A. He -- the exchange was already completed, and I was the last one

2 to cross, and I met him when he was trying to go back, but it wasn't

3 possible to go back any more.

4 Q. Why was it not possible for him to go back any more?

5 A. Because he already crossed over, and they said themselves that

6 there is no going back from where they had been -- we had been evicted.

7 Q. It was the Croatian authorities who had told him that he wouldn't

8 be -- they wouldn't -- he wouldn't be allowed back; is that it?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Did they say that they wouldn't allow him back or that he wouldn't

11 be accepted back? And by "they," I mean the Croatian authorities. Did

12 the Croatian authorities explain to him that they didn't want him to go

13 back or that he would not be accepted back by the Serbian authorities?

14 A. They explained to him that he couldn't cross back on the other

15 side because they wouldn't receive him there, and that everybody has

16 crossed over to this side. And they had a hard time in convincing him to

17 go back.

18 Q. Thank you. At the time that this man had crossed over and you had

19 crossed over, had Miroslav Tadic already told the group that everybody had

20 to go, or that if one person didn't go, the exchange would be cancelled?

21 A. Yes. He said that while I was on that side, and he said it on

22 that side.

23 Q. On "that side," do you mean the Serbian side?

24 A. Yes, on the Serb side.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, it's 12.30.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We shall take our break and resume our

3 proceedings at 1250 hours.

4 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

7 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'd like now to ask you some questions about the

9 fate of the rest of your family, particularly I'd like to ask about how

10 your wife and children were finally exchanged. Did your wife have to

11 approach Miroslav Tadic in order to be exchanged?

12 A. Yes. My wife went to see him at least 20 times and begged him to

13 be exchanged, Miroslav Tadic. Her name was erased off the list every

14 time, and she was told she would not be exchanged. This is how it went

15 on.

16 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I need to ask you a question about this again,

17 because there is a discrepancy between the English version and the version

18 you signed, because an amendment you made was not incorporated into the

19 English version. Can I ask you to look at paragraph 123 of your

20 statement? You testified that your wife had been begged to be put on the

21 list after you had been exchanged, and her name was erased off the list.

22 Who actually physically told her or showed her the list with the name on

23 it? Was it the defendant Miroslav Tadic, or was it another gentleman by

24 the name of Velimir Maslic?

25 A. The last time it was Miroslav -- it was Velimir Maslic. That was

1 the last time. But prior to that she went to see Miroslav Tadic at least

2 20 times about the exchange, whereas Velimir Maslic told my wife she would

3 never be exchanged as long as her husband continued shooting at their own

4 children.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, may I draw your attention to this in

7 paragraph 123. The second sentence, the second phrase of the second

8 sentence reads: "Miroslav Tadic would refuse her permission to leave

9 saying that I was shooting at them, that my family would not be allowed to

10 go. They would let me shoot at my own children." And the witness had

11 said that the person saying about the shooting was Velimir Maslic, and

12 that was incorporated in the statement he signed. And unfortunately, it

13 seems to have been overlooked in the English version. It wasn't --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MS. REIDY: The amendment was not incorporated. But I think the

16 witness has made his position clear on who told his wife --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That she would never be exchanged. Yes.

18 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Yes. In the same paragraph, 123, there is

19 something odd about the second sentence: "I tried to get my wife on the

20 list for a long time," although he was -- the witness was exchanged in

21 May, and in paragraph 121, the last sentence reads: "I then fought with

22 the HVO for 18 months." How did he try to get his wife on the list for a

23 long time? I can't catch the meaning of that sentence.

24 MS. REIDY: Absolutely.

25 Q. I'll ask the witness to explain to the Bench what you mean by

1 trying to get your wife on the list?

2 A. I remained with the HVO in order to be able to influence how the

3 exchange lists were drawn up, because my wife, my children, my mother, my

4 brother, who was in the camp, and my sister, remained in Samac. This is

5 why I went to see various commissions and requested that my wife be put on

6 the exchange list.

7 MS. REIDY: Is that clear, Your Honour? Would you like --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: I think a further clarification, yes. So does it

9 mean that the various commissions he went to see were the commissions on

10 the Croatian side?

11 MS. REIDY:

12 Q. Mr. Jasarevic?

13 A. Yes. On the Croatian side, they were both local and international

14 ones.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

16 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

17 Q. And despite these efforts, you did -- you made to try to have your

18 wife released from Bosanski Samac, did -- who would leave and did that

19 decision depend, then, from her point of view, on Miroslav Tadic agreeing

20 to her name on the list? Was that what she told you?

21 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection. Calling for speculation, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy has asked whether that's what his wife

23 told her -- told him.

24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] She actually said: What was the

25 opinion of your wife? This was included in the question: What did your

1 wife think?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: I must have missed it, because I thought --

3 MS. REIDY: What I meant from her point of view, from her

4 perspective, from her attempts, what did she tell you.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, according to -- what she told the witness,

6 isn't it?

7 MS. REIDY: Yes.

8 Q. Although you were asking that she rejoin you, what did your wife

9 tell you about who could give her permission to leave or not?

10 A. After seven months, my wife left Samac, and she told me that she

11 went to see Miroslav Tadic at least 20 times, who did not want to give her

12 permission to be exchanged, and that she was taken off the list on each

13 occasion. She was told: You will not be exchanged. You are not on the

14 list. Although I did put my wife's list -- my wife's name on the list.

15 This is what my wife told me after she had been exchanged and after we

16 reunited after seven months.

17 Q. So although you asked for your wife to join you and your wife

18 wanted to join you, she was not free of her own will to do that when she

19 wanted; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, precisely so.

21 Q. And if and when she would be allowed to join you, that was

22 controlled, as far as she experienced, by Miroslav Tadic; is that correct?

23 A. He was absolutely the one who decided who was to be allowed to go

24 and who was not.

25 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I know that you did finally -- you were finally

1 reunited with your family in November 1992. I want to ask you one final

2 area, which is about the fate of some of your other relatives and what

3 happened to them in Bosanski Samac, and in particular, I'd like to draw

4 your attention to paragraph 127 of your statement. In that, you stated

5 that your mother-in-law was moved to Zasavica when, I presume, her son had

6 swum across the River Sava in August 1992. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's right, but we're talking about her husband -- about

8 her son. I'm sorry. About her son. He swam across the Sava River, and

9 due to that, she was transferred to the camp in Zasavica, although she was

10 over 70 or 75. She was even given a receipt for the items confiscated

11 from her, the ones that she had on her at the time.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MS. REIDY: Could I ask that the witness be shown a document?

14 It's a document which the witness handed to the Prosecution. It's the one

15 that he has just talked about and said that he has shown to us. It has

16 been disclosed to the Defence. I also have the original with me, and I

17 gave it to the Defence yesterday for inspection, and it's available for

18 inspection by the members of the Bench as well.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: What is it called? What is the title of the

22 document?

23 MS. REIDY: The title of the document is "Receipt on temporary

24 confiscation of objects," dated the 31st of August, 1992. An official

25 translation is provided with the document.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MS. REIDY:

3 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, can you see the document on the screen before you?

4 It's also to the right of you, if you'd like to have a look. Is that

5 document -- do you have a photocopy of the original document which your

6 mother-in-law was given when she was removed from her home and sent to

7 Zasavica?

8 A. Yes, that's the document that I provided.

9 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, I said I have the original document with

10 me. I would like to be in a position for the witness and his family to

11 keep it, but it is available for inspection by the Bench if they wish to

12 see it.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: It's not necessary.

14 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to be able

17 to inspect the original receipt, because the last two lines that were

18 typed on the typewriter - and this is a form - are not readable, not even

19 in translation, and perhaps we would be able to establish what is written

20 in the last two typewritten lines if we had the original. I see that even

21 the translation doesn't reflect that.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought --

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I am now talking about the form part,

24 the part of this blank form that was typewritten. It's not legible.

25 Perhaps the original is more legible than the copy.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. I thought that the Prosecution had

2 indicated -- had said that they had given the Defence the original for

3 inspection.

4 MS. REIDY: We did, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe it can just be handed to Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. PANTELIC: And in the meantime, Your Honour, while we are

7 inspecting this document, there is certain discrepancy between B/C/S

8 version and the English translation of this document. Namely, we don't

9 know what is the content of the seal. If you see English version, there

10 is only word "stamped." Maybe this witness can read slowly and then

11 interpreters' unit can give us the idea what is the seal, in fact, here on

12 this document.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure Ms. Reidy will go over that.

14 MS. REIDY: I will, Your Honour. I'll cover that in the course of

15 my questioning.

16 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, this person named in this -- as the recipient of

17 this document is a Ms. Almasa Prljaca; is that correct?

18 A. Yes. That's the name to whom the receipt was issued.

19 Q. And is that person your mother-in-law?

20 A. Yes, that's my mother-in-law.

21 MS. REIDY: I think the contents of the document speak for

22 itself. She was born on the 19th of October, 1919 which indeed make her

23 over 70, on the date that this document was issued.

24 Q. Do you have any information as to whether your mother-in-law ever

25 received back any of these documents which this receipt indicates were

1 taken from her?

2 A. She never received any kind of receipt, neither did anybody else

3 for the items that were confiscated from them.

4 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, what you have in front of you is a receipt for what

5 was confiscated. What I wanted to know was whether or not she was ever

6 returned the items listed from numbers 1 to 10 on this document.

7 A. No, they were never returned.

8 Q. Do you have information as to whether all these documents were

9 taken from your mother-in-law at her house when she was arrested or on her

10 arrival in Zasavica?

11 A. That was on the eve of her transfer to Zasavica, or just before

12 her transfer to Zasavica, before they boarded the truck.

13 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to have a look at the seal, or the

14 stamp, at the bottom of that document. And I have the original back, if

15 you'd like to have a look at that?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps to waste time less, give the witness the

17 original, assuming it's clearer than the photocopy.

18 MS. REIDY:

19 Q. As best you're able, Mr. Jasarevic, could you read out what's

20 written on the stamp?

21 A. I don't have my glasses on, so I can't tell what is exactly

22 written here.

23 MS. REIDY: Perhaps, Your Honours, then, we would just get a

24 separate translation of that stamp. I think it's a stamp we've seen on

25 other documents and we can ask the Translation Unit to include it in their

1 translation next time.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can read it now. "SAO Semberija

4 and Majevica, Serbian municipality of Bosanski Samac." So "SAO Semberija

5 and Majevica." And right here it says: "Serbian Republic -- Serbian

6 Republic and Serbian municipality Bosanski Samac, and SAO Semberija and

7 Majevica," something "in the value of." I can't read the rest.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously, Your Honour, because this witness didn't

10 read all the content of this seal, maybe the interpretation unit --

11 Translation Unit can provide us with the exact words which are in this

12 seal.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

14 MS. REIDY: Yes. We'll ask the Translation Unit to include it in

15 the translation, stamp, and the full words will be provided.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

17 MS. REIDY:

18 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, what was the fate of your mother-in-law after she

19 was -- had been brought to Zasavica? Did she have to remain there or was

20 she exchanged?

21 A. She remained there until the very last exchange, I think. She

22 remained in Zasavica. She was not allowed to go back to her own

23 apartment, which had immediately been occupied by somebody else.

24 Q. Do you have any information as to who the subsequent occupant was,

25 or the ethnicity of that occupant?

1 A. Yes. The plate on my mother-in-law's apartment said "Djokic

2 Bosar" [phoen], the wife of a fallen soldier. This is what it said on the

3 door, and somebody else moved into her apartment and her things were not

4 there any more.

5 Q. Thank you. Can you recall when this -- what you think might have

6 been the last exchange was? Do you remember the date or the year?

7 A. I think it was in November. It was cold. 1993.

8 Q. 1993. Thank you. I understand that some of your sisters had also

9 been similarly evacuated or had been evicted from their flats. Is that

10 correct?

11 A. My sister was also evicted from her apartment. She couldn't even

12 take her personal documents or any belongings. She had to leave the

13 apartment in the clothes she had on at the time. She went to live,

14 together with her son, in my mother's house. They even didn't let her son

15 take some books with him. At the time he attended college.

16 Q. Was your sister given any reason as to why she was evicted?

17 A. No. Somebody else moved in right away. They didn't even let her

18 come close to the apartment any more.

19 Q. The person who moved into the flat, again, do you know who that

20 person is or do you have any information as to the ethnicity of the

21 person?

22 A. By ethnicity, that person was a Serb. I don't know the name. He

23 and his father came, and the father said, "Son, you deserve this. You

24 deserved for somebody else to be evicted out of the apartment without the

25 ability to take any of their belongings with them."

1 Q. This exchange where you said the father came and said that the son

2 deserved it, who had overheard this exchange?

3 A. My sister was there present when the father said this. She was

4 immediately thrown out and not allowed to make any comments. She wasn't

5 allowed even to take with her basic necessities. They took everything

6 away from her.

7 Q. Can you tell us roughly when this occurred, when your sister was

8 evicted from her flat?

9 A. I can't tell you exactly, but in the very beginning, among the

10 first flats that were taken away in this manner. They would simply come

11 and kick you out, and you had no right to do anything, just get out of

12 there.

13 Q. Could you give us a rough idea? Was it in 1992 or 1993, for

14 example?

15 A. 1992.

16 Q. And was it prior to August 1992, if you can recall? And if you're

17 not sure, just say it.

18 A. Before August, yes. Before August.

19 Q. And Mr. Jasarevic, the rest of your details about what happened to

20 you and everything is in your statement. So I just want to ask -- and

21 your statement also states that you were able to get your house back in

22 recent years. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes. I got my house back. My house was taken away just before my

24 wife went to be exchanged. The day prior to that they came and took away

25 the apartment and she had no right to go back to the apartment because she

1 was to be exchanged the following day.

2 Q. Did you -- have you moved back into your house and are you trying

3 to rebuild your house in Bosanski Samac?

4 A. I returned back to my apartment and renovated it, and now I'm

5 living in Bosanski Samac.

6 Q. Did your family express their fear about your testimony here,

7 given that you are now trying to -- or you've now renovated your house

8 back in Bosanski Samac?

9 A. Yes. My family is afraid, due to everything that we experienced

10 in Bosanski Samac. When I returned to Bosanski Samac, I wasn't there for

11 five days altogether when my dog was killed in my yard. I reported this

12 to the police. The police didn't do anything. They simply interrogated

13 me and they never found the person who killed the dog. My neighbour was

14 there, and everybody knows who did it.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MS. REIDY: I've finished my examination-in-chief, and the witness

17 is available for cross.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have this receipt numbered for

19 identification, pending the translation of the stamp?

20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will be P130 ID and P130

21 ter ID. Thank you.

22 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, could I just raise very

25 briefly one matter that arose this morning? I'm certainly not opening the

1 topic again.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: But in the course of submissions, Mr. Lukic stood

4 up and said: "The Defence is prepared to allow its witnesses who will come

5 here to testify under Rule 92 bis to be cross-examined immediately and not

6 to be examined in chief first." So he has made his position clear.

7 That's the way the Defence case is going to be conducted. I wonder if,

8 because having read the passage, he seemed to be speaking for all Defence

9 counsel. I wonder if now Mr. Pisarevic or Mr. Pantelic could indicate if

10 they also will be presenting their Defence case in that fashion that

11 Mr. Lukic so clearly and comprehensively set out. Thank you.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was quite clear. I

14 said that in the sense that both sides have equality of arms, an equal

15 equality of arms. However, if the Prosecution has the right of direct

16 examination, I, for my witnesses, will avail myself of the right for our

17 witnesses. I only make this proposal in order to speed up the process, to

18 save on time. And I didn't do this on behalf of my colleagues.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't want to take up

20 time now, because --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: We are going to have a pre-Defence Status

22 Conference.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, may I simply say that I

24 strongly suggest Mr. Lukic reread, and other Defence counsel reread page

25 50, line 20 through to page 51, line 12, because I certainly don't intend

1 to let them forget that.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

3 Cross-examination.

4 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honour. Obviously --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, I've said that we are going to deal

6 with that at the pre-Defence conference, and I don't want to waste time

7 any more. We have a witness on the stand.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Okay, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Cross-examination, please.

10 Cross-examined by Mr. Krgovic:

11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jasarevic. My name is Dragan

12 Krgovic. I'm a lawyer, and I am present here on behalf of the defence of

13 Mr. Tadic, and I will be carrying out the cross here.

14 I shall try to formulate the questions so that you'll be able to

15 answer them with a "yes," or a "no," or "I don't know," and if need be --

16 an additional explanation will be needed, I will directly ask you for such

17 a further explanation.

18 Mr. Jasarevic, in your statement, as well as in your testimony

19 today, at the question of the Prosecution, you mentioned that you saw, in

20 front of and around the Cafe AS, members of the 4th Detachment and of the

21 special units. You also stated that you were passing by the Cafe AS when

22 going to work and when returning from work. And when questioned by the

23 Prosecutor the time frame and when you observed these people, the

24 Prosecutor said that it was at the end of 1991 and at the beginning of

25 1992. Is that correct?

1 A. I knew all the members of the 4th Detachment, and I saw the

2 special units only on the eve of the attack on Bosanski Samac, in front of

3 the AS Cafe, when I was returning from work. I made that statement. I

4 said that in my statement.

5 Q. Did you say the 16th or the 17th?

6 A. The 17th -- 16th. No, the 17th was the attack. 16th.

7 Q. You didn't see the members of the special units before that in

8 front and around Cafe AS?

9 A. I didn't see them earlier, because I didn't know them. There were

10 people I did not know. But I did see them before, at the rallies

11 throughout the town, the peace rally in the cinema, and I did recognise

12 them when I was beaten.

13 Q. Whom did you see of the special units at the peace rally?

14 A. I saw him, Slobodan Miljkovic, Lugar. He was in a white

15 tracksuit.

16 Q. You mentioned that as a white tracksuit?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. When was that? Can you remember, approximately prior to 17th of

19 April?

20 A. It must have been six, seven days before.

21 Q. The person in a white tracksuit, wasn't he maybe Boric Stanko,

22 known as Borac?

23 A. No. He was Lugar, and I recognised him when Dikan was killed, and

24 we all discussed Slobodan Miljkovic, Lugar, in a white Adidas tracksuit.

25 That is how he introduced himself.

1 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, in your statement, paragraph 14, you mentioned the

2 4th Detachment. You said it was formed by the JNA and that a Yugoslav

3 flag was flying in front of Mladost?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that the headquarters of the 4th Detachment was there, its

6 office.

7 A. Yes. It was a temporary headquarters. Later it moved, because

8 they couldn't usurp the facilities of others, and it was moved to the AS

9 Cafe owned by Miroslav Tadic.

10 Q. Compared to Mladost, where is Cafe AS?

11 A. Cafe AS is right across the street.

12 Q. Can you tell us: Was it usual in 1992, in Samac, that people who

13 work in a company or that they have an association and that they meet in

14 the neighbouring cafe? Would that be unusual?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Now, you mentioned that the 4th Detachment was in Mladost. When

17 was the command moved from Mladost to AS?

18 A. I don't know, but I do know that the director of that organisation

19 insisted that they move out of that building. Later, that was Piric Lafet

20 [phoen], who ended up also in Zasavica and went through all the suffering

21 that I had been inflicted also.

22 Q. You've never entered Cafe AS?

23 A. No, never.

24 Q. Could you tell us, Mr. Jasarevic: As you've said that you've seen

25 members of the 4th Detachment standing in and around the Cafe AS, did you

1 see also other people? As you're a person from Samac, you must have known

2 many people of Samac. Did you see Omer Nalic, your brother-in-law?

3 A. Yes, I did see him. I did see him. He went into the gambling

4 establishment there, together with your lawyer, Pisarevic. They were

5 gambling there.

6 Q. Did you see Alija Fitozovic entering there?

7 A. Alija would be a patron of all cafes.

8 Q. What about Salkic, and others?

9 A. No, I didn't see them.

10 Q. Now, let us return to this flag. Did you see that flag of this

11 Yugoslav flag in front of Mladost? Did you see it between January and to

12 the moment that the headquarters moved to AS?

13 A. I didn't follow the event.

14 Q. When did you, for the first time, see that Yugoslav flag hanging

15 out there?

16 A. It was unusual -- it wasn't unusual to see that Yugoslav flag.

17 For each and every holiday it was hanging there. But I know that

18 headquarters of the 4th Detachment were in Mladost.

19 Q. Let me ask about another subject. You were answering to the

20 question of the Prosecutor concerning the incident in Cafe Molla.

21 A. I don't know about Cafe Molla.

22 Q. I apologise. Cafe Valentino, when those boys were killed there.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you remember: You said that you spoke to the owner of the cafe

25 immediately after that event.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that he told you that they were playing with a hand grenade

3 and that this hand grenade was activated while they were playing with it.

4 A. Yes. It wasn't the first time that such events occurred, that

5 they would be playing with a hand grenade.

6 Q. This was an accident?

7 A. Yes, it was an accident.

8 Q. I mixed the two cafe, Molla and Cafe Valentino. Ratif Atic was

9 the owner of Cafe Molla?

10 A. Yes, I know him.

11 Q. And you know that members of the SDA were meeting there?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You have also mentioned here an incident which happened with the

14 members of the 4th Detachment, when Tota and Danilo were injured. Do you

15 remember that event?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. That happened in front of Cafe Molla?

18 A. No. It happened at the corner, at the very entrance of the cafe,

19 at the very corner of the market, towards the main street. There I saw

20 the Lada, which was riddled with bullets.

21 Q. Does Molla -- is Molla nearby?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. A bit diagonally across the street?

24 A. Yes. Diagonally some 50 metres across the street.

25 Q. You have mentioned that you were passing by Cafe AS, that you were

1 seeing these people. Can you tell me: Did you see them when you were

2 going to work or when you were returning?

3 A. When I was returning from work, but I also saw them when I went to

4 work. They were there on duty. I saw Stojanka's son. I saw them going

5 out of Cafe AS in the morning.

6 Q. Do you know that Cafe AS was open practically throughout the day

7 and night before these events?

8 A. No, I did not know that.

9 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, in your statement, and also during your testimony

10 today, you had mentioned that on that morning of the 17th of April, you

11 were -- you got ready a bit earlier, around 5.00 a.m., to go to work.

12 That is paragraph 35?

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy?

14 MS. REIDY: Yes. It's just -- if the Defence counsel could please

15 refer to the paragraph, if they say it's in the statement as well, for the

16 benefit, I believe, of the Bench, as well as for us.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MS. REIDY: For example, the last paragraph he mentioned when he

19 talked about the incident between the 4th Detachment, you know, Defence

20 counsel had put in his own words about the persons who were injured. It's

21 not in the statement. Until you find the statement, you don't see that.

22 I'm not objecting to that. I think that whole incident has been more than

23 enough discussed before, but if in the future Defence counsel could adopt

24 the habit of telling us which paragraph, it would be more than useful.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure Mr. Krgovic will follow that.

1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. So we're referring to paragraph 35. And you said that at about

3 5.00 a.m. You were getting ready for work.

4 A. Yes. Everybody morning I would be getting up at 5.00 a.m. and in

5 my statement, I also said why I got up so early to go to work.

6 Q. When did your shift begin?

7 A. At 6.00 a.m., and I always walked to my job.

8 Q. And that morning you normally went to work?

9 A. When everything calmed down, I tried to, by phone, to check

10 whether everything was all right, we'd be working, and in my statement I

11 also said why I went so early to work and why I had to be there first.

12 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you try and answer all my questions, because in

13 your statement, this has already been written down. This was an

14 introduction, and wait for my question which I will raise.

15 I wanted to ask you: When did you leave your home that morning?

16 A. Before 5.30 a.m.

17 Q. And you went to the health centre?

18 A. No. I passed by the health centre.

19 Q. You didn't arrive to your place of work; you stopped at a certain

20 point and you returned home?

21 A. It's stated in my statement.

22 Q. How long did you stay outside your home?

23 A. Somebody from the dark said, "Why are you here? Do you want to

24 lose your head?" I immediately returned to my apartment.

25 Q. I'm asking -- I don't know how distant is the health centre from

1 your home. So you must have returned after half an hour, 40 minutes, or

2 less.

3 A. Five, ten minutes, at the most.

4 Q. That morning when you were returning, did you see any military

5 vehicles along the streets you were moving?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You didn't see any people moving by these vehicles, or hiding?

8 A. I saw them -- I saw that in the afternoon.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's practically time

10 to end our session today, because I'd be passing on to another subject, so

11 I propose that we adjourn and resume tomorrow.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

13 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Since we have a couple of

15 minutes to the adjournment, to the break, maybe I can address the

16 Chamber. Well, I was informed by my client, as well as the other

17 defendants, that based on the information that they have in Detention

18 Unit - obviously they are speaking with the other defendants in the other

19 cases - that there is certain, well, need or habit to, from time to time,

20 by the end of the day -- maybe the defendants could address the Trial

21 Chamber with certain issues or -- I don't know. Personally, I am not

22 familiar with the practice of the other Trial Chambers. I even didn't

23 have enough time to explore this matter. But maybe our defendants can

24 clarify that in details, what is the reason to address the Trial Chamber

25 and what could be the topic. Yes, and I think the witness could be

1 released, because these are the procedural matters.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe we can clear the witness.

3 Witness, the proceedings will continue tomorrow at 9.00.

4 Yes. Is there anything that the any of the defendants wanted to

5 say to the Trial Chamber?

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 THE ACCUSED TADIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I turned on the

8 microphone when the cross-examination began. I wanted to object the fact

9 that we have been given a very short period of time in order to prepare

10 with the cross-examination. Some new facts emerged, and we didn't have

11 enough time, so the questions are not the best possible questions. This

12 is what I wanted to object at the time. I don't have anything

13 particularly to say now, but I think it would be useful if occasionally we

14 would be given a right to address you. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Blagoje Simic.

16 THE ACCUSED SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I initiated this

17 idea of allowing us occasionally to address you at the end of the day. I

18 have several objections to make, and one of the main ones is the

19 identification of myself by witnesses. I claim that I don't know most of

20 these witnesses --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me say this to all the defendants: Matters

22 relating to procedure or the way the case is going should be left to the

23 Defence counsel. The Defence counsel should be able to raise such

24 matters. The matters you may raise with the Chamber are those to do with

25 perhaps your health or whatever is happening to you in the Detention

1 Unit. Otherwise, matters of procedure should be left to the Defence

2 counsel. That's why they're here.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there's an added danger as

4 well that I can see looming here. Dr. Blagoje Simic, I gather, was just

5 about to launch into or say something about an issue that is purely an

6 evidentiary issue. The more he says, the more I will cross-examine about

7 what he -- when my time comes, of course. And what's the

8 situation -- what sort of situation is going to develop here? We don't

9 know that these witnesses are going to give evidence. Is the situation

10 going to develop where they stand up and make statements and I don't have

11 a right to cross-examine?

12 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think, Mr. Di Fazio, you should worry about

13 that --

14 MR. DI FAZIO: No. Well, I --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: -- because the procedure of the Chamber is quite

16 clear.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Because those incidences before the Trial Chambers

19 are matters best left to those Trial Chambers.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not talking about what happens elsewhere, but

21 just for the sake of the defendants, so they understand that it's not just

22 a question of standing up. There are all sorts of implications that

23 follow, and so on.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: So I would -- I mean, it's not for me to advise

1 them, of course, and I don't, but I say that from the Prosecution's point

2 of view, the safest thing is do things through your lawyers rather than

3 yourself. And that's my view. But in any event, let me say this, and so

4 that Defence counsel understand: that if matters were ever to be uttered

5 by defendants in Court, then I would, of course, only be happy if that

6 were to be covered by my right to cross-examine.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. We shall adjourn and continue tomorrow

8 morning.

9 This does not mean that the defendants cannot address the Court,

10 but I did indicate on what matters the defendants can address the Court

11 directly. Otherwise, it should always be through their Defence counsel.

12 We will continue the proceedings tomorrow at 0900 hours.

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of July,

15 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25