1 Wednesday, 4 December 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 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
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination is continuing.
11 MR. WEINER: Good morning, Your Honours.
12 WITNESS: SIMEON SIMIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Weiner: [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Simic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Yesterday when we left off, counsel -- Defence counsel asked me
18 to, instead of one long question, break it up and ask you some shorter
19 questions. So let's continue on this matter of the Vidovdan awards and
20 decorations. Let's just go back, take it back a few steps.
21 In early 1993 or sometime in -- early 1993, by that time,
22 according to your testimony, you were aware of the Crkvina massacre of 16
23 civilians, 16 non-Serb civilians, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you were aware, at least from all the rumours and the stories,
1 everything going around town, and the information you received, that Lugar
2 and some fellow Serbian volunteers were alleged to have committed that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you also indicated that you knew that Crni was some sort of
6 commander of these volunteers or special battalion?
7 A. No. A certain differentiation has to be made here. Crni was
8 indeed one of the commanders of the special battalion, but I am not aware
9 that Lugar was in this special battalion and in what formation he was
10 anyway. So there is a difference.
11 Q. Sir, you knew Lugar was not one of the locals?
12 A. Yes, that's right. Lugar was not a local.
13 Q. And, in fact, you knew Crni and Lugar and this -- and some of
14 these people were arrested in late 1992, and you thought it was due to the
15 Crkvina killings, and you knew Crni was arrested.
16 A. Well, I did not know why they were arrested and what they were
17 guilty of, each and every one of them. I don't know. I didn't know
18 that. I assumed that Lugar was on account of that.
19 Q. Sir, you testified that you believed that the reason for the
20 arrest of Crni and some of the others had to do with the Crkvina
21 killings. That was your testimony on the 29th of November, 2002, on
22 Friday. Correct?
23 A. I did not say that that was the main reason. As a matter of fact,
24 I said clearly that I did not know the exact and precise reasons, but I
25 assumed that Lugar had been arrested on account of that, among other
1 things, and that at any rate the military investigative authorities know
2 about that crime of his. As for the others, I really did not know the
3 reasons why they were there.
4 Q. But --
5 A. What was also mentioned was the closing off of the corridor.
6 Q. Correct. The closing of the corridor. But you also mentioned
7 that you assumed it had to do with Crkvina, yes or no?
8 A. You've said yourself that what I did not see could only be
9 speculations on my part. I cannot testify about something that I
10 personally find unclear and vague.
11 Q. No, sir --
12 A. But in your question --
13 Q. You believed -- you testified that you believed that it had to do
14 with certain military matters and Crkvina -- what you believed, based on
15 what you heard. I'm not asking what exactly happened at those hearings.
16 I'm not asking what did in fact happen, what complaints were issued. What
17 you believe. And you testified that you thought or you assumed it had to
18 do with Crkvina and the closing off of the corridor, correct?
19 A. [No interpretation]
20 Q. And you also stated that --
21 A. Thank you. Thank you.
22 Q. Okay. And you also stated, sir, that you did not know the results
23 of those proceedings. You don't know what resulted from those
25 A. No. No, I did not know.
1 Q. Okay. So in 1993 you did not know -- either late 1992 or 1993 you
2 did not know the result of those proceedings, again, Crni, Lugar, the
3 volunteers, and the whole group from Serbia.
4 A. I did not know the outcome?
5 Q. Thank you. However, in 1993, the Samac Municipal Assembly, of
6 which you were a member, awarded Crni and Debeli St. Vitus decorations;
7 isn't that true?
8 A. First of all, I have to say that I was opposition in that
9 assembly, and that should be stated here. I cannot remember the exact
10 outcome of that vote, but I can say the following, which is very important
11 for this particular matter: In the country that I hail from, at least one
12 out of every five persons has a decoration, an award of some kind.
13 Statistically speaking, in the times of the socialist Yugoslavia --
14 Q. -- We're not going to get back to the socialist Yugoslavia. Sir,
15 we discussed this for five to ten minutes yesterday --
16 A. But --
17 Q. This award, this Vidovdan/St. Vitus Day decorations or awards. And
18 at no time in that discussion yesterday did you ever mention that you were
19 opposed -- you opposed that decision at the assembly. At no time
20 yesterday. Isn't that correct?
21 A. That's not what I said. But it's very important to know the
22 actual techniques involved in the adoption of such decisions. It is quite
23 possible that I did not notice any such thing.
24 Q. Sir, again --
25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Weiner. I'd just like a
1 clarification. The witness said on line 8 and following of page 4 that he
2 wants us to know that he was -- to use his words, he says, "I was
3 opposition in that assembly." Now, I think we need a clarification.
4 Because from what I hear the witness saying, it seems as though he was in
5 an opposition party. Your question, on the other hand, seems to be
6 suggesting that he was opposing the awarding of the decorations. Those
7 are two different things. So if -- perhaps if the witness could just
8 clarify for us, that would settle that matter.
9 MR. WEINER: Sure.
10 Q. Could you please clarify -- first, did you understand the Judge's
11 comments, sir?
12 A. I have understood.
13 Q. Could you please tell us whether you opposed that particular
14 decision or you were in an opposing party in the assembly.
15 A. I was in an opposition party in the assembly, but I really cannot
16 remember -- actually, as far as I can remember, there wasn't a debate. I
17 don't remember how I voted, because the awarding of decorations is an
18 irrelevant subject as far as I'm concerned. Precisely because of this
19 hyperproduction of such diplomas. If you have several thousands of people
20 with a certain kind of recognition, that devalues that particular award.
21 That is my personal opinion. It is my personal opinion that such awards
22 do not have much value. That is my personal view, and that's why I didn't
23 pay much attention to this.
24 Q. Now --
25 A. When this decision was reached.
1 Q. Now, you testified --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. WEINER:
4 Q. Now, you testified yesterday, and in the five to ten minutes we
5 discussed this issue you never stated that these were devalued awards,
6 that your opinion were that these were some sort of negligible awards or
7 devalued awards. You never said that yesterday, sir; isn't that correct?
8 A. I probably didn't have enough time to say that, but I'm saying it
9 right now. If several thousand awards are given --
10 Q. Sir --
11 A. In a period --
12 Q. You didn't say it yesterday. That's the question.
13 A. I certainly did not have time to say everything valuing the time
14 that I have available here, but I am saying it right now.
15 Q. But you didn't say it yesterday; yes or no? It's a simple
17 A. I think I didn't say it. But let it be. I didn't say it.
18 Q. And will you agree that the decoration was awarded to those two
19 people, Crni and Debeli, for the successful command and control of units
20 of the Army of the Republika Srpska, the defence of the people and Serbian
22 A. I would appreciate it if I could see that document again.
23 MR. WEINER: 126A, please.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can it be shown to the witness.
25 MR. WEINER: 126.
1 MR. PANTELIC: For the sake of clarity, it should be P126, yes?
2 MR. WEINER: P126. Thank you.
3 A. Please.
4 Q. Sir --
5 A. Which Official Gazette and which page?
6 Q. It's section 35, Article 2, decision of 24 June 1993.
7 A. Could you kindly give me the number of the Official Gazette.
8 Q. It's on page 3 or 4, sir. It's page 1 in the English. 46/93. We
9 can find it for you, if you'd like, sir.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe the usher can assist.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I've found it.
12 MR. WEINER:
13 Q. I invite your attention to Article 2, "Decorations shall be
14 awarded to the following for the successful command and control of units
15 of the Army of the Republika Srpska, the defence of the people and Serbian
16 land." And those were given to Crni and Debeli, correct?
17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 Q. In fact, if you look at Article 5, some additional awards were
19 also given. Awards were given to Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Stevan
20 Todorovic, and Mirko Lukic. It says, "Shall be awarded decorations for
21 their selfless contribution to the struggle for freedom and the defence of
22 the Republika Srpska." Is that correct, sir?
23 A. Yes, you've read it correctly.
24 Q. And that was signed by Dr. Blagoje Simic, president of the
25 municipal assembly.
1 A. Yes, it's signed.
2 Q. And those awards were given to them on the 30th of June in 1993 by
3 the Serbian -- I'm sorry, the Serbian Assembly of the Samac Municipality,
5 A. The Assembly of the Municipality of Samac. The Assembly of the
6 Municipality of Samac.
7 Q. Thank you. And they were awarded for their selfless contribution
8 to the struggle for freedom and the defence of the Republika Srpska?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Let's move on. You testified on Thursday, the 28th of
11 November, 1992 -- I'm sorry, the 28th of November, 2002, that you learned
12 sometime, I assume in March, that in late February of 1992 an assembly of
13 the Serbian people was held. That was your testimony, correct?
14 MR. PANTELIC: I would be very grateful if we could have a page
15 transcript of these parts so that we can follow.
16 MR. WEINER: 1.298.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
18 MR. WEINER: I'm sorry, 12.988.
19 Q. Is that your testimony, sir, that you were aware --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you further testified that an Assembly of the Serbian People
22 of Bosanski Samac and Pelagicevo under formation was established, correct?
23 A. Yes. I said that I learned that the assembly had been
24 established. However, I could not have found out about that towards the
25 end of February because it had been founded towards the end of February.
1 I found out later. But perhaps that is insignificant.
2 Q. No. I totally agree. You testified you found out later.
3 Now, you also testified that none of the bodies from that assembly
4 ever functioned later, nor did that assembly ever function in a true
5 sense. Those were your words; isn't that correct? Also at pages 1 -- I'm
6 sorry, 12.988. That was your testimony.
7 A. Yes. I'm not aware that the authorities, even if they were
8 elected by that assembly, but I don't know about that, that they were
9 never proclaimed elected by that assembly or did they ever start operating
10 as such.
11 Q. Sir, let's talk about that. Isn't it true that Ilija Ristic was
12 elected president of the Municipal Assembly of Bosanski Samac and
13 Pelagicevo under formation on February 29th, 1992? Isn't that true, sir?
14 A. I can only say that I had heard about him being elected. So if
15 this is not considered to be a speculation, then I can say it. I was not
16 an eyewitness of this event, but I heard about it later on. I could read
17 it in Official Gazettes.
18 Q. Thank you. And that was in fact listed in the Official Gazette.
19 A. I read it in the Official Gazettes only in 1994/1995.
20 Q. Thank you. And are you also aware that plans were developed for
21 the formation of municipal government bodies at the assembly, that those
22 plans were developed and continued to be developed later, such as the
23 rules and duties of the president, vice-president, secretary of the
24 municipal assembly, and plans for the working bodies were also described,
25 and the election procedures were also developed or formulated? Were you
1 also aware of that from reading the Official Gazette in 1994?
2 A. Yes. I saw that in Official Gazettes, and I saw that there was
3 total confusion there. And to be quite frank, I didn't understand any of
4 those documents. Who did what, who was in charge of what, all of that
5 was --
6 Q. The issue is not whether you understood it. The issue was weren't
7 those plans made; that's the question. Whether you personally understood
8 it or agreed with it, that's not of consequence here. The issue is or the
9 question is: Were those plans made? You said you saw them in the
11 A. In Official Gazettes, there are such things.
12 Q. And isn't it also true that it was published in the gazette in
13 March of 1992. Stevan Todorovic was elected chief of the Public Security
14 Station of the Serbian Municipality of Samac by that Assembly of the
15 Serbian Municipality of Samac? Isn't that true?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, if we are speaking about the Official
18 Gazette and some other documents, it would be fair for the witness to have
19 this particular Official Gazette in front of him and -- because there is a
20 lot of regulations in one gazette, so ...
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
22 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it's gazette 124, since he's indicated
23 he has seen them, I haven't asked to have it be placed in front of him.
24 But I would be happy to let him see P124.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please, as much as possible let the witness get
2 the documents being discussed.
3 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would also like to draw your
5 attention to the fact that the Prosecutor on page 10, line 15, said that
6 this was published in the Official Gazette in March 1992. And the
7 Prosecutor knows him full well that this is not correct. That it was only
8 in March 1993 -- or rather, 1994. So could the Prosecutor please be
9 accurate when he is saying when something was published, not when the
10 actual decision was made.
11 MR. WEINER: What line are you referring to, sir?
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.
13 MR. WEINER: I'm very familiar it's June 1994. I don't recall
14 saying 1992. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, it was a slip of the tongue. It
15 was -- he was elected chief in March of 1992. That's not when the gazette
16 was published.
17 Q. Sir, are you aware that Stevan Todorovic was elected chief of the
18 Public Security Station of the Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac by
19 that assembly and he was elected in March of 1992? It's on page 12 of the
20 English, Article 1. It's a list of persons elected to the executive
22 So do you agree that Stevan Todorovic was elected by the Samac
23 Municipal Assembly in March of 1992, sir?
24 A. In the Official Gazette I see that that is the way it was, but I
25 have no other knowledge concerning that. Now, whether this Official
1 Gazette is authentic or not is something I cannot assess.
2 Q. Sir, that's not an -- that's not your job to make that
3 assessment. It's already been -- it has already been admitted as an
4 exhibit in this case, sir. However, does it indicate at Article 1 that
5 Stevan Todorovic was elected Chief of the Public Security Station by that
6 Samac Municipal Assembly?
7 A. It says decision on the election of members of the executive board
8 and the name of Mr. Stevan Todorovic is here.
9 Q. And sir, doesn't it also indicate that that Samac Municipal
10 Assembly and Pelagicevo under formation elected 10 additional members to
11 the executive council of that assembly? You can count them if you'd like,
12 for a total of 11.
13 A. There are 11 names.
14 Q. Of persons elected by the municipal assembly -- by the Samac
15 Municipal Assembly, correct, sir?
16 A. Yes. In the preamble it says that that is the Assembly of the
17 Municipality of Samac and Pelagicevo under formation.
18 Q. And they elected the members of -- those 11 members of the
19 executive council. That's what it says.
20 A. Yes, that's what is written here.
21 Q. Sir, further -- isn't it also true, sir, that the assembly charged
22 the new executive council president and those senior officials to organise
23 the work of the organs of administration and to carry out preparations for
24 the transition to work under wartime conditions? If you look at the next
25 page. Isn't that true? Weren't those persons ordered to do that by the
1 municipal assembly? Article 2.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Sir, isn't it further true that in March of 1992 - and this is not
4 from this document. This is from the testimony of Blagoje Simic - that in
5 March of 1992 it was decided that a Crisis Staff should be established --
6 a Crisis Staff should be established in the Serbian Municipality of
7 Bosanski Samac if war breaks out in the Posavina and the president and
8 vice-president of the municipality, as well as the chairman of the
9 municipal board of the SDS, were responsible for implementing that
10 decision of establishing a Crisis Staff? Are you aware of that, sir?
11 A. I don't know why I am supposed to testify about a document that
12 already exists and that was already admitted into evidence.
13 Q. Sir, that's not the question. My question to you is: Are you
14 aware, according to the testimony of Blagoje Simic, that also in March of
15 1992 it was decided that the Crisis Staff should be established in the
16 Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac if war breaks out in the Posavina
17 and the president and vice-president of the municipality, as well as the
18 chairman of the municipal board of the SDS, were responsible for
19 implementing that decision? Are you aware of that, sir?
20 A. I wasn't present at that assembly and I'm not aware of that.
21 Q. All right. Sir, isn't it a fact that in mid-April 1992 a
22 Municipal Crisis Staff was established for the municipality of Bosanski
23 Samac? You were a member of that, so you should be aware that it was in
24 fact established.
25 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
1 Q. Now, are you also aware that Dr. Blagoje Simic, president of the
2 municipal chapter of the SDS was appointed president of that Crisis Staff,
3 of the Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac?
4 A. Dr. Blagoje Simic was appointed president of the Crisis Staff of
5 Samac Municipality.
6 Q. Finally - and that's also stated in that document on pages 21 and
7 22 in the English - do you agree that on April 14th and 15th, the
8 executive council of the Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac and
9 Pelagicevo under formation concluded that the Chief of the Public Security
10 Station should immediately establish a special purpose unit of the MUP to
11 work with the military and civilian authorities to protect the Serbian
12 people? Are you aware of that, sir? It's stated at pages 21 and 22.
13 A. I'm not aware that any special unit had been established, nor do I
14 know anything about that.
15 Q. Well, are you aware that two defendants in the case have given
16 statements to the OTP where they have described the activities of the
17 Serbian police unit during the takeover and immediately after the takeover
18 of Bosanski Samac? Are you aware of that, sir?
19 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour. It is too general
20 assumption. The witness cannot say what the defendants say. Maybe my
21 learned friend can be more specific. When? How? Who said what? This is
22 very, very general. It's confusing the witness.
23 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it's not confusing him. I'm just asking
24 him if he's aware. He made statements that nothing ever came from this
25 assembly. Apparently a number of decisions came from the assembly. And
1 I'm asking him if he's aware of certain activity. He can say yes or he
2 can say no.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I think in fairness to the witness, it's better
4 to reiterate -- go back to those statements. They're already on record.
5 And remind -- and refresh the mind of the witness. I think he has been
6 giving evidence for quite some time and he has seen so many documents. So
7 in fairness to the witness, it's always better to be precise, show the
8 document, read out the statement, so that the witness is able to direct
9 his mind to the evidence which is under discussion.
10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Additionally, Mr. Weiner, I'm just wondering, how
11 would this witness know what was in statements that two of the accused
12 persons gave to the OTP?
13 MR. WEINER: We've been reading out statements that have been
14 given to the OTP for the last several days. And in addition to that, some
15 of these statements were also publicly made to newspapers and publicly
16 made within the communities. It was public -- all I'm saying is it was
17 public knowledge that the Serbian police were involved in the takeover of
18 Bosanski Samac.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, this is pure speculation from
20 the part of the Prosecution, because he cannot even say when it was
21 published, who said what. So just for the record. Nothing more.
22 MR. WEINER:
23 Q. Sir, I'm going to read a statement from Miroslav Tadic, his
24 statement to the Prosecutor at page 24 -- the statement of 26 March 1998,
25 Exhibit 138.
1 MR. WEINER: Yes.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Krgovic.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it would be
4 fair to the witness if an evidence is put to him and here we have
5 something that had been admitted into evidence -- to have that interview
6 put before the witness and especially this segment in which the Prosecutor
7 is interested and in the language of the witness. I'm saying this because
8 I have noticed that when the Prosecutor was reading out segments of the
9 interview of Miroslav Tadic, the Prosecutor was taking it out of context
10 and putting only some sentences and some phrases from the interview,
11 having previously taken them out of context. This is why I believe that
12 it would be fair to the witness to have the interview put in front of him
13 so that he could see it as well as everybody else in the courtroom.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. I think it's only to try and help
15 the witness to direct his mind to what is being discussed, because all
16 these documents are already on record.
17 MR. WEINER: [Microphone not activated] We have them. Your
18 Honour, we have copies with the B/C/S -- English and B/C/S.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. WEINER: However, I would state -- I'd strongly object to the
21 statement made by counsel that we were taking things out of context. We
22 read what was stated.
23 Your Honour, I'd like to move these statements into evidence.
24 These statements correspond to each one that's already been admitted. The
25 only thing is they have the English and then they have directly under that
1 the B/C/S. It's the exact same. It's just the B/C/S translation of the
2 English, so it's kind of a -- it's a joint document, English and B/C/S, of
3 the document that's already in evidence. That one there is document 138.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Have the Defence been given?
5 Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are very grateful to
7 the Prosecution for having created interviews in this form. We saw that
8 with respect to Stevan Todorovic that there have been certain
9 differences. I would like this document to receive an identification
10 number because we are currently conducting comparison of these
11 translations. I don't think it would turn into a problem, but it would be
12 useful to us if this document was identified with an identification number
13 because we are currently conducting comparisons of translations.
14 MR. WEINER: No objection to that. Let them take whatever time
15 they'd like to --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, what we're trying to clarify here is
19 that we've already got these interviews into evidence in English.
20 MR. WEINER: Yes.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. WEINER: Yes, we do.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: What you have now is the B/C/S?
24 MR. WEINER: Yes.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: So we're only admitting these as the B/C/S version?
1 MR. WEINER: Yeah, you could admit it as a B/C/S or a joint
2 B/C/S-English version.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Because we can't have a document admitted
5 MR. WEINER: No, fine. Just the B/C/S version.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: In this case then they'll with given
7 identification -- they'll be admitted as exhibits.
8 The questions of incorrect or correct translation can be dealt
10 MR. WEINER:
11 Q. Sir, I just want to ask you to look at the top of page 34. And
12 could you just follow along one question with me. The first question:
13 "Q. Who managed to take over the town of Bosanski Samac then if
14 the 4th Detachment was not involved?
15 Answer by Mr. Tadic: "It was not a problem to take over Bosanski
16 Samac. There was the Serbian police, some trained people, and in a half
17 hour they took over Bosanski Samac without any shots being fired, without
18 shelling, without the war."
19 Is that correct, sir?
20 A. I don't know. All I know is that the shooting lasted for several
21 days and practically didn't stop. I don't know anything about that half
22 an hour.
23 Q. What I just read to you, was that correct, sir? What I just said
24 to you, did I read it properly?
25 A. Mostly, yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, when you said that no actions were taken as
2 a result of that assembly, you were wrong, because the assembly did in
3 fact take actions, as you see in that gazette. A number of actions had
4 been taken.
5 A. I don't think I was wrong. Perhaps some of the members took
6 actions, some members of the executive council. However, I'm not aware of
7 the fact that the executive council ever convened in that composition.
8 I'm not aware of that. I don't even think that that is reflected -- these
9 actions are reflected in the Official Gazette.
10 Q. Sir --
11 A. Now, as to whether some of these people were included --
12 Q. Sir, weren't actions taken as a result of the municipal assembly?
13 Weren't actions taken? They established an executive board. They placed
14 people on there. Weren't actions and decisions taken, as you've read --
15 and you say you've noticed and you've read in the gazette? Weren't
16 actions taken?
17 A. From what I read in the Official Gazette, I cannot claim that they
18 took any actions based on that. On the contrary, I can see --
19 Q. Sir, the fact that they made decisions to appoint people and
20 establish boards, weren't those decisions taken? Didn't they make some
21 decisions? They established a Crisis Staff. Isn't that a decision?
22 A. There are a number of questions that stem from that, and I am
23 unable to give you an answer that would cover all of these questions.
24 Q. All right. Then let's move on to another question.
25 MR. WEINER: If the witness could be shown P145A.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have a number for this B/C/S version.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. It will be Exhibit P138 ter. Thank you.
3 MR. WEINER: Ter ID?
4 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I did say that it would be admitted into
5 evidence as an exhibit. If there are problems with translation, that will
6 be dealt with during the trial.
7 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, if I may address just to the
9 registry. Just to make sure what we are talking about. Because we had
10 interviews of Mr. Zaric -- three interviews of Mr. Zaric. And we also
11 have two interviews of Mr. Tadic. So this particular document, are we
12 talking about first or second interview with Mr. Tadic? Because --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's dated. The one the Bench has is dated,
14 "Interview on 26 March 1998. "
15 MR. WEINER: That's the first interview.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: The first interview. Okay. Thank you very much.
17 MR. WEINER: As we use the documents, each of the others, I can
18 introduce those or can I just introduce those in lump, the other three
19 interviews now, whichever the Court would like.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's better to introduce them by numbers and
21 also cite the date so that we are all clear which document we are
23 MR. WEINER: Would you like them all at this time or as we ...?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: No. As you deal with them.
25 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Sir, that's a copy of the Variant A and B document which you
2 discussed previously in your testimony. What I'd like to tell you is --
3 A. No. I didn't speak about this document.
4 Q. You testified previously that you were not aware of the document;
5 isn't that true?
6 A. Yes, that's true. That means that I didn't discuss the document.
7 Q. You didn't discuss the document. Correct. What I'm trying to say
8 to you, sir: All of these decisions that we just discussed, nine
9 decisions, the establishment of an assembly, the election of a police
10 chief, the establishment of a Crisis Staff, these eight or nine decisions
11 we just talked about which I asked you were you aware of each of those,
12 the ones we just talked about, sir, are you aware that all nine of those
13 decisions are required acts under Variant B of the Variant A and B
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I must -- I must object. This witness
17 said that he is not aware of this Variant A and B, so how he can now make
18 any conclusion or assumption with regard to certain preposition --
19 certain, I would say, theory -- Prosecution case theory?
20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Let him answer. If he can't, he will say
22 MR. WEINER:
23 Q. Are you aware that all of those actions we've just discussed that
24 were taken - the establishment of the municipal assembly and all the
25 actions by the municipal assembly and the executive board - were all
1 required under the Variant B section of the Variant A and B document? Are
2 you aware of that, sir?
3 A. I cannot be aware of something that I haven't read, and I
4 especially cannot compare something that I didn't see with something from
5 the Official Gazette. I don't know about this document, neither about
6 Variant A, B, nor C, nor any other that you might mention.
7 Q. Sir, if you've never looked at the document -- hasn't counsel
8 shown you that document before you got on the witness stand?
9 A. He showed it to me; however, I had no desire to read it. What
10 would my motive be to read the document?
11 Q. Sir, what would your motive be? How can you say that you did not
12 discuss and make decisions on the content of that document if you haven't
13 looked at it to know exactly what the document contains?
14 A. I can say that I have never discussed this document anywhere,
15 because I will repeat this again, I am not familiar with this document.
16 Q. Sir, if you've never examined the document, examined the contents,
17 how can you say you've never discussed any of the contents of it if you
18 haven't looked at it? It's a long document.
19 A. Based on the theory of coincidence, you might be right. But this
20 is just guessing. This is just a speculation. It is possible that
21 something that is mentioned in that document was accidentally mentioned by
22 me sometimes; however, it is quite plausible that I know nothing about
23 this document because on page 1 it says "Confidential Document of the Serb
24 Democratic Party." So how could I be aware of something that has been
1 Q. Sir, once again, how can you say that you didn't take the actions
2 required in that document, you weren't involved in the actions required in
3 that document, if you have not read the contents of the document?
4 A. I have neither read the document nor have I taken any action
5 regarding that document.
6 Q. But you --
7 A. And I'm very confused by your question.
8 Q. Sir, if you've never read the document, you don't know what's
9 contained in the document. Therefore, you can't state whether you've
10 taken any actions based on that document -- based on the contents of that
12 A. I haven't read "Marxist Capital." So I can't tell you whether
13 I've taken any action stemming from that book.
14 Q. Okay, then sir, you will not disagree with me -- so you cannot
15 disagree with me when I say to you that nine of the actions which we just
16 discussed moments ago which were taken by the assembly -- the Serbian
17 Assembly of Bosanski Samac and Pelagicevo under formation were required to
18 be taken under the Variant B section of the Variant A and B document.
19 Then you cannot disagree with me on that when I give you that statement.
20 A. What you've told me doesn't mean that I through my personal
21 knowledge or through my experience reached that conclusion. If you're
22 asking me to testify about your own analysis, that is not something that I
23 deduced myself, then I'm unable to do that as a witness.
24 Q. Let's move on, sir. Sir, you testified previously that you were
25 the information officer for the Crisis Staff. You were the director of
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, maybe it's a matter of translation.
4 They're confusing the terms here. Information officer, director of
5 information. Why we can't simply say member of the Crisis Staff in charge
6 of information, something like that. Because otherwise it won't be
7 logical for the transcript, and the transcript is the evidence finally.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: So what you're saying is --
9 MR. PANTELIC: Because the witness is not hearing the word
10 "information officer" in B/C/S language. He's hearing, "A member of
11 Crisis Staff in charge for information." But in the transcript, contrary
12 we have "information officer," "director for information," "chairman, or
13 "CEO of information," "director," et cetera. I mean, I think my learned
14 friend is a little bit pumping up, you know, this function. So let's
15 stick to the issue: Member of the Crisis Staff in charge for
16 information. And let's use that term, because otherwise he's confusing
17 with the translation that he is receiving after these submissions. Thank
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
20 MR. WEINER: [Microphone not activated] I'd be very happy to use
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please use the correct term.
23 MR. WEINER:
24 Q. Sir, you were a member of the Crisis Staff in charge of
25 information, sir?
1 A. Yes, I was a member of the Crisis Staff in charge of information.
2 Q. You were the person who had to disseminate information, meet with
3 the press, get information out to the press?
4 A. It wasn't exactly like that. Yesterday I explained that, and I
5 don't think it is necessary for me to waste the time on that once again.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's what I was about to say, that we had
7 that explained in detail from the witness already.
8 MR. WEINER:
9 Q. Now, sir, as part of your job -- actually, we've move on.
10 Sir, you talked about a journalist, Mato Krajinovic, a -- I
11 believe he's a Croatian journalist?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you indicated that he was involved in a propaganda ploy,
15 A. Well, I wouldn't use that term. I don't know if this is a problem
16 with translation. I don't think that it was a propaganda plot. But at
17 any rate, he was one of the promoters of propaganda on the Croatian side
18 in the radio station of Odzak.
19 Q. I said "propaganda ploy," not "propaganda plot." But he was using
20 propaganda. And would you agree, sir, that the Croatians -- the Croatian
21 government, the Croatians were using propaganda during the war.
22 A. The media used it.
23 Q. Yes, the Croatian media.
24 A. One could hear this in the media.
25 Q. Correct. And it was used to vilify or blame the Serbs or make
1 people hostile to the Serbs, to make the Croats and Muslims hostile
2 towards the Serbs, vilify them?
3 A. Yes, that's right. Their objective was to portray Serbs in as bad
4 a light as possible.
5 Q. And you were aware that the Muslims, the Muslim media, the Muslim
6 government was also using propaganda to their advantage?
7 A. Yes, a similar thing can be said about the Muslim media.
8 Q. And they were also portraying the Serbs in a bad light, correct?
9 A. Most often, yes. Although, there are exceptions. One cannot
10 generalise matters.
11 Q. And are you also aware that the Serb media was using propaganda
12 during the war?
13 A. The Serb media also used certain means of propaganda war.
14 Q. And that was also to boost the morale of the Serb population and
15 also to place the Muslims and Croats in a poor light.
16 A. When it comes to the Samac municipality, this was taken into
17 account. I can't speak of any higher levels, but I know for a fact that
18 information and dissemination of information in Samac municipality on the
19 part of the people who participated in that was as far as that was
20 possible, it was professional and professionally done. Our publishing
21 houses, our media at that time did not -- and we are talking about the
22 first couple of months, at the beginning of the war. The system -- the
23 information system didn't work properly, and in Samac we used as much as
24 that was possible, we used information, i.e., the paper that was
25 prescribed by the Pentagon for information during the Desert Storm. So
1 from that document, we learned what could be published, what couldn't be
2 published, and so on and so forth, and we believe that these were the
3 highest professional standards.
4 MR. PANTELIC: It is absolutely a hundred per cent, a million per
5 cent, contrary -- the transcript does not reflect what the witness said,
6 and it's a very dangerous thing on a very sensitive issue, a very
7 sensitive question. I will give you illustration.
8 The question was: "And that was also to boost the morale of the
9 Serb population and also to place the Muslim and Croats in a poor light."
10 And then we are -- when we are reading the answer, it's absolutely
11 contrary what the witness said, so I --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Which line?
13 MR. PANTELIC: It's line 17. And until -- from page 26, line 17
14 until the line 4 of the next page. I don't want to say what I heard from
15 this witness. I just want this witness to repeat the answer and also to
16 hear the question, because it's a very, very serious thing.
17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, at that point -- I was going to stop the
18 witness anyway, because it's not responsive to the answer. I asked him --
19 MR. PANTELIC: No. Please, I want this part to be strike from the
20 transcript, because it does not correspond to the what the witness said.
21 So please, could you pose another -- the same question and then
22 let's hear the answer.
23 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, the answer is not responsive to my
25 JUDGE MUMBA: No. What the -- Mr. Pantelic is saying is that the
1 translation is not correct.
2 MR. WEINER: If he -- if you'd like to strike it, that's fine.
3 It's not responsive. I don't care if you want to strike. It's not
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Then it will be struck off record.
6 MR. WEINER: Fine. It's not responsive.
7 Q. Sir, my question again was: The Serbian media used propaganda
8 placing the Muslims and the Croats in a bad light, just as the others did;
9 isn't that true?
10 A. We cannot generalise as I have already said about the Croatian and
11 the Muslim media.
12 Q. Sir, isn't it true that the Serb media was distorting information
13 and placing the Muslims and the Croats in a bad light? Isn't that true?
14 A. It's a very general definition, and I cannot answer that question
15 of yours.
16 Q. Isn't it true that segments -- we'll do it your way -- segments of
17 the Serb media were using propaganda and placing the Muslims and Croats in
18 a bad light?
19 A. Could you please be more precise and tell me exactly what
20 document, when was it published, on which page.
21 Q. Sir, in general, wasn't the Serb media just like the Muslim media
22 and the Croatian media, using propaganda, yes or no?
23 A. The use of the media was similar, to my knowledge.
24 Q. So just as the Muslims and Croats were using propaganda, so was
25 the Serb media using propaganda.
1 A. I didn't study the media and what the media carried on any of the
2 sides. I can just give you my impressions, and my impression is that the
3 reporting in the media was more or less similar, because they all used the
4 similar methods. But that is just my impression. I did not particularly
5 study the media, nor am I aware of any of the results of any of the
6 studies that would have me in the media at that time as their subject.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We've spent a lot of time on this,
8 Mr. Weiner. Can we move on?
9 MR. WEINER: Well, Your Honour, it's going to be my allegation
10 that he was the propaganda ideologue for the Bosanski Samac. That's why
11 I'm trying to spend some time on this.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Then move on.
13 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, you were appointed by the municipality's executive council as
15 editor-in-chief of "Koridor" magazine; isn't that correct?
16 A. "Koridor" magazine had three editors-in-chief while it existed,
17 and I was one of the editors-in-chief.
18 Q. And in addition to being editor-in-chief of "Koridor" -- one of
19 the editors-in-chief of "Koridor" magazine, you were also appointed
20 director of the municipal public information company in 1993? You were
21 appointed the director of that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And under the municipal public information company -- I'm sorry.
24 A. From January to April 1993 I was the principal of the secondary
25 school. And from April 1993 onwards, I was the director of Duga public
1 company and the information services was just one of the segments of that
2 company, and you can see that in the decision.
3 Q. Yes. And information services was involved. In fact, you oversaw
4 the press, the TV, and the radio as part of the umbrella of that
5 information services.
6 A. That company had information as one of the segments. Then there
7 was a library. There was a cultural centre, and there was also catering.
8 These were all the segments of that company.
9 Q. -- Sir. You oversaw the press, the TV, and the radio as part of
10 the information services' umbrella.
11 A. I'm afraid that we will have to study the law in order to answer
12 that question. In addition to the director, who was also a manager, there
13 were also editors-in-chief of the various media. I was at the same time
14 the editor-in-chief of "Koridor" and the editor of the radio station was
15 somebody else, and he was responsible before the law for the things that
16 were aired by that radio station.
17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could I have a few minutes to get a
18 document I need on this issue?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated] How many minutes,
20 Mr. Weiner?
21 MR. WEINER: Five minutes, please.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. We'll rise for five minutes.
23 --- Break taken at 10.40 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
1 MR. WEINER:
2 Q. Sir, in addition to being director of the municipal public
3 information company, you indicated that you were the -- one of the
4 editors-in-chief of the magazine "Koridor," a bimonthly magazine. Wasn't
5 one of the uses of "Koridor" magazine for the purposes of propaganda?
6 Wasn't that one of the uses of "Koridor" magazine?
7 A. If you look at the Official Gazettes carefully, you will see it
8 clearly that the editorial policy to defined there, but propaganda
9 activity isn't mentioned anywhere, and you can easily see that in the
10 Official Gazettes.
11 Q. We're going to get to that, sir.
12 Sir, weren't you required to discuss topics such as war crimes and
13 genocide against the Serbian people? Weren't you required to discuss that
14 in the magazine?
15 A. Can you please explain who would it have been who asked for that.
16 Q. Sir, the magazine was established by the municipality. Didn't the
17 municipality municipal assembly require that you discuss topics such as
18 war crimes and genocide against the Serbian people? Wasn't that the
19 required -- part of the required content of that magazine? Yes or no?
20 A. The municipal assembly as the founder defined its position, i.e.,
21 the global editorial concept, and it did that in its act on the
22 establishment of the magazine, and later on it was the editorial board
23 which was in charge of putting the magazine together in keeping with the
24 professional norms and standards of journalism. And as such,
25 editors-in-chief and journalists, together with the editor-in-chief, were
1 responsible for ...
2 Q. That's not my question. My question was: Didn't the municipal
3 assembly require that you discuss topics such as war crimes and genocide
4 against the Serbian people? Weren't you required to do that by the
5 municipal assembly?
6 A. I repeat: The municipal assembly issued a document to define
8 Q. Sir, once again, my question was: Were you required to discuss
9 topics such as war crimes and genocide against the Serbian people? That's
10 my question. Yes or no, or you can't answer it? Say you don't know.
11 A. Of course I do know, but that was just one of the segments in the
12 content of this magazine.
13 Q. So you were required to discuss in your magazine war crimes and
14 genocide against the Serbian people. You agree with me. Correct?
15 A. Every topic of public significance could find a place in this
17 Q. Sir, the question is: You were required to discuss in your
18 magazine war crimes and genocide against the Serbian people. That was
19 part of the content that the municipal assembly told you you had to
20 include; is that correct?
21 A. I see this question as too acute, too pronounced. That could have
22 been one of the topics.
23 Q. Sir, was another topic that you were required to place in your
24 magazine discussions of the combat-readiness of the Army of Republika
25 Srpska? Were you also required to place that in your magazine, stories
1 about that?
2 A. On our team of journalists, we did not have an expert on military
3 issues, so in that part I believe that there were not many articles. I
4 can't remember right now, but it is possible. Journalists would write
5 stories from the front lines and from the life of soldiers.
6 Q. Sir, isn't it true that the Municipal Assembly of Bosanski Samac
7 told you or determined the content of "Koridor" magazine? They determined
8 for you what the content of "Koridor" magazine would be; isn't that true,
10 A. I've already said that the document to establish "Koridor"
11 magazine also contains a passage which defines the global editorial
12 policy, but it is a very general passage in that document.
13 Q. Sir, didn't they determine the -- not the global editorial policy
14 but the overall content of the magazine? Didn't they determine the
15 overall content for you?
16 A. It would be wrong if somebody dictated what journalists should
17 write. A journalist has to be --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: You were not asked on the general forum. It's
19 specific question whether the assembly directed the contents of the
20 magazine. Yes or no?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The municipal assembly did not
22 determine the contents of the magazine.
23 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, may the witness be shown Exhibit P125,
24 please, in the B/C/S version.
25 Q. Section 19, Article 4. In the English, it's page 11, the decision
1 on the founding of "Koridor" magazine. Could you please look at that, go
2 to that.
3 Do you have that, sir?
4 A. Yes. I've found it, and this is exactly what I was talking about.
5 Q. That's exactly what I was talking about too. Could we go to
6 paragraph 3 of Article 4. Do you see that? And I'd like to read that,
7 and would you please tell me if I'm reading it correctly.
8 "In terms of its content, 'Koridor' shall be organised to
9 facilitate the clarification and affirmation of the current military and
10 political situation of the Serbian people of the Sava Valley and also in
11 the territory of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. All of
12 the magazine's contents from war reports and documentary photographic
13 material to commentaries shall be completely oriented towards the
14 affirmation of the genuine interest of the Serbian people and the moral
15 profile of the combat-readiness of the Army of the Republika Srpska. The
16 publication shall also follow all economic, political, and cultural events
17 in the Sava Valley and also the social situation caused by the war."
18 Finally: "'Koridor' shall contain features on the gathering of
19 material evidence of war crimes and crimes of genocide committed against
20 the Serbian population of the region."
21 Is that correct? They dictated what the content of that magazine
22 should be, the overall content, sir?
23 A. They defined the editorial principles, but they did not dictate
24 the content. The editorial policy and the editorial content are two
25 different things.
1 Q. Sir, doesn't it state that "'Koridor' shall contain features on
2 the gathering of material evidence of war crimes and crimes of genocide
3 committed against the Serbian population of this region"? That's what it
4 says there. That's what it shall contain, correct?
5 And it also says that --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Let the witness --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what it says.
8 MR. WEINER:
9 Q. And it says also,
10 "The magazine's content" -- all of the magazine's contents, from
11 war reports and documentary, photographic material to commentaries,"shall
12 be completely" -- and look at the word --"oriented toward the affirmation
13 of the genuine interest of the Serbian people and the moral profile of the
14 combat-readiness of the Army of the Republika Srpska."
15 That's what they told you. That's what it shall be oriented
16 towards. Correct?
17 A. This document was drafted by somebody from the administration, and
18 that's why it is what it is.
19 Q. And that was an order that was signed by Dr. Blagoje Simic,
20 president of the municipal assembly, on the 17th of April in 1993.
21 A. It is not an order. An order is a military term, and this is a
22 decision passed by the municipal assembly for which 50 MPs in the assembly
23 voted. And whatever they voted for was later on by the president of that
25 Q. And --
1 A. I don't see the word "order" anywhere.
2 Q. And that decision indicated that -- what the contents, the overall
3 contents of the magazine should be. That decision -- whether you want to
4 call it an order or a decision. Use your term "decision." That indicated
5 what the contents of the magazine would be.
6 A. It's not my term. It is an administrative term in the municipal
7 assembly, and I repeat, the programme concept and the contents of a
8 magazine are two different things. Everywhere the founder has the right
9 to define the editorial policy, and the contents of the magazine are
10 defined by the team of its journalists, and that is the only answer to
11 that that I can give you.
12 Q. Sir --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we take our break?
14 MR. WEINER: Yes. Sorry.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: And Mr. Weiner, you've had your time, actually, in
16 cross-examination. We started yesterday at 12.00, so you should be
17 winding up.
18 We'll continue at 11.30 hours.
19 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
22 MR. WEINER:
23 Q. All right. Sir, are you aware that in 1993 a new television
24 station, Studio Samac, was also established by the Serbian Municipality --
25 the Serbian Municipal Assembly? Are you aware of that?
1 A. The Municipality of Samac passed a decision on the establishment
2 of a TV station, Studio Samac, but that TV station did not start operating
3 until 1996. It didn't work.
4 Q. But it did in 1993 establish a television station?
5 A. Yes. The foundation act was passed in accordance with legal
7 Q. And it placed it within the framework of Duga, which you were the
8 director of, the informational agency.
9 A. That TV station was not stationed anywhere because it did not have
10 any equipment. I repeat, that --
11 Q. No, sir. That's not my question. My questions was: The station
12 was placed within the framework of Duga, under the auspices of Duga, which
13 you were the director of, the information agency. That's the question.
14 Isn't that what the municipal assembly did? They put it under you and
15 Duga, D-u-g-a.
16 A. Yes. That TV station organisationally speaking would be within
17 that information company.
18 Q. And the municipal assembly as part of their decision to adopt or
19 to establish this television statement also indicated that its purpose --
20 what its purpose should be, didn't they?
21 A. That's right. Legal regulations stipulate what the decision on
22 foundation on establishment is supposed to include. Inter alia such a
23 decision should include what is called a programme concept, in a few
25 Q. And the programme concept was that it should be part of the
1 unified mass media of Republika Srpska and that its purpose was to affirm
2 the struggle of the Serbian people. That's what the municipal assembly
3 indicated the purpose was, correct?
4 A. I would like to see that document, actually.
5 MR. WEINER: P126, exhibit, please. Exhibit P126.
6 Q. Article 4, number 48/93, 15 July 1993.
7 Do you see Article 4, sir?
8 A. I see that.
9 Q. And it says, "The programme of the Studio Samac television station
10 shall be an integral part of the unified mass media of the Republika
11 Srpska --
12 A. That's not correct. That's not what it says here, or at least the
13 interpretation I hear is not what is written here.
14 Q. Why don't you read that paragraph, one sentence.
15 A. Gladly. "The programme of TV Studio Samac is intended for the
16 public information of citizens and for researching, disseminating
17 information that pertains to questions that are of public importance."
18 That is a sentence that has a content that is quite opposite to what we
19 heard before.
20 Q. Read the next sentence, please. Or I'll read the next sentence.
21 A. Paragraph or sentence?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness be directed to what he should read,
24 MR. WEINER: It's the next sentence. It's the next sentence.
25 It's the next paragraph.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can he continue, then.
2 MR. WEINER: Sure. Please do.
3 A. Thank you. "The programme of the TV station Studio Samac is an
4 integral part of the unique information system of Republika Srpska, and it
5 serves the purposes of affirming the struggle of the Serb people for its
6 state and -- state sovereignty and economic and social prosperity."
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they do not have any of
8 these texts.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So when the reading is being done, please do
10 it very slowly.
11 MR. WEINER:
12 Q. So it says: "The purpose shall be to affirm the struggle of the
13 Serbian people," correct? Just as I said previously.
14 A. You read the first paragraph.
15 Q. But that's what it says in the second paragraph, the struggle of
16 the Serbian people. That's the purpose.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Sir, in 19 -- in December of 1994, the special rapporteur for the
19 United Nations indicated different aspects of Serbian propaganda. One of
20 them, common references to genocide. Another one, in battlefield, Serbian
21 forces are almost always attacked and they defend themselves. Sir, isn't
22 that what you were doing in Bosanski Samac, using that same type of
23 propaganda that the special rapporteur to the United Nations complained
25 A. As for this programme part relating to the establishment of the TV
1 station, you could have seen just now that that is not what it says here.
2 Q. With regard to "Koridor" magazine, isn't that what you were doing
3 in Bosanski Samac, just what the rapporteur of the United Nations
4 complained about, those types of propaganda?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No? Sir, didn't it say that you shall include articles about
7 genocide? Didn't it say that? Weren't those your directions from the
8 assembly? We read those directions, sir.
9 "'Koridor' shall contain features on the gathering of material
10 evidence of war crimes and crimes of genocide committed against the
11 Serbian population of the region."
12 Isn't that one of the techniques that the special rapporteur has
13 complained about? Isn't that correct?
14 A. Tell me one single text. Tell me of one single text that has
15 dealt with that subject.
16 Q. Sir, the question is: The special rapporteur has indicated that
17 Serbian genocide during the war included constant references -- I'm sorry,
18 Serbian propaganda during the war included constant references to genocide
19 committed against Bosnian Serbs.
20 Now, sir, you were told -- I'm sorry, the magazine was told that
21 its content shall contain features on gathering of material evidence of
22 war crimes and crimes of genocide committed against the Serbian population
23 of this region. Isn't that consistent with the special rapporteur's
24 complaints on Serbian propaganda? That's what you were doing, just as the
25 special rapporteur said.
1 A. I would like to know whether the special rapporteur bore in mind
2 the "Koridor" newspaper and came to such conclusions. I don't think so.
3 The "Koridor" was published in some 2 to 300 copies, and I think that the
4 special rapporteur in his report did not have the "Koridor" in mind, nor
5 do I have any knowledge to that effect, that he meant the "Koridor"
6 magazine. If you have any knowledge in this respect, I would like to hear
7 about it and then perhaps I could answer your question.
8 Q. Sir, he said that these press agencies were established by force
9 precisely for the purpose of distorting information to serve the military
10 and political objectives. That's what the special rapporteur said on
11 December 14th, 1994, in paragraph 38. That was the Bosnian Serb press.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we object to the
14 question put by the Prosecutor. It is the period of 1994 that is being
15 discussed here, and the indictment refers to the period up to the end of
16 1993 as far as my client is concerned, at least, so it is not advisable to
17 put these kind of questions related to a period that goes beyond the
18 indictment. And after all, we had no opportunity of seeing this report.
19 It was not admitted into evidence, and it was never exhibited.
20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I responded to his question. As this --
21 but as this Court knows, the special rapporteur was established by the
22 United Nations in 1992. Their job or their function was to go out and
23 determine whether human rights violations occurred from 1992 on, and
24 that's what this rapporteur talks about, the various violations.
25 And in the December 1994 edition, it talked about the use of
1 propaganda during the war. It talked extensively about Serb propaganda,
2 Muslim propaganda, and Croat propaganda. And the only reason I even
3 brought that sentence up was I answered his question. He questioned me.
4 Did it ever discuss? And I said, Yes, they discussed what exactly the
5 Serb press was doing. They were distorting information to serve military
6 and political objectives.
7 If you'd like, I have a copy of it and I can confront him with
8 it. Just like our expert witness in the first week of Prosecution, Mr. --
9 The expert Mr. Donia was confronted by a special rapporteur's report by
10 Catharine Baen, which is Exhibit D2/2 for ID, and Catharine Baen did
11 confront witnesses with that, even though that was not part of our case.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before I say anything, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My colleague the Prosecutor is now
14 comparing this report in completely different contexts. Our colleague
15 Ms. Baen mentioned this report in the context of expert witness Donia,
16 related to visits to camps, and they were specifically mentioned in that
18 If the Prosecutor is now invoking the report on propaganda, it has
19 to be set very precisely. In which part does it pertain to propaganda.
20 Because the period from 1991 to 1993 is a very broad one. And before
21 that, the Prosecutor has to exactly specify the period in which the
22 "Koridor" magazine was being published so that he could correlate the
24 If this report refers to all years of the war, then the Prosecutor
25 did not establish when the "Koridor" newspaper was established, and it is
1 only then that he can correlate Mr. Mazowiecki's opinion to what the
2 "Koridor" newspaper published. And I think that the wording from the
3 Mazowiecki report is too broad based and therefore it cannot be put in
4 such a way to this witness.
5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this witness has testified when he
6 became the director of "Koridor" magazine. We --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think, Mr. Weiner, the other important issue
8 is that the report of the rapporteur, and even the Prosecution evidence,
9 has not produced a single copy of the "Koridor." Is there any which we
10 have -- where there is propaganda?
11 MR. WEINER: No. All I'm saying is he was ordered or the orders
12 from --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MR. WEINER: Yes. I --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the order in part is okay. But as to whether
16 or not the actual articles --
17 MR. WEINER: And all I want to say is the order he was giving as
18 to the contents, those fall within the determinations of propaganda
19 according to the special rapporteur. That's all I'm saying. His
20 orders --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
22 MR. WEINER: Nothing more than his orders basically, genocide that
23 the Serbs always defend themselves and never attack, those fall within --
24 and I was going to show one more document and finish basically on this
1 JUDGE MUMBA: If that is your explanation, then you can proceed.
2 MR. WEINER:
3 Q. So my question was: The orders that you had from the assembly as
4 to the content of that magazine that it shall include stories on genocide,
5 that falls within -- or that's consistent with -- those directions are
6 consistent with the special rapporteur's report that propaganda -- Serbian
7 propaganda commonly used references to genocide.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour. I don't believe that we
9 heard anything here in the evidence that that was the order of the
10 municipal assembly.
11 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it was the decision of the municipal
13 MR. PANTELIC: Decision is --
14 MR. WEINER: And it says "shall." It doesn't say "you may
15 include. You can include." It says "you shall include." And if you look
16 at the terminology in the exhibit, the word "shall" is there. And we all
17 know the legal meaning of "shall." It's an order.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I think the explanation is
20 MR. WEINER:
21 Q. So the direction to include stories about crimes of genocide
22 committed against the Serbian population, that is consistent with the
23 report of the special rapporteur -- the comment of the special rapporteur
24 that the Serbian propaganda included constant allegations to genocide.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I don't understand how the witness
1 could answer that, unless he read the report of the special rapporteur of
2 the UN, how could he answer that? He doesn't know what's in the report.
3 MR. WEINER: He could answer that it does not. He could answer it
4 does. Or he could answer "I don't know."
5 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I thought you had read, alia, that part of the
6 conclusion of the special rapporteur.
7 MR. WEINER: Yes.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe you can repeat that so that he's
9 directed as to what he's being asked to compare.
10 MR. WEINER: I'll read the full paragraph.
11 May I give a copy to him so he can read the full paragraph instead
12 of the phrase. I'll read the full paragraph and he can follow along with
13 me. I have it in B/C/S.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. WEINER:
18 Q. Paragraph 39 from the special rapporteur's report of the 13th of
19 December, 1994,
20 "These media commonly refer to genocide committed against the
21 Bosnian Serbs by Muslims and to Muslims as Mujahedins or Islamists,
22 seeking to oppose Islam on Serbs. Killing Muslims is depicted virtually
23 as a holy duty, the goal of which is to protect orthodoxy. In military
24 reports from the battlefield, the Serbian forces are almost always
25 attacked and then obliged to defend themselves, rarely initiating attacks
1 themselves against the enemy. It is Muslim forces or the Ustasha, Croats,
2 a reference to the fascist organisation active in Croatia during the
3 Second World War who are always responsible for provocations."
4 My question to you, sir: The directive that you received from the
5 municipal assembly telling you that you shall gather material evidence of
6 war crimes and crimes of genocide committed against the Serbian people,
7 that direction to you is consistent with the complaint of the special
8 rapporteur, is it not?
9 A. Quite simply, I cannot agree to fall into this trap which is
10 called inverted logic. I simply cannot draw any parallel or see any link
11 between what was done in the "Koridor" newspaper on the one hand and on
12 the other hand what the special rapporteur wrote here.
13 Q. Fine. Let's move on. Sir, the final thing I'd like you to look
14 at is Exhibit 79. You testified about it on Friday, November 29th.
15 MR. WEINER: P79.
16 Q. Do you see the document, sir?
17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 Q. Sir, you stated on Friday that this document was prepared for the
19 press; isn't that correct? That's what you said on Friday.
20 A. Yes. That document was prepared for the media.
21 Q. And you also stated that the date on it, April 17th, was
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. It was incorrect or falsified or it was backdated, but the date
25 was not correct. Now, do you know -- is that true? Is that correct, my
1 statement? Is that a proper characterisation of your testimony, that the
2 date was falsified, backdated, or it's incorrect?
3 A. It can be put that way.
4 Q. Now, do you know who prepared that document?
5 A. The professional staff of the Crisis Staff.
6 Q. Now, that document indicates that the Territorial Defence of the
7 Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac was involved in a battle, correct?
8 A. It can be put that way.
9 Q. Now, sir, you weren't present on the early morning hours of the
10 17th in Bosanski Samac in the town to see that battle, correct?
11 A. I was not present in the early morning hours of the 17th of April
12 in Samac so that I could see the battle.
13 Q. Nor were you present during the day, during the daytime hours, or
14 at any time on the 17th of April in the town of Bosanski Samac.
15 A. No, I was not present.
16 Q. In fact, you didn't appear in Bosanski Samac until sometime on the
18 A. Yes, the 19th.
19 Q. Okay. Now -- so basically you never saw or you have no personal
20 knowledge or any direct knowledge of what occurred in Bosanski Samac on
21 the 17th or 18th. You have no direct knowledge or personal knowledge.
22 A. I've already spoken about that. The first thing I saw was a
23 number of uniforms of the ZNG, that is to say from the National Guards
25 Q. On the 17th or 18th, you didn't see anything. On the 17th --
1 A. Right. On the 17th and 18th, I did not see any of that.
2 Q. Now, this, as I said, indicates that the TO of the Serbian
3 Municipality was involved in a battle here, and you said yes. Milan --
4 I'm sorry, Miroslav Tadic gave a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor
5 on 26 March 1998. That's Exhibit P138, and the B/C/S version is P138 ter
6 ID, which was admitted today.
7 MR. WEINER: If the witness could see that, please.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: It is not actually ID. If my colleague --
9 MR. WEINER: I'm sorry. 138 ter, yes.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: P138 ter.
11 MR. WEINER:
12 Q. I'm going to read how he describes the battle and its involvement
13 with the 4th Detachment, which he also refers to as the Serbian TO. And
14 let me find the page for you.
15 Earlier Mr. Tadic describes the 4th Detachment as the local TO, or
16 the local Serbian TO, on page 16. But let us --
17 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me. Just which page for us?
18 MR. WEINER: Okay. We're going to talk about page 24 in the
19 English, and I believe it's page 33 -- page 33 in the B/C/S.
20 "Q. But the 4th was involved in the takeover on the 17th of
21 April; isn't it true?"
22 Answer by Mr. Tadic: "No.
23 "Q. Who managed the takeover of the town of Bosanski Samac then
24 if the 4th Detachment was not involved?
25 "A. It was not a problem to take over Bosanski Samac. There was
1 the Serbian police, some trained police -- I'm sorry, some trained people,
2 and half an hour they took over Bosanski Samac without any shots being
3 fired, without shelling, without the war.
4 "Q. There was no resistance offered by the non-Serbs?
5 "A. Mostly no resistance. Perhaps partly some, but not
7 "Q. So if there was no fighting going on and there was no
8 resistance, what was the need to take over the town in the first place?
9 "A. Now, this is more of kind of a political question, and the
10 reason for this takeover was that in order to prevent an inter-ethnic
11 conflict, because there was some information given that there was some
12 indications as well as that there would be an inter-ethnic conflict was
13 waiting to happen. So this was done in order to prevent it. So this
14 takeover happened, if we can call it, conditionally speaking."
15 As you note, he doesn't say anything about an involvement of a
16 Serbian TO. In fact, the group he describes as the Serbian TO, the 4th
17 Detachment, he says was not involved. Isn't that correct, sir?
18 A. On the 17th and the 18th I was not an eyewitness. But still, I
19 cannot say that I was hibernating at the time because the sound of
20 artillery fire --
21 Q. Sir, the question --
22 A. -- reached me in Kruskovo Polje.
23 Q. Sir, once again the question is: Miroslav Tadic doesn't say
24 anything about the involvement of a Serbian TO. In fact, the group he
25 describes as the Serbian TO, the 4th Detachment, he says was not
1 involved. Isn't that correct, sir? That's the question.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I believe that this question is not
3 quite appropriate. First, looking through the interview of Mr. Miroslav
4 Tadic, there is no one single place where he said 4th Detachment was
5 actually Serbian TO. He was talking about 4th Detachment. Whether he
6 thought that it is the Serbian TO or something else, I don't believe it's
7 fair to ask this witness to comment something that it is not even clear to
8 the Prosecution or to us.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, any response?
10 MR. WEINER: Page 16.
11 Q. But is the 4th Detachment and TO the same thing?
12 A. Yes.
13 Page 16 he calls it the same thing.
14 Q. So my question again -- my question again, sir: Miroslav Tadic
15 doesn't say anything about the involvement of a Serbian TO. In fact, the
16 group he describes as the Serbian TO, the 4th Detachment, he says was not
17 involved. Is that correct, sir?
18 A. I can answer this question once the term "some people trained
19 there" is explained to me. That's the term that I did not understand.
20 The first part of it, "Trained people," can indicate people wearing
21 uniforms, but it can also indicate people that had gone through some
22 military training. This is why this term is unclear to me.
23 Q. Sir --
24 A. I also do not understand to whom these trained people belonged.
25 Q. Those were members of the special battalion, locals that were
1 trained in Serbia.
2 But getting back to the question. The question, sir, again, is --
3 and it's a simple question -- Miroslav Tadic doesn't say anything about
4 the involvement of a Serbian TO. In fact, the group he describes as a
5 Serbian TO, the 4th Detachment, he says was not involved. Is that
6 correct, sir? Is that a correct reading of that document?
7 A. I cannot comprehend that and come to that conclusion based on what
8 I had heard.
9 Q. Sir, I'm not asking you what you've heard and comparing that to
10 what you've heard. I'm asking you what Miroslav Tadic states in his --
11 indicates in his statement. In that statement that you have in front of
12 you, he does not indicate that the Serbian TO or the 4th Detachment,
13 whatever you would like to call it, was involved in a takeover; isn't that
15 A. Based on this statement of Miroslav Tadic, I cannot come to that
17 Q. So that statement of Miroslav Tadic does not indicate that the
18 Serbian TO and the 4th Detachment was not involved in the takeover. That
19 statement of Miroslav Tadic does not indicate that. Is that what you're
20 saying, sir?
21 A. What I can see on the basis of the statement of Miroslav Tadic is
22 that he himself was not quite clear about the identity of those trained
23 and uniformed people.
24 Q. Sir --
25 A. Despite my willingness, I'm unable to do that.
1 Q. Sir, he specifically says the 4th Detachment, which he describes
2 as the Serbian TO, was not involved in the takeover. Is that what he
3 says? If you'd like, I'll read it to you again.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Weiner. I think we've belaboured the point.
5 MR. WEINER:
6 Q. Sir, Mr. Simo Zaric has also given a statement to the Office of
7 the Prosecutor on April 2nd, 1998, Exhibit P141.
8 MR. WEINER: We'd like to hand in at this time the ter document.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please.
10 MR. WEINER: Page 7 in the English.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit P141 ter. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: And this is the interview by Mr. Simo Zaric of the
13 2nd April 1998.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That is correct, Your Honours. Thank you.
15 MR. WEINER:
16 Q. [Microphone not activated].
17 "Q. I'm sorry. I have missed this along the way -- that's the
18 beginning of the question. When was it that Nikolic received this call
19 from Simic informing him that they had made the decision to take over?
20 Do you see that question? Do you see that question on yours?
21 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have a page, please.
22 MR. WEINER: Page 7 in the English.
23 Q. Do you see it, sir?
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Weiner. On what page in the ter
1 MR. WEINER: 12 on the ter.
2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it at the top.
4 MR. WEINER:
5 Q. Answer by Mr. Zaric, by the defendant Zaric:
6 "A. And Nikolic told us that he had received a call from Blagoje
7 Simic on the 16th after midnight - so it was actually the 17th - very,
8 very early in the morning -- in the night telling him that the Crisis
9 Staff had decided to take over the town of Samac, that it would then
10 become the Serbian Municipality of Samac, that there were Serbian police
11 and units were taking over all the vital buildings and objects in the
12 town. Now, I'd like to say something, that the official authorities in
13 the town, whenever during the war, when the anniversary would come up on
14 this date, the 16th of April, they would celebrate and look upon it as an
15 anniversary of liberation. That is the word they used to express it. And
16 they said it was liberation carried out by the Serbian police and Serbian
17 volunteers, but they never even mentioned the 4th Detachment."
18 Is that what it says? Is that what it says, sir?
19 A. Could you please repeat your question. What is your question to
20 me? And as to what you have just read out --
21 Q. Did I read that out correctly, sir?
22 A. You did, yes.
23 Q. Is there anything in that statement from the defendant Simo Zaric
24 indicating that the Serbian TO was involved in a battle on April 17th,
1 A. The only thing I can say is that there are a few incorrect bits
2 here in this text. The first one is that Blagoje Simic was not a JNA
3 officer. He was not able to issue orders to any military formations.
4 Q. It doesn't -- it does not say that Blagoje Simic was a JNA
5 officer. It says he issued those orders on behalf of the Crisis Staff on
6 the 16th of April -- or actually, on the 17th of April, in the early,
7 early morning hours, it says.
8 A. Blagoje Simic could not have issued orders to soldiers of the JNA
9 or to the Territorial Defence or any other military formation. This is
10 why this passage is not clear to me.
11 Q. Sir, does it indicate that the Serbian TO was involved in a battle
12 on April 17th, 1992? We'll get back to Blagoje Simic.
13 A. I can't see that in this first paragraph.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, let's go back to Exhibit 79, P79, sir. That
15 exhibit, the first two paragraphs talk about a battle. Is there anything
16 in that exhibit, in that one-page exhibit, indicating that a pre-emptive
17 strike was used to take over the town of Bosanski Samac? Is that listed
18 anywhere on P79?
19 We're back at P79, the piece -- the exhibit that was sent to the
20 press. Is there anywhere in that exhibit or statement that a pre-emptive
21 strike was used to take over the town of Bosanski Samac? Does it say that
22 anywhere on that page?
23 A. It doesn't say here "in order to take over power" in the second
24 paragraph. Rather, it says here that these forces acted pre-emptively in
25 order to stop the attack, to prevent the attack, or the incursion of the
1 Army of the Republic of Croatia and paramilitary formations into Samac.
2 Q. Sir, it says that in the first paragraph, "Units from Croatia,
3 along with Green Berets and units of the so-called Territorial Defence
4 tried to occupy the town."
5 Does it state anywhere that a pre-emptive strike was taken to take
6 over the town? Does it say that anywhere, a pre-emptive strike was
7 utilised to take over that town?
8 A. The mere fact that the forces from the Croatian territory came
9 there. That's what it means.
10 Q. Sir, that's not my question. Does it state that a pre-emptive
11 strike was used to take over the town?
12 A. It doesn't say here "in order to take over the power," but rather,
13 "in order to prevent the incursion of the formations from the --"
14 Q. Are the words "a pre-emptive strike was used to take over the
15 town" in that letter?
16 A. In what letter? I'm sorry, I am -- it's not clear to me.
17 Q. -- Does it use the words "a pre-emptive strike was utilised to
18 take over the town"?
19 A. No, these words are not used there.
20 Q. Thank you. Does it state that Serbian police and volunteers from
21 Serbia were involved in a battle to take over the town? Does it say that?
22 A. No. And I would like somebody to convince me in that by quoting
23 something that would prove that it was the volunteers from Serbia and some
24 other forces involved in it.
25 Q. Sir, we just quoted statements from two of the co-defendants in
1 the case. Let's move on to the next question.
2 Does it state that there was very little resistance from the
3 non-Serbs? Does it state that in the letter which you used to send to the
4 press -- in the document that you sent to the press, that there was very
5 little resistance from the non-Serb population?
6 A. It doesn't say that. It contains a general definition to the
7 effect that last night paramilitary formations attempted to occupy the
8 territory of Samac municipality.
9 Q. Yes, I can read that too. All my question is: Does it state that
10 there was very little resistance from the non-Serb population? That's
12 A. There is no specific term here regarding the resistance. Unless
13 you interpret the term "occupy," then one can assume that a significant
14 force needs to exist in order to accomplish that.
15 Q. We're not going to assume. We're not going to try and interpret.
16 We're just looking at the words.
17 Finally, is there any indication, is there any statement in that
18 document that Blagoje Simic, on behalf of the Crisis Staff, called Nikolic
19 and asked him to take over the town?
20 A. On the basis of this document, I cannot conclude something of that
22 Q. Sir, if those things happened as stated by Mr. Tadic and Mr. Zaric
23 and these first two paragraphs in this document are false, isn't it true
24 that this letter is nothing more than a piece of propaganda?
25 A. You have used the word "if" several times. And then on the basis
1 of your own thesis, you reached a conclusion. In logic, this is called
2 inverted logic. That's what I know.
3 Q. I'm asking you to accept those two hypotheticals, that what Zaric
4 and Tadic said was true. There was no Serbian TO involved in the battle.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. Calling for speculation. Pure
6 speculation, Your Honour. It's even a part of his question.
7 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this is the information director or
8 however you want to call it, the information chief of the Crisis Staff.
9 He's responsible for meeting with the public. If these two paragraphs are
10 false, he can answer whether or not this is just all propaganda.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because the interviews -- the passages -- the
12 relevant passages of the interviews have been read to the witness, so he
13 can compare that with what the content of the document he is looking at
14 are talking about.
15 MR. WEINER:
16 Q. So my question to you, sir: If those first two paragraphs are
17 false and you weren't there -- you've admitted you weren't there for the
18 battle -- if those first two paragraphs of the statement are false and the
19 statements from Tadic and Zaric are true, indicating those two paragraphs
20 are false, isn't that document nothing more than a piece of propaganda
21 that was given to the press?
22 A. This document cannot be pure propaganda, nor can it be said that
23 it is.
24 Q. So even if it's false, even if those first two paragraphs are
25 false, that's not propaganda, that document. Putting out false
1 information to the press, that's not propaganda, sir?
2 A. False information was not spread, no.
3 Q. If those two paragraphs are false, sir, isn't that document a
4 piece of propaganda?
5 A. To be quite frank, I'm not clear on what is incorrect now. Is it
6 what was stated by Mr. Tadic and Zaric, or is it these two paragraphs
7 contained in this proclamation? If you are referring to the paragraphs in
8 the proclamation, then they are correct.
9 Q. Sir, if those first two paragraphs are false -- if those first two
10 paragraphs are false, isn't this document consistent with paragraph 39 of
11 the special rapporteur's report, where he states -- where he talks about
12 Serbian propaganda.
13 "In military reports from the battlefield, the Serbian forces are
14 almost always attacked and then obliged to defend themselves, rarely
15 initiating attacks themselves against the enemy."
16 If those first two paragraphs are false, isn't that exactly what
17 the special rapporteur for the United Nations mentioned in his complaints
18 about Serbian propaganda?
19 A. But these very paragraphs are correct, and I will take the liberty
20 of giving you my impression regarding this and tell you that this reminds
21 me of a famous saying by Richelieu and saying, "Give me an innocent
22 sentence and I will turn it into something else."
23 Q. You weren't there. You can't say what happened. You've only
24 received information.
25 My question is again: If those two paragraph that is the Crisis
1 Staff sent to the press are false, if those two paragraphs are false,
2 isn't that falsity consistent with the complaint of the special prosecutor
3 as to Serbian propaganda, where the special rapporteur states -- sorry,
4 not the special prosecutor -- the special rapporteur states,
5 "In military reports from the battlefield, the Serbian forces are
6 almost always attacked and then obliged to defend themselves, rarely
7 initiating attacks themselves against the enemy."
8 Isn't that consistent with the special rapporteur's report, that
9 those two paragraphs are false, yes or no.
10 A. I have no information to the effect that the special rapporteur
11 had in mind either this proclamation or anything else that took place in
12 Samac in terms of information spread there.
13 Q. Sir --
14 A. For three full day it is artillery shelled --
15 Q. That's not the question. The question is: Assuming those two
16 paragraphs are false, isn't that consistent with the special rapporteur's
17 complaint about Serbian propaganda where, .
18 "Military reports from the battlefield, the Serbian forces are
19 almost always attacked and then obliged to defend themselves, rarely
20 initiating attacks themselves against the enemy."
21 That's at paragraph 39 which was read to you and which you saw.
22 Assuming those two paragraphs are false, isn't that consistent with the
23 special rapporteur's report?
24 A. I never base my conclusions on incorrect assumptions. I always
25 base them on what I know to be true. Therefore, I wouldn't like to go
1 into speculations regarding untruths.
2 Q. Sir --
3 A. And I also wouldn't like to link that with the report --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner -- Mr. Weiner, I think we'll go on. You
5 won't get the answer you want.
6 MR. WEINER: It's obvious.
7 Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Re-examination, Mr. Pantelic.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Re-examined by Mr. Pantelic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Let's go back to facts, because we have dealt
12 with a lot of assumptions here.
13 First question: Were there any Croat attacks from mid-July
14 1992 -- mid April, sorry, 1992?
15 A. There were attacks.
16 Q. Second question: Were there SDA and HDZ elements in Samac which
17 were militarily organised?
18 A. Yes. The Croatian Democratic Union had the HVO and the SDA had
19 the Green Berets as armed formations.
20 Q. Is the bridge towards Prud as part of Samac municipality, as part
21 of the municipality of Samac, was it closed between the 20 -- the April
22 1992 and May 1992?
23 A. Croat armed forces and other armed persons were on that bridge
24 long before that.
25 Q. Were there any shelling --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: --
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Allow the answer to the witness to be completed in
4 the translation.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Your question was: Were there any shelling -- and
7 then you're supposed to continue.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Was there any shelling of Samac by the Croat
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were Serbs in Odzak detained in April and May 1992?
13 A. Yes. In Odzak there were about 3500 to 4000 detained Serbs.
14 Q. Was Samac up to July 1992 completely militarily encircled? Was it
15 surrounded by the army?
16 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MR. WEINER: That's outside the scope of cross-examination.
19 MR. PANTELIC: It's very inside the scope.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I'll allow the question because --
21 MR. PANTELIC: It's very inside the scope.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: The question will be allowed.
25 MR. WEINER: And these are also very leading questions. He can
1 ask what happened, when things happened. But he's saying, Did this --
2 Didn't this in fact happen? Didn't this in fact happen? Just yes and no
3 answers, they're also very leading.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, we already have that in our evidence
5 during the examination of this witness. You can find in his
6 examination-in-chief all these answers. So it's an indisputable fact.
7 MR. WEINER: You still can't lead.
8 He still can't lead, Judge.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: I would like to wind up, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: What you want is to reaffirm what the witness said
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, that's correct.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. You can go ahead.
15 MR. PANTELIC: And now it's my final question.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, are these facts or propaganda, all
17 these questions that I've just asked you?
18 A. These are pure facts.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Simic.
20 MR. PANTELIC: -- P12 -- sorry, it's 125, I believe. Yes. P125.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, go to page 34 of this Official Gazette
23 number 2, dated 8 August 1994.
24 A. If I may have the usher's assistance, please, with finding the
1 MR. WEINER: What page in the English, counsel?
2 MR. PANTELIC: Well, this is the decision that -- it was discussed
3 during the cross-examination.
4 MR. WEINER: No, I know. Just what page are you referring to?
5 MR. PANTELIC: Frankly -- oh, it's really a mess here because it
6 was -- number 2. Because my version here is completely regular, and I
7 really don't know what is the -- yes. Yes. It's page 34 -- ERN number is
8 00456707 B/C/S version. And accordingly, the English version is -- should
9 be page 11. Actually, this is a decision on the founding of the "Koridor"
11 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you. Page 11.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, can you please explain to me this
14 act. What kind of an act is that?
15 A. This is the decision on the foundation of "Koridor" magazine,
16 which was passed by the Municipal Assembly of the Municipality of Samac at
17 its session on the 17th of April, 1993, in keeping with the legal
18 regulations which envisage the items that are contained in the document,
19 i.e., in the founding act.
20 Q. Thank you. Is that an order?
21 A. This is not an order.
22 Q. Is this -- was this decision unnecessary? Did it have to be
23 passed in order to register a company? So is this an act to incept a
25 A. An inception act is mandatory as per the regulations of the
1 municipal assembly so as to put this magazine within the legal system.
2 Q. Next question: Please look carefully at Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
3 6, 7, and 8. Can you please look at these articles very carefully.
4 A. We are still talking about the decision to found "Koridor"
5 magazine. Have you looked at it?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. Now, can you please find this decision -- or try to find in this
8 decision wherever you can the future, the grammar -- the grammatical
9 future form. In the decision that you have in front of you, can you find
10 anywhere future tense, anywhere where it says "it shall be"? Is there the
11 grammatical future form, the shell form in this decision?
12 A. No, there is no shell and there is no imperative in this decision.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. I'd like to perhaps ask the witness
16 to read out the sentence in the B/C/S that Mr. Weiner read out in English
17 where the word "shall" was used and then Mr. Weiner talked about the
18 mandatory nature therefore. So now we hear the witness saying there's no
19 "shall" in the B/C/S text, and I think we clearly want this cleared up.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. Gladly. That's the
21 point. Because all this big story was just because of the inconsistency
22 in the translation. But I will clarify that.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, can you please read to begin with
24 paragraph 2, Article 4 -- Article 4, the paragraph begins with the word
1 A. "This magazine will be published twice a month" -- "the magazine
2 shall be published twice a month."
3 Q. Can you read it again because we have problems with the
5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 MR. WEINER: This document, P125, has been translated by the ICTY,
8 and they have used the word "shall" eight times. And I think if there's
9 an issue as to whether or not the word "shall" is in this, I think the
10 translators should read this, because they've already published in
11 document indicating the word "shall" appears eight times in those eight
12 articles. That's --
13 MR. PANTELIC: And in the B/C/S version --
14 MR. WEINER: This is the ICTY version.
15 MR. PANTELIC: -- the word "shall" -- we don't have any such
16 form. So that's always a problem, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: No, that's not the point. We always accept the
18 official translation, that's all. So there's no argument about that.
19 MR. PANTELIC: I just want to reiterate position that it was not
20 in a form of order and there is no imperative form here in this original
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Mr. Pantelic, I'm just
23 wondering why if your position is -- your submission is that there's an
24 inconsistency between the B/C/S and the English and we've got "shall" in
25 the English eight times and not at all or whatever in the B/C/S, why --
1 why didn't you object to the translation when the Prosecution originally
2 introduced it?
3 MR. PANTELIC: Because, Your Honour, I was of the opinion that I
4 will clarify that during the re-examination. Simply as that. I didn't
5 want to interrupt the proceedings during the cross-examination of my
6 learned friend. So it was -- arose just during the cross-examination,
7 this theory -- Prosecution theory that it's an order, that this form is in
8 future, et cetera.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Very well then. Mr. Simic --
10 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, once again, this document has been
11 translated by the ICTY, not our office. And if someone is going to read
12 out -- I miscounted, because I've counted quickly. It's ten times in
13 eight paragraph it is the word "shall." This document was tendered on the
14 1st of June. No one has objected to this document up to this point. If
15 someone should read it out, can they -- can we have the translators read
16 it out, especially they --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: We are not going to deal with all that and waste
18 time. Each party is presenting its case according to its own
19 understanding. And then the Trial Chamber will be able to decide on what
20 is and what is not after tall evidence has been adduced. So the parties
21 should be concerned with the substance of the case rather than this
22 grammatical problems.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Look at the first paragraph of Article 4. And
25 can you please read it.
1 A. "'Koridor' is the magazine of the people in Posavina and is
2 intended for the information of citizens, for the research, collection,
3 and dissemination of information and idea relative to the issues of public
5 Q. Can you please comment on this paragraph. What is the meaning of
6 this paragraph?
7 A. The meaning of this paragraph is that "Koridor" magazine informed
8 citizens regardless of their social or ethnical or any other affiliation
9 on all the issues of any importance to them. So this is the meaning of
10 this paragraph.
11 Q. Did any authorities in the municipality have the right or could
12 they influence the editorial policy of "Koridor" magazine?
13 A. The editorial policy of any media, including the printed media, is
14 regulated by law and the person responsible before the law is the
15 editor-in-chief. And none of the politicians could interfere with that
16 because that was punishable by law.
17 Q. Did it ever happen in Samac that any political leaders influenced
18 the content of "Koridor" magazine, i.e., what should be published in it?
19 A. No politicians ever influenced the editorial policy of that
21 Q. Did Mr. Blagoje Simic ever influence the type of articles that was
22 to be published or the editorial policy of "Koridor"?
23 A. Blagoje Simic did not interfere in the editorial policy.
24 Q. This decision that you've been reading now, is that -- was that
25 authored by Blagoje Simic or was it voted in favour of by the councilmen
1 at the session of the assembly of the municipality?
2 A. This --
3 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 MR. WEINER: He can ask who put this policy together. He can ask
6 when was it put together. Once again, these are very leading questions.
7 I've let it go two or three. But it's just one after another. These are
8 statements. Counsel is testifying at this point.
9 MR. PANTELIC: But we have to be focussed on certain issues, yes.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You should avoid leading questions. But on
13 the other hand, these are matter which have already been gone through by
14 the witness and are on record as to the procedures on how the Crisis Staff
15 or the assembly operated.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Let me check.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Again, I'm going to ask you what you know about
18 the way in which this decision was passed at the session of the Municipal
19 Assembly of Samac on the 17th of April, 1993.
20 A. This decision was passed at the regular session of the Municipal
21 Assembly of Samac where there were 50 assemblymen present.
22 Q. Once again, an interpretation. In paragraph 1, Article 4, this
23 notion of free research, how do you understand that? Could you interpret
24 it for me.
25 A. Journalists were to be given -- or rather, this meant that
1 journalists were supposed to work more on what is called investigative
3 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor during the cross-examination put a
4 question to you and quoted Simo Zaric to you. Was he a member of the
5 Crisis Staff?
6 A. Simo Zaric was not a member of the Crisis Staff.
7 Q. Do you have any idea why he made comments with regard to the
8 activities of the Crisis Staff?
9 A. I cannot know why he made such comments, unless it has something
10 to do with his service.
11 Q. When the Prosecutor asked you questions, you mentioned an event
12 that occurred before you went to the assembly in May 1992. You said that
13 it was something that was truly impressive, and he didn't want to ask you
14 any more about this. So what was this impressive event that took place
15 before you went to the municipal assembly then?
16 A. It was very impressive from the point of view of my own experience
17 because then I entered the municipal assembly under a cannonade of shells,
18 and I found there the staff members of the assembly in the basement. They
19 were very frightened. So that is this experience I had. Otherwise, I did
20 not go. On other occasions, I did not go to the municipal assembly.
21 Q. Where is the municipal assembly building?
22 A. The municipal assembly building is in the main street.
23 Q. And what about its other side? Where does that face?
24 A. Its other side faces an apartment building and the building of the
25 Territorial Defence.
1 Q. Very well. Let's clarify this. One side faces the street. Where
2 does the other side opposite that face?
3 A. I see. The other side faces the Sava -- or rather, the border
4 with Croatia.
5 Q. And what was across the Sava River, apart from the fact that it
6 was the border?
7 A. Across the Sava River were the Croat forces. And during the first
8 days of war a tank was operating from there, and that could be seen with
9 the naked eye.
10 Q. Do you know what the distance is between this Samac building and
11 the other side, the Croat side in metres tentatively?
12 A. Well, perhaps 600 to 700 metres.
13 Q. That is a pretty broad river, isn't it?
14 A. There is a part -- well, it is an area that is not populated. But
15 from time to time water would come there, but usually it would withdraw.
16 So when I said 600 to 700 metres, I mean up to the border. I mean the
17 other bank of the river. That is where the Croatian border is, and that
18 includes the width of the river.
19 Q. I understand. Since you were involved in the field of
20 information, can you tell us what you know about the number of journalists
21 and crews of journalists between April and June and how often did this
22 take place.
23 A. Different teams and crews of journalists came in, both from home
24 and abroad. And I remember that a TV crew - I think it was from England -
25 produced a programme about the rape of women. Also, they made another
1 programme -- or rather, they filmed the funeral of a Serb fighter.
2 Unfortunately later it was shown on Croatian TV as the funeral of a Muslim
3 soldier, and that is not something that is unknown. There is a video
4 cassette of that particular event, and the wife of the killed fighter has
5 it, and his last name was Drinic. He had a Masters of Science degree in
6 machine building.
7 MR. WEINER: Is this relevant to our case?
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
9 Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. My question is the following: These journalists who came between
12 April and July, these journalists from home and abroad, did they have free
13 access to all facilities all over town? Did they manage to visit
14 everywhere and write about anything they wished to write about?
15 A. As for the civilian part, they had access to all the facilities
16 that have to do with these particular authorities. But as regards the
17 police and the military, as far as I know, special permits were required,
18 permits issued by commander, persons who were in commanding positions,
19 that is.
20 Q. What about journalists who were coming to Samac and their free
21 movement about town? Were they allowed to move about town freely?
22 A. Journalists who came to Samac could move about freely, about town,
23 that is, and I personally went with some of these crews and journalists
24 through town. I remember when the Croatian artillery was firing I asked,
25 "Can you hear the artillery? Do you know where this is coming from? Do
1 you know where this artillery gunfire is coming from?"
2 Q. Could these journalists from home and abroad talk unhindered to
3 the population of Samac in the period between April and July 1992 and
4 further on in the years to come?
5 MR. WEINER: Which population is he talking about? Is he talking
6 about the prisoners?
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Since he hasn't indicated whether or not they
8 visited prisons, I take it he's talking about the ordinary population.
9 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: The free -- those who were free and residents in the
11 town of Samac.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Journalists and journalist
13 crews could talk to ordinary citizens of Samac, and they did talk to
14 them. In these talks, I was an eyewitness too.
15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. If journalists wanted to talk to prisoners, then who could give
17 them a permit for that? Which service would give them a permit for doing
19 A. This permit would have to be issued to them by one of the chiefs
20 of police or perhaps if they went to the front line, they should get such
21 a permit from army commanders.
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: In your position as the Crisis Staff information
25 man, when you were talking to these journalists from home and abroad, do
1 you know whether any of them were actually granted a permit by the chief
2 of police or the military? And particularly with regard to the chief of
3 police to go and see the persons detained in the -- the SUP and later on
4 in the elementary school and so on. If you could assist, that would be
5 very good.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know about one case, when the
7 military -- or rather, the military authorities gave a permit to
8 journalists from a foreign journalist crew to tour a particular area that
9 they were interested in. However, sometimes journalists would also take
10 their own routes, so to speak, apart from the information service of the
11 Crisis Staff. So I cannot really know about everybody.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So to your knowledge, you only know of one
13 journalist who was given a permit by the military. What about the chief
14 of police, Mr. Todorovic? Did he issue any permits to journalists who
15 maybe then came in and told you that they had seen prisoners or detainees?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some journalists said that they had
17 seen prisoners and that they had been to see Mr. Todorovic. But I did not
18 see these papers of theirs, or rather, this permit, and I don't know
19 whether this was regulated verbally or whether there was an official
20 permit that was issued.
21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. One more question before the break to conclude this subject. Was
24 there a censorship service at the level of the municipality of Samac,
25 vis-a-vis journalists who came to do their jobs? Were their reports
1 censored or could they publish them freely?
2 A. Of course they would not agree to any kind of censorship and of
3 course they freely published whatever they saw, heard, found out. No one
4 imposed any kind of censorship upon them.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I think it's time for our break, Your
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We shall rise and continue at 14.30 hours.
8 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Re-examination.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honour. Thank you, good afternoon.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, before the break, we completed the
13 topic regarding the visit of journalists, and now I would like to turn to
14 another topic which was covered during the cross-examination. I'm
15 referring now to the document -- to the information that you commented.
16 MR. PANTELIC: -- Exhibit P127.
17 Q. [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Sorry. My mic was off.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please interpret and translate -- and
21 explain to the Trial Chamber if you know. In the upper left corner, there
22 is written "Pov Broj." And what do you know about this term used on
24 A. I don't have it on my document.
25 Q. It should be in the upper left corner.
1 A. Yes. It says here "Pov Broj."
2 Q. What can you tell us? What does this mean, based on what you
4 A. It means, as in all other documents of that nature, this is a
5 strictly confidential document, which means it is intended only for a
6 narrow circle of people that had to be familiarised with the subject
7 matter of this text.
8 Q. Very well. So that means that was an internal document of a
9 military unit.
10 MR. WEINER: I'd object again. Counsel is testifying here.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. No leading questions, please.
12 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Simic, this document, as you see it in front of you, can you
14 based on this document conclude that it was intended for public use? You
15 have seen a lot of documents in your career.
16 A. Since this is a strictly confidential document, it means intended
17 only to be used by the highest officials, commanders of the 2nd Posavina
18 Infantry Brigade. This document was not available to the public in
19 general at all.
20 Q. In view of the competencies of military commanders when it comes
21 to appointment of military commanders, which is something covered during
22 cross-examination, I would like to ask you the following: Do you know who
23 Colonel Dencic is?
24 A. Colonel Dencic was commander of East Bosnia Corps.
25 Q. Is that military formation superior to 2nd Posavina Brigade?
1 A. Yes, that is superior military command. The 2nd Posavina Infantry
2 Brigade was subordinated to the East Bosnia Corps.
3 Q. Do you personally know what was the role of Colonel Dencic in
4 removal from office and appointment of military commanders who were
5 subordinated to him? If you know, please.
6 A. It is not difficult to know that. Colonel Dencic was authorised
7 to appoint people to lower command posts, including brigade commanders.
8 Q. Do you know anything about the appointment of the commander of the
9 2nd Posavina Brigade from June to August 1992?
10 A. During that period of time, commanders of 2nd Posavina Infantry
11 Brigade were appointed by Commander Dencic.
12 Q. Please tell us, during the term of the War Presidency, meaning
13 from the second half of July 1992 until the regular session of the
14 municipal assembly was convened, who was the commander of the 2nd Posavina
16 A. Could you please repeat the time period.
17 Q. I will. The time period was the one during the term of War
18 Presidency, meaning from late July 1992 until the first session of the
19 regular municipal assembly. If you know, who was the commander of the 2nd
20 Posavina Brigade during that time?
21 A. The commander of the 2nd Posavina Infantry Brigade was Major, and
22 later Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel, Mile Beronja.
23 Q. Do you know who appointed officer Beronja to commander of 2nd
24 Posavina Brigade?
25 A. He was appointed by the commander of the East Bosnia Corps.
1 Q. Prior to July 1992, starting from mid-May 1992, when you said that
2 the JNA left the area. So this is the period that we're interested in.
3 Who was commander of the 2nd Posavina Brigade then?
4 A. There were two commanders as far as I can remember. Dragan
5 Djordjevic and Srecko Radovanovic. But I couldn't give you the temporal
7 Q. All right. Can you tell us who appointed the two of them
8 commanders of the 2nd Posavina Brigade then.
9 A. The two of them were appointed by the commander who was in charge
10 of that, commander of East Bosnia Corps, Colonel Dencic.
11 Q. Since you gave quite detailed answers regarding the document that
12 is in front of you now, I wouldn't like to go back to certain motives and
13 so on. You've already explained that quite well.
14 MR. WEINER: I'd object to that question. The editorial section
15 on he gave detailed answers.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. WEINER: To the -- I'd object to that. That's just -- that's
18 argumentative. Move to strike that.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, okay.
21 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to ask you: According to your
22 knowledge, what were the motives for having this document appear in
24 A. I've already answered that question partially. This document
25 probably appeared in public as an instrument of political struggle between
1 certain groupations within between military structures. There also could
2 have been a war between various intelligence services.
3 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
5 MR. WEINER: The wording used in the language: "This document
6 probably appeared," and then he later said, "There also could have been a
7 war." Those are both answers or statements indicating speculation, as
8 opposed to a statement indicating facts of what exactly occurred. I move
9 to strike as nothing more than speculation based on the wording he used in
10 his answers.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Pantelic, you understand the objection.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. It's okay, Your Honour. I will --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the witness should give answers which
14 are certain. Either he knows or he doesn't know.
15 MR. PANTELIC: My question was very clear, according to your
17 Q. [Interpretation] I will repeat the question. We're now interested
18 in what you personally know. You were in Samac at that time. You know
19 the circumstances surrounding this. Now, please tell us, what do you
20 personally know about the fate of this document or its use? What do you
21 personally know?
22 A. What I know is that military organs always tried to impose some
23 kind of a domination over the civilian organs, civilian authorities. This
24 is what I know about that.
25 Q. Are you now referring to the territory of Samac municipality
1 during the relevant period of time?
2 A. I'm now referring to the territory of Samac municipality only
3 partially, because this phenomenon was present in other areas as well,
4 where there were military and civilian authorities. I've already said
5 that this culminated during the incident called September 1993. This
6 conflict persisted throughout the war, the conflict between military and
7 civilian authorities.
8 Q. I'm asking you this now: Please tell the Trial Chamber what
9 happened in late 1992 in the premises of the heating plant when this
10 document was created. Did somebody come to visit you there? What were
11 the circumstances? Please tell the Trial Chamber about this.
12 A. Yes. At that time two men came to visit me -- or rather, they
13 called me from the Crisis Staff premises. These two men before Lazar
14 Stanisic, a member of the military police, and the second one was Fadil
15 Topcagic, a soldier. Mr. Lazar Stanisic was also an assemblyman in the
16 municipal assembly. He informed me that in the village of Slatina a
17 session of Samac Municipal Assembly was scheduled to be held. I asked him
18 to show me notice and summons to attend it; however, he had nothing of the
19 sort on him and he simply told me that I was being invited to attend by
20 the Serb people. Then I asked him that scheduling and convening of the
21 sessions of the municipal assembly are conducted according to a very
22 established procedure; namely, that the sessions were convened by the
23 leadership of the assembly, or rather, its president and that according to
24 the statute a session may be also convened by the assemblymen of the
25 assembly providing that they have ten signatures collected, ten people in
1 favour of convening the session.
2 There were no such signatures there, nor was there any notice to
3 attend signed by the president of the assembly. As I later heard, this
4 session was held unlawfully, without a quorum, in Slatina, in the village
5 of Gornja Slatina. Again, as I heard later, some assemblymen attended the
6 session; however, they didn't have quorum and the session could not be
7 held. Some officers from the 2nd Posavina Infantry Brigade were present
8 as well. That was one of the attempts to -- of the military authorities
9 to interfere in the work of civilian authorities. This is what I
10 personally know.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have, please, Exhibit D29/4, please.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Have you ever seen this document before? If you
13 have, can you tell us something about it.
14 A. Yes, I have seen this document. This is an interim issue of the
15 bulletin which explains precisely the things that I have just been talking
17 Q. Was the regular session of the assembly convened after these
19 A. Yes, it was. After that - that is, somewhat later - a session of
20 the municipal assembly was convened.
21 Q. Was it convened in keeping with the regulations, or was it
22 convened based on some other initiatives?
23 A. This session of the municipal assembly was convened in keeping
24 with the statute of the Samac Municipal Assembly, so it was legally
25 convened, based on regulations.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Mr. Usher. You can take the document.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Let's move on to a different topic. The
3 Prosecution asked you about some court documents, most specifically a
4 statement given by Blagoje Simic in the proceedings before that court. Do
5 you have any personal knowledge or do you remember when that statement was
6 given before the investigative judge in Banja Luka? Can you remember? Or
7 maybe we can put the document in front of you.
8 A. I'd rather have the document in front of me.
9 MR. PANTELIC: It's -- just a minute. We have the number here.
10 It's P116, please.
11 Q. [Interpretation] In the left upper corner of this document it says
12 the date. Can you read it, please.
13 A. 14 December 1992.
14 Q. In the middle of the document, you will see the place where the
15 statement was given. Can you please read it.
16 A. Military court in Banja Luka.
17 Q. In the middle towards the bottom, it is in the premises of the
18 heating factory in Samac.
19 Q. In December 1992, what municipal institution --
20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
22 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, what it states is it was taken before a
23 military judge in the court in Banja Luka. Down towards the lower part of
24 the page, it says the interview was conducted on the premises of the Samac
25 heating plant. It's misrepresenting the document and the evidence here,
1 or it's just mistaken.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe it's your misunderstanding, my dear friend. I
3 can clarify you. The institution is military court in Banja Luka, but the
4 testimony was made in the premises of heating plant in Samac.
5 MR. WEINER: That's what I'm saying. However, what you stated
6 here is -- let's go back. The place where the statement was given, and
7 he's testified "military court in Banja Luka." And you directed him to
8 that, right -- look at the transcript. 81, 9 -- 81, 6 through 11. You're
9 directing him to give evidence that's not correct.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes. My meaning was here, I believe. My
11 meaning was the institution which was deployed in Samac. But no problem.
12 In my next question I was -- I was -- I was quite precise.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, which municipal institution or which
14 body had its seat or headquarters in the heating plant in Samac?
15 A. It was at the time the War Presidency, which was headquartered in
16 the heating plant in Samac.
17 Q. Very well, then. When you analyse the information that you have
18 just discussed and when you analyse the events surrounding that
19 information and knowing that these proceedings were organised by the
20 military prosecution or judiciary, so what conclusions can you arrive at
21 and what are your personal -- your personal knowledge about these three
23 MR. WEINER: Objection.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
25 MR. WEINER: He's asking him some sort of conclusion, which I'm
1 not certain what it is, to speculate or a legal conclusion or -- it's not
2 clear what --
3 MR. PANTELIC: It's his personal knowledge of the chain of the
4 events with regard to the letter of 13 signatories, with regard to the
5 issue of proceedings before the investigating judge in the military court,
6 and with regard to the attempt to organise some kind of plenary session of
7 the municipal assembly, et cetera. These three basic events, what his
8 personal knowledge about all these events in December 1992. That's all.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. PANTELIC: I don't want him to speculate on legal grounds or
12 MR. WEINER: He can ask for his personal knowledge on various
13 events, but that's not what the question was.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Now he has explained that he's asking
15 the witness about his personal knowledge. So we'll go by that.
16 MR. PANTELIC: His personal knowledge.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. So your personal knowledge -- in order for us to speed up the
20 procedure, we were talking about the document signed by the 13 signatories
21 about the proceedings which were conducted before that court and you also
22 told us about the initiative to convene a session of the assembly. So all
23 that took place simultaneously. What is your personal knowledge of the
24 relationship between -- among these three events, if you have any personal
1 A. All of these events are interrelated. And it was the time when
2 strong pressure came from military circles upon the organs of the civilian
3 authorities, and that resulted in an illegal session of the assembly being
4 convened. At the moment when the corridor was closed, the president of
5 the War Presidency, Dr. Blagoje Simic, for two or three days had to go
6 into hiding and his security men told me that some men in uniform had come
7 and asked about him and also that he had gone away and never told anybody
8 his address. So there was a strong pressure on the president of the War
9 Presidency. I didn't know the cause of these pressures, but they were
10 very obvious, very visible, and his security personnel knew all that very
12 Q. What period are you talking about?
13 A. That was the period of time when the corridor was closed.
14 Q. Can you please state the month and the year for the record, if you
15 can remember that. First the year.
16 A. It was in 1992; I'm sure of that.
17 Q. Can you please specify the period.
18 A. It was the second half of that year. It was the summer of that
19 year, July or August maybe.
20 Q. You were explaining to the Prosecutor that you were also arrested
21 by the military organs and that you were detained for a period of time. In
22 November or December 1992, when all of these things happened, were you
23 personally afraid as a member of the Crisis Staff of the military organs?
24 What was your attitude towards the military organs at the time? Did you
25 have -- did you experience any personal fear?
1 A. I did not experience any personal fear of the military judiciary,
2 but I was constantly afraid of the members of the army and of their
3 actions. Very often these people did not perform their duties within the
4 scope of their authority. More often than not they would exceed their
5 authorities, and that was the cause of the constant fear, the fear of such
6 actions by the military circles.
7 Q. The Prosecutor also asked you a series of questions relative to
8 the position of the Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac, that is,
9 Pelagicevo, which was being founded at the time. Do you know when the
10 Serbian Municipality of Bosanski Samac and Pelagicevo was established?
11 A. That municipality -- and I believe that I've said that already --
12 according to my knowledge was established in February.
13 Q. Of what year?
14 A. It was in 1992.
15 Q. Does the Municipality of Samac still exist? Does it function?
16 A. Yes, it still exists and it functions within the entity of the
17 Republika Srpska and the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Samac --
18 Municipality Samac is part of the entity and known as Republika Srpska.
19 But there is also the Croatian Municipality of Samac, which is located,
20 i.e., its centre is in Domaljevac, which is a village which used to belong
21 to Samac municipality in the past.
22 Q. What does Republika Srpska represent? Is that one of the entities
23 and an entity of what?
24 A. Republika Srpska is one of the entities of the State of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina, according to the Dayton Accords.
1 Q. That is exactly what I wanted to ask you. When were the Dayton
2 Accords signed?
3 A. The Dayton Accords were --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Where are we going? You're
5 wasting time?
6 MR. PANTELIC: My clarification, Your Honour, is with regard to
7 the fact that Municipality of Samac is a legitimate part of Republika
8 Srpska, which is a legitimate part of Bosnia-Herzegovina internationally
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But -- so what's the point? Because that has
11 been given in evidence and the Trial Chamber takes judicial notice of what
12 the status of the variant entities are. You're wasting time, and this
13 means that you're through with your re-examination.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Only three more questions, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. You ask the three questions.
16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. The Prosecutor asked you about certain plans which were published
18 in the Official Gazette of Samac Municipality. Do you have any personal
19 knowledge of any plans which were published in the Official Gazette of
20 Samac Municipality?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Next question: The Prosecutor also asked you to explain something
23 about the people who were awarded with the St. Vitus award. My question
24 is: What body proposed the persons with military ranks for this award?
25 A. Some military bodies and the organisation of fighters. There was
1 something called the Association of Veterans of Samac Municipality.
2 Q. According to your information, did military organs undertake any
3 measures to arrest and to conduct proceedings against Lugar as the
4 perpetrator of crimes in Crkvina?
5 A. I don't know whether any measures were taken either by the Army of
6 Republika Srpska or JNA in order to process this crime.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Simic.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I've finished with my re-examination.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.
10 Thank you, Mr. Simic, for giving evidence to the Trial Chamber.
11 You are now through, and you can go.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we start the next witness, the Trial Chamber
14 has a ruling on the application for the certificate. And the ruling is
15 going to be given orally.
16 The Trial Chamber is seized of the joint Defence requests for Rule
17 73 certification filed by the Defence of all three accused on 14th
18 November. The Prosecution has not responded to the joint requests.
19 Having considered the submission of the Defence on this matter,
20 the Trial Chamber hereby renders its decision on the joint request. The
21 Trial Chamber recalls that the basis for the rejection of the expert
22 opinion of Colonel Ostoja Barisici [phoen] was that:
23 One, it purports to make conclusions which are the duty of this
24 Trial Chamber to draw in connection with certain major issues in this
1 Second, that the said expert opinion lends support to the argument
2 of tu quoque and was therefore irrelevant.
3 And three, that the procedure contemplated under Rule 94 bis does
4 not affect the general power of the Trial Chamber to exclude evidence
5 under Rule 89 of the Rules.
6 The Trial Chamber thus rejected the evidence as being of no
7 assistance in the performance of its task.
8 In the joint request, the Defence submits that the intent to
9 establish via the said expert opinion the basic principles of
10 subordination within the JNA in order to explain what the actual positions
11 of the accused, namely, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric were. This does not
12 address the basis upon which the Trial Chamber rejected the evidence. The
13 Trial Chamber is of the view that this submission involves establishing a
14 situation of fact, which may be more suitably done through the calling of
15 fact witnesses. In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes that the Defence
16 of Simo Zaric and of Miroslav Tadic propose to call witnesses who will be
17 giving evidence on this matter.
18 Under Rule 73(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Trial
19 Chamber may grant a certificate provided that, one, the impugned decision
20 involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious
21 conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial.
22 And two, the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that an immediate
23 resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings.
24 Apart from quoting these requirements of the Rule, the joint
25 request fails to demonstrate how the impugned decision would significantly
1 affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome
2 of the trial.
3 The argument that the said expert opinion is necessary to
4 establish basic principles of subordination within the JNA in order to
5 explain what the actual positions of the accused were is not sufficient to
6 satisfy the threshold of the Trial Chamber regarding certification under
7 Rule 73(B) of the Rules.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the Trial Chamber dismisses the joint
9 request and declines certification.
10 Can we have the next witness.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon and please make the solemn
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: BOZO NINKOVIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, please. These three binders are for the
20 Trial Chamber and that one is for the registry.
21 Your Honours, these are the bundles of the documents that the
22 Defence for Blagoje Simic would like to introduce during the examination
23 of this witness.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MR. PANTELIC: One copy for each member of the Trial Chamber, with
1 the specification, also of the documents that will be -- exhibits that
2 were already admitted, so that we can follow the proceedings, and
3 specifically the exhibits. And also we already provided one copy for
4 the -- for the court officer. Yes.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
6 Examined by Mr. Pantelic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Ninkovic.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. Can you hear everything? Can you hear the interpretation? Is
10 everything all right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you please introduce yourself. When were you born, your
13 name and surname, et cetera.
14 A. I'm Bozo Ninkovic. I was born on the 5th of April, 1959, in
15 Bosanski Samac, Municipality of Samac.
16 Q. Please pause a bit after my question so that the interpreters will
17 have enough time to interpret everything. Thank you.
18 Tell me, what about your family status? Are you married? Have
19 you got any children?
20 A. Yes. I'm married. I have a wife and two children. I have a
21 nine-year-old daughter and another daughter who is a year and a half old.
22 Q. Your father, his father, your great grandfather, your great, great
23 grandfather? Where are your family roots actually?
24 A. My family roots are from Donja Dubica. This is a village in the
25 municipality of Odzak. That is a neighbouring municipality, as far as
1 Samac is concerned; that is to say, west of Samac. That is where my
2 grandfather and my father were born, as well as my mother.
3 Q. So approximately at least three or four generations?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. They all hail from that area?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Very well. Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, you completed post-secondary
8 school and you have the title of engineer of civilian protection; isn't
9 that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. During your education, you had a series of subjects related to
12 national defence, civil defence and protection, and all other aspects
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Tell me, did you do your military service?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When did that take place?
18 A. In 1983.
19 Q. Where did you do your military service and in which branch?
20 A. I served in the navy, and I was on a submarine.
21 Q. Did you get a commission?
22 A. Yes. I'm a reserve lieutenant.
23 Q. When did you get your first job?
24 A. I got my first job as a trainee at the Secretariat for National
25 Defence of the Municipal Assembly of Odzak in March 1985.
1 Q. So if I got my math right, you have a total of 17 years of
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Until when were you in that line of work, military administration,
5 that is?
6 A. Well, this is the way it was: I was in the Secretariat --
7 Q. No, no, no. Until which year? I mean, do you still work in this
9 A. No. Until the 25th of May, 2000, I was in the Ministry of
10 Defence. I was involved in defence matters.
11 Q. Yes. So that is a total of 15 years of your service in that
13 A. Yes, active service in that area.
14 Q. Tell me, what do you do now? What is your position now?
15 A. Now, I am president of the Municipal Assembly of Samac after the
16 elections that were held in April 2000.
17 Q. I'm a bit confused. You are president of the municipal assembly,
18 but we also had Mr. Lukic as a witness, who is mayor of the municipality.
19 Could you explain the two.
20 A. I am president of the local parliament. So there are assemblymen,
21 MPs who are elected in free elections, and Mr. Lukic represents the
22 executive government. So he is the municipal government, to be quite
23 specific, the executive.
24 Q. So this chief executive has more in common with a mayor in the
1 A. Yes. I would like to say that the local government in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska were reorganised and from 2000
3 there has been a new set-up in terms of local government. So the mayor
4 has an important position in terms of budget, appropriation, et cetera.
5 So he has the effective instruments of power.
6 Q. What about your position?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please not speak at the same time
8 when the witness is speaking.
9 A. The assembly elects the head of the executive, but then also
10 enactments are passed, those that are proposed as bills by the mayor. So
11 the mayor would be elected through direct elections. All citizens who
12 have the right to vote would take part in that vote.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you are forgetting to pause.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I was -- I was actually a little bit ambushed
15 by the testimony of this witness with the speed of his explanation,
16 because I was just about to pose him a question, but I will -- I will --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let him complete and wait a bit and then you
18 can pose your question.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Ninkovic, just one more question. Actually, as president of
21 the municipal parliament -- I mean, how would you explain that? Is this
22 some kind of a presiding person in parliament? How can we explain this to
23 the Trial Chamber?
24 A. Yes. I as the president of the assembly am at the same time one
25 of the assemblymen. I convene the sessions of the local parliament
1 concerning the programme of work that is adopted once a year, and then we
2 put on the agenda items related to the work of the assembly and I chair
3 that session and I am in charge of that session.
4 Q. Tell the Trial Chamber, please, something that has to do with your
5 actual line of work, because you worked in the municipal administration
6 for 15 years on defence matters. Did you take a special examination in
7 the administration?
8 A. Yes. According to our law on state administration, no one can
9 work in state administration, and anyone with a post-secondary degree or a
10 higher university degree unless they pass a state examination.
11 Q. Excuse me for interrupting. You will continue. I'm sorry.
12 Actually, I'm sorry for interrupting.
13 A. This state examination is passed in the ministry of the judiciary
14 and I passed it in 1989 in Sarajevo. It consists of several tests. The
15 constitution, the system of state administration, then administrative
16 litigation, the law on labour relations, and also office management.
17 Q. Mr. Ninkovic, could you please slow down at least a little bit so
18 that they could interpret everything that you are saying into proper
19 English. Please. So can you slow down.
20 So now, this special examination, this professional examination
21 that has to be taken. So that is practically a prerequisite in order to
22 be an official in the administration. Is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right. The administration carries out laws and other
24 regulations, and nobody can work in a certain position if they are not
25 familiar with the law and if they do not know how to interpret the law.
1 Q. Does that pertain to administrative procedure as well?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is your knowledge in terms of the military subject matter, if
4 I can put it that way? National defence, et cetera. Do you consider
5 yourself to be an expert, a professional, someone who is well versed in
6 this subject matter?
7 A. I can say that I consider myself to be a person well versed in
8 these matters because for all of these 15 years, I worked on defence
9 matters. So the basic law was the law and the army -- or rather, the law
10 on defence and then the law on the army and then an entire series of
11 various enactments, degrees, by-laws, et cetera, that are based on these
12 laws. Then on civilian protection, on work obligation, and so on.
13 Q. During your military training, the exercises you did after doing
14 your military service and as a reserve officer, I assume that you acquired
15 some knowledge related to military doctrine, and this narrower aspect. Is
16 that correct? Can you explain this as well.
17 A. Yes. As an employee in the Ministry of Defence, like other
18 persons, I went through certain seminars, so we were trained in various
19 fields. Not only in terms of military service but also the entire defence
20 system that was in force in our country.
21 Q. Just tell me a few more things. Namely, your party affiliation.
22 I'm interested in the following: 1990. In 1990, during the multi-party
23 elections in Samac in Bosnia-Herzegovina, what party were you a member of?
24 A. I was a member of the Liberal Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I
25 was a candidate of that party at the parliamentary elections, and I ranked
1 fourth on their list and I was a member of the assembly of that particular
2 political party.
3 Q. At that time who was president of your party at the level of all
4 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
5 A. Rasim Kadic, an ethnic Muslim.
6 Q. At the municipal parliamentary elections in 1990, did your party
7 achieve certain results? If so, specifically how many seats did you have
8 in the municipal parliament of Bosanski Samac?
9 A. Yes, we did achieve some results. We were a parliamentary party.
10 We had only one seat in parliament, and therefore one assemblyman, namely,
11 Mr. Simeon Simic.
12 Q. Please tell me, during 1992 --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: It -- I'm not following this portion of the
17 evidence. It may assist you. I don't know. But the witness has said
18 that he was a member of the assembly. He was a candidate of the Liberal
19 Party. He was fourth on the list and he was a member of the assembly of
20 that particular party.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: He then goes on to say that he was -- and the party
23 only had one assemblyman, Mr. Simeon Simic. Am I correct in understanding
24 that he's saying he was -- he was in the assembly of the small political
25 party but not in the municipal assembly? I want to know whether or not he
1 was actually in the assembly, the Municipal Assembly of Bosanski Samac, or
2 not. And I'm not quite sure about the evidence on that.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness will explain that.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Certainly, Your Honour.
6 A. I will clarify.
7 Q. Please do it slowly.
8 A. All right. The Liberal Party had its organs. Therefore, they had
9 the chairman of the party and the assembly of the party. I was a member
10 of that assembly, which is a political body of the party. And this
11 position of mine should not be linked to the local elections for the local
12 assembly. I was candidate for the state assembly at the republic level,
13 and that should be differentiated.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Di Fazio, has that clarified the issue?
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Yes.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In 1991, what party were you a member of?
19 A. The same party, the Liberal Party.
20 Q. What about 1992?
21 A. The same.
22 Q. Are you a member of the Liberal Party today?
23 A. No. Such party doesn't exist in Republika Srpska. It exists in
24 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Q. What party are you a member of?
1 A. Now I am a member of the Serb Democratic Party.
2 Q. Tell me, please, as president of the local municipal assembly, can
3 you tell us what parties are represented in that assembly.
4 A. Local parliament has 25 assemblymen or MPs. There is a total of
5 eight political parties. Let us start from the Serb Democratic Party.
6 Then we have the socialist party of --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: This evidence is not helpful. And you've got your
10 summary of what this witness is supposed to discuss.
11 MR. PANTELIC: I understand.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Please tell me, when did you become a member of
13 the SDS, if you are a member of the SDS?
14 A. That was between 1993 and 1994.
15 Q. Now, we shall turn to the period covered by the indictment. So
16 please tell us, what was your occupation in October of 1992? What post
17 did you have then?
18 A. I worked in the Secretariat of National Defence, and I was an
19 official in charge of the -- not in charge. I was an official dealing
20 with civilian protection.
21 Q. And where was that?
22 A. It was in Samac in the Secretariat for National Defence.
23 Q. And who was at the helm of that secretariat?
24 A. Mr. Milos Bogdanovic.
25 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber what was the role of
1 the Secretariat for People's Defence.
2 A. All right. That is a municipal administrative organ dealing with
3 the people's defence, and it had several activities and tasks. I have to
4 say that the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of
5 Yugoslavia in 1991, in April, based on its law exempted the military
6 service from the Secretariat of the People's Defence and transferred it to
7 the military organ, so that in October we dealt with civilian protection
8 with the service on monitoring and reporting. Then on some civilian
10 So these are the matters that we dealt with, whereas the matter
11 that had to do with military service were transferred to the military
12 organs. And these were tasks that had to do with mobilisation, sending of
13 conscripts to various formations, medical exams, and so on. So everything
14 that had to do strictly speaking with the military and mandatory military
16 Q. And then you said that in 1991 this was not in the jurisdiction of
17 the Secretariat for People's Defence but, rather, was transferred and
18 became the responsibility of military organs in a certain territory. Is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes. Pursuant to that law, these tasks were transferred to the
21 competencies of the military organs. The main staff of the Yugoslav
22 People's Army passed a document which designated a deadline, namely by the
23 30th of July, 1991, these tasks were to be transferred to the military
24 territorial organs, whereas the commands of the JNA were ordered to
25 establish commands of military districts and military zones so that the
1 military records were supposed to be transferred from the Secretariat for
2 Defence to the military offices.
3 Specifically in Samac, these records were taken from the
4 secretariat and transferred to the military district in Brcko, which was
5 under the Tuzla command. And the -- also, some of the personnel were
6 transferred from the secretariat to the army, where they served as
7 civilians to -- and they served in these military offices as civilian
8 officials. And based on what I know, these people were transferred in
9 August of 1992 and they went to work in the military office in Brcko, so
10 that the secretariat was left only with civilian matters, civilian
11 protection, preparation of civilian population, for defence, and so on.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I would like to check the transcript
13 because my colleagues just informed me that there are some
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. PANTELIC: I will check, please. Could you bear with me.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe -- I apologise. Maybe I can help my
18 colleague Pantelic. I didn't catch quite clearly because frankly the
19 witness is speaking pretty fast. But on line -- on page 100, line 1, he
20 said that in August 1992 it was transferred, and I believe that -- that I
21 heard 1991, but I -- I am not a hundred per cent sure, so I just would
22 like --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can clarify that.
24 MR. PANTELIC: I will clarify that, yes. Yes, Your Honour. Thank
1 Thank you, my dear friend.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, please go on slower so that the
3 interpreters can interpret well. Now, let's clarify this. Did you say
4 that the officials from the secretariat went to work in the military
5 office in Brcko in August of 1991?
6 A. Yes, they did. Yes, they did.
7 Q. Let me ask you this: Please bear in mind that everything you and
8 I say has to be interpreted into English. You and I understand each other
9 without any problem, but others need to understand what we're talking
10 about as well. Now, pardon me for this interruption. Now, let us
12 You started telling us how the tasks dealing with civilian
13 protection and the preparation of civilian population organs remained
14 within the responsibilities of the Municipal Secretariat for People's
15 Defence. Is that right?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Now, tell me, please, starting in October of 1991, you as a
18 well-educated person, did you have any information about what was going on
19 in the parliamentary life at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Do you
20 have any personal knowledge regarding this and what can you tell us? Just
21 please slowly.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours -- if Your Honours please, it's
23 breathtakingly-wide question and an invitation to speculation. If
24 Mr. Pantelic wants to -- and he must know what it is he's interested in --
25 extract for whatever reason evidence of what happened in the national
1 parliament, then he should be specific and make it clear.
2 But to ask a witness do you have any information about what was
3 going on? Well, no doubt there were lots of things going on in that year
4 in the national parliament and quite apart from that, one wonders how the
5 witness could even begin to answer such a question. So -- but the
6 ultimate result will be speculation if -- if the witness attempts to ask
7 such a wide, broad question.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I'm going to explore that, because you know
9 this witness was a member of one parliamentary party on the level of the
10 parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe yes, maybe not. We should
11 see whether he's a person -- what is the level of his personal knowledge
12 of the parliamentary life in --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
14 MR. PANTELIC: But I can be more focussed on that issue. No
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You need to be specific and ask him what was
17 happening regarding what.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: So please be more specific.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. I'll take that. Of course.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, what do you personally know about
22 the events in the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina in October of 1991?
23 A. The Liberal Party organs - and I was a member of that party - had
24 various discussions and debates. My party was represented in the
25 parliament, and we in the party participated in those events. At that
1 time, parties that held power were the SDA, HDZ, and the SDS. However,
2 their relationship was quite bad and there were frequent conflicts and
3 interruptions in the work of the parliament. There were reactions, fierce
4 reactions from members of parliament, and so on.
5 What needs to be said here before this Trial Chamber is that at
6 the time a decision was passed on holding a referendum, according to which
7 the citizens were to say whether they favoured remaining in the existing
8 Yugoslavia or they supported an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 Regarding that, there was a very active debate held; however,
10 representatives, members of the SDA and HDZ in that procedure outvoted the
11 representatives of the SDS and some other parties, those parties that were
12 Serb parties. So the referendum was scheduled, but the Serbs did not
13 participate in that referendum.
14 I will now remind you of the constitution of Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina, which --
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- Intervention to the transcript. Page 103, line
17 3. He said, "Those parties that were Serb parties." This is not what the
18 witness stated. He said that the members of the parliament from other
19 parties of Serb origin. It -- it is not the same thing, actually.
20 MR. PANTELIC: I will clarify that.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Before we get to that period, please tell us this: What do you
24 know -- or do you know that in October of 1991 in the republic parliament
25 of BH the Serb members of the parliament left that parliament? Do you
1 know about that?
2 A. Yes. A lot of citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina know about that.
3 Q. Was that broadcast in the media?
4 A. Yes, it was. I have to say that the events in the parliament were
5 covered very well in the media, newspapers, television, and so on.
6 Q. I want to ask you something else. After October 1991, do you know
7 whether in the first half of November 1991 a plebiscite of Serb people in
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina was held?
9 A. I cannot remember the exact date; however, I know that a
10 plebiscite was held, at which the Serbs voted in favour of remaining in
12 Q. Please tell me this: When did you hear for the first time about
13 the republic of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Let's call it
14 briefly -- shortly Republika Srpska? When did you first hear of its
16 A. It was between 1991 and 1992. I can't give you the exact date.
17 Q. What do you personally know about organisational structure of the
18 Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Did they have their own
20 A. I live in Posavina. I lived in the municipality of Odzak. I
21 worked in the municipality of Samac, so this is all called Posavina
22 region, and I know that in this region, which covers several
23 municipalities - Bosanski Brod, Derventa, Odzak, Modrica, Bosanski Samac,
24 Orasje - I know that the Croatian Democratic Union had some activities
25 that were aimed at establishing Bosnian Posavina, which is a territorial
1 entity in that area.
2 Q. When did you learn first about such a territorial organisation?
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please, I object to this
4 evidence on the grounds of relevance. The creation of -- sorry, the
5 creation of Croatian entities during the period of time in the -- covered
6 by the indictment is not relevant to the events that you have to deal
7 with, unless in some way it directly is concerned with the -- similar SDS
9 The fact that it may have been going on, that other Croatian
10 organs and bodies may have been created, that there were such activities
11 going on, is not -- can't be relevant to the issues that you have to deal
12 with, namely the creation of the parallel organs, Serb-only organs and so
13 on. And it's -- at the end of the day if you hear this evidence and
14 digest it, how sit going to assist you with those particular issues? Time
15 is running and the greater the time consumed in the examination-in-chief,
16 the greater the Prosecution to complete its cross-examination, so it
17 affecting the Prosecution directly. There's got to be some sort of
18 relevance to these particular topics being raised by Mr. Pantelic.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Well, sorry. Your Honour, everything is to some
20 extent relevant, especially for the region of Posavina. How three ethnic
21 groups were organised, finally divided, what are the consequences. So
22 it's just a -- an introductory, I would say, topic from the point of view
23 of the personal knowledge of this witness and then we are going to the
24 region because he's -- he said that he lived in Odzak, which is covered by
25 the indictment. He worked in Samac, which is covered by the indictment.
1 This witness can give us some details about his life in -- by the end of
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There is some relevance in the sense that we
4 are dealing with allegations of forcible takeover, so we need to know who
5 was actually controlling which territory at the material time. But do be
6 brief, instead of giving us too much detail.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Of course, Your Honour. It was not my intention to
8 go into big details. It's absolutely enough.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, what is your personal knowledge as
10 a person with military experience with regard to the fact that you travel
11 extensively from Odzak to Samac? So can you please tell me something
12 about the atmosphere which prevailed among the different ethnic groups in
13 the region of Odzak in late 1991 up to April 1992? What did you
14 personally notice in your region where you lived?
15 A. The situation was very difficult, characterised by a number of
16 incidents of political and armed nature.
17 Q. Can you please slow down.
18 A. So it was a period of crisis characterised by a number of
19 incidents ranging from political incidents to armed clashes. So that
20 period -- that region is in the immediate vicinity of the Sava River and
21 across the Sava River is the Republic of Croatia, which was at war at the
22 time. So it was a period marked by the formation of paramilitary groups,
23 and the only regular military formation was the JNA. And Croats and
24 Muslims mostly led by their respective parties - that is, the SDA and the
25 HDZ - at that period intensively were engaged in establishing their
1 paramilitary formations in Bosanski Brod, Modrica, Odzak, Derventa,
2 Bosanski Samac, and Orasje municipalities.
3 Q. Mr. Ninkovic, you've mentioned some incidents and you also said
4 that there were armed clashes. Can you please explain for the Chamber
5 what it was all about on the basis of some examples of the incidents which
6 happened in late 1991 up to April 1992. What type of incidents were
7 those? Who participated in them? And what was their nature? Can you
8 illustrate a bit in a bit more detail.
9 A. I can tell you something about the most important incident, which
10 was not an incident as such. It was at the moment when the regular forces
11 from the Republic of Croatia stormed on the axis from Slavonski Brod to
12 Bosanski Brod. It was in March 1992. So the regular armed forces of the
13 Republic of Croatia entered Bosnia and Herzegovina in the area of Bosanski
14 Brod municipality. Several Serbian villages were set aflame at the time
15 and several civilians were killed in Sijekovac, which resulted in a deadly
16 fear among the Serbian population. So this was the incident which was a
17 turning point for the future events.
18 There are some other minor incidents, minor armed clashes. I'm
19 going to mention a few such incidents that happened in Samac. One was
20 when a hand grenade was thrown into a cafe bar in Samac. I believe that
21 one person was killed and another person was seriously injured. There was
22 another incident in the green market in the same town. What happened was
23 a man who was of pro Yugoslav affiliation, but he was a Muslim, he was
24 shot at in the afternoon. I believe his name was Ramusovic. And on the
25 21st of March, there was -- the town was blocked by Muslims who put up
1 barricades and nobody could enter Samac.
2 I remember that it was Saturday, and I took my mother to the green
3 market. It was customary for everybody to go to the market on Saturday
4 mornings, and I couldn't cross the bridge from Dubica. I couldn't enter
5 Samac because there were barricades on the roads. Obviously there were a
6 number of checkpoints. I travelled from my house in Dubica to my
7 workplace in Samac. This is a distance of some 9 kilometres. Dubica is a
8 Serbian village, and there is another village on the road to Samac, a
9 Croatian village, called Prud. I was stopped there very often. I was
10 stopped by uniformed men carrying arms, and judging by their accent, by
11 the way they spoke, they were not local Croats. They were people from
12 Croatia, more specifically from Slavonia. Usually the local Croat
13 population wore masks on their heads so that we wouldn't recognise them.
14 There were also reserve police checkpoints on the bridge composed
15 of Muslims and Croats, but they didn't create any major problems to the
17 Q. You mentioned Prud. Can you tell me whether Prud was
18 territorially a part of Samac municipality.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is Prud west of Samac across the Bosna River?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. Tell me, in Prud, did you notice any armed formations?
23 A. Yes, particularly during the period from late February to March
24 and the beginning of April.
25 Q. How would you describe those formations?
1 A. Those were armed people, armed men wearing camouflage uniforms.
2 They were members of the ZNG, which was at the time the official army of
3 the Republic of Croatia. They would stop vehicles, people. They would
4 ask for their identity papers. They would search the cars, open the cars,
5 and they would ask people whether they were Croats or Muslims or what.
6 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge when we're talking about the
7 period between late 1991 and April 1992 of the cases of physical
8 liquidation, that is, the killing of the Serbian leaders of the Posavina
10 A. I learnt about those things from unofficial sources, and I learnt
11 that such things happened in Bosanski Brod, but I never saw any official
12 reports on any of such events.
13 Q. Mr. Ninkovic, in Odzak municipality in April 1992, do you have any
14 personal knowledge which of the political parties were in power in Odzak
16 A. The Croatian Democratic Union had a leading position. They held a
17 position of the president of the municipal assembly, the Chief of the
18 Public Security Station. Then there was also the Party of the Democratic
19 action. I believe that they held the sectors of economy and the communal
20 system, I believe.
21 Q. When did you first learn about the arrests and crimes committed
22 with the Serbian population in Odzak?
23 A. War had already started in that area. I would just like to say
24 that before the war, there were checkpoints. Serbs from Dubica and
25 Trnjak, which is another neighbouring village, could not go to Samac
1 because there were some problems at the checkpoints and that instilled
2 fear among people and villagers of Trnjak and Dubica asked for a meeting
3 with the leadership of Odzak municipality, because people were rather,
4 especially after the events which had taken place in Brod.
5 At a meeting which was held in Voskova village, which was between
6 Trnjak and Dubica, there were representatives of Odzak municipality and
7 there were some Serbs, amongst whom I was also there. And there was some
8 discussions about dealing with the -- all these things in a peaceful way.
9 However, it was Ivica Matanovic, who gave the tone to that meeting. He
10 introduced himself as an HVO commander who joined the HVO from the JNA. I
11 believe that he was in the garrison of the JNA in Slavonska Pozega, he was
12 rather edgy and he even voiced some threats from time to time. And he
13 said that the Serbs did not respond to the mobilisation calls by the JNA,
14 and he also said the JNA was not a regular army, that it was the aggressor
15 army. He also said that it was an armed force which was not desirable in
16 that area.
17 Q. And what would be the consequence if the Serbs did not listen to
18 him? What consequences would the Serbs suffer?
19 A. He said that --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: The evidence now being adduced in detail is not
21 relevant to the indictment.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: And looking at your summary, we have completed the
24 ethnic tensions between the parties, between the people, and what was
25 happening in the Posavina municipalities. We should now move over.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. I'm just moving to the --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: To the remain --
3 MR. PANTELIC: To April and May 1992. That is --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. On the establishment of the Municipal Crisis
5 Staff. We'll start on these issues.
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge, Mr. Ninkovic, of the existence
8 of the Crisis Staff in Odzak?
9 A. I apologise. I didn't understand your question. I had noise in
10 my earphones. Can you repeat your question.
11 Q. Mr. Ninkovic, do you have any personal knowledge of the existence
12 of the Crisis Staff in Odzak?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you please tell us what you know about it.
15 A. I already said that this period was marked by the establishment of
16 Bosanska Posavina and that the key role in the establishment of that
17 territorial organisation of Bosnian Croats was played by the Crisis
18 Staffs, which had been formed by the Croatian Democratic Union.
19 Q. Were there any Serbs in the Crisis Staff in Odzak?
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We aren't discussing the Croatian
22 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. Absolutely not. I'm just speaking about
23 the territorial aspect of the indictment, Odzak, and then the -- because I
24 don't have any other, frankly, witness who can shed light on that issue,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. This witness, according to your summaries, is
2 dealing with the Municipal Crisis Staff in the Samac municipality.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And in atmosphere in neighbouring
4 municipality, which is Odzak. That was the -- that was the issue. It's a
5 part of the indictment, in fact.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please, I think this
7 illustrates my earlier point. Number one, territorial aspect of the
8 indictment of Odzak -- in Odzak. There is no explanation of what
9 territorial aspect means.
10 Atmosphere in the neighbouring municipality which is Odzak, it's
11 difficult to see how that is such a broad term, the atmosphere is relevant
12 in any -- in any way at all.
13 With respect, Mr. Pantelic has to be more specific and more
14 precise in his selection of topics to -- upon which to illicit evidence
15 from this particular witness.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. In fact, this is a part of
17 the summary of this witness related to the other factual allegations from
18 the indictment. It's paragraph 9 of the indictment. So I have to defend
19 my client to the best extent that I can with a certain number of
21 First of all, I would like to explore from the personal knowledge
22 of this witness who was in charge in April 1992 in Odzak, which is a
23 neighbouring municipality and which is covered by the indictment. And
24 then I'm going to the -- chronologically I'm going to the other events,
25 Your Honour. And that's why I'm asking him what is his personal knowledge
1 of the Crisis Staff of Odzak, of the members of that Crisis Staff and
2 certain events on the territory or in Odzak in April 1992, Your Honour.
3 That is the basis of my question.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ninkovic, do you have any personal knowledge
7 of firstly the time when the Crisis Staff of Odzak was established?
8 A. It was during the period between -- in March.
9 Q. Do you know if there were any Serb representatives in the Crisis
11 A. I don't have any personal knowledge of that.
12 Q. When did you first learn about the arrests of the Serbian
13 civilians in the territory of Odzak municipality, and how many of them
14 were arrested and what happened to them?
15 A. Before the beginning of war in that area, there were arrests. So
16 when a Serb would come to the checkpoint, there were verbal threats,
17 abuses, and then some would be taken for an interrogation, and then they
18 would be released. But that -- all of those things instilled fear among
19 the local population, and people started moving out towards safer areas.
20 Some of them even took all their property with them.
21 Q. When exactly did you learn about Serb civilians being arrested for
22 the first time in the territory of Odzak municipality, if you can remember
23 the time when you heard that?
24 A. There were sporadic incidents of that sort in March and April.
25 Q. Were there any mass, large-scale arrests?
1 A. Yes. That was on the 8th of May, when a number -- a large number
2 of Serbs were put in a very difficult position. I believe that we're
3 talking about some 3.000 people in Novi Grad, Dubica, and Trnjak. These
4 are Serb villages in that area, in the territory of Odzak municipality.
5 Q. Are we talking about the year 1992? Because you mentioned the 8th
6 of May.
7 A. Yes, that's what we're talking about, the year 1992.
8 Q. What happened to these people?
9 A. These people were isolated. They were put in prisons. They were
10 put under arrest. These were people who were able-bodied men, fit for
11 military service, and they were put in prison.
12 Q. Do you know the place where that was?
13 A. Yes, in Odzak. It was in the school and at various other places
14 like Strolit.
15 Q. What is Strolit?
16 A. Strolit is a metallurgy factory.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: When you said that you wanted to discuss Odzak, it
18 was only in relation to who was in charge. And then we move on to the
19 Samac municipality, which we're dealing with it.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. But I already --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: None of the defendants are answering allegations
22 that they did anything to the Serbs in Odzak.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I've finished with this line of
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The crimes which your clients are facing are
1 quite clear, so you stop wasting time.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: That will be cut down from the -- the submitted time
4 for your examination-in-chief.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. That was the end -- virtually that was the
6 last question in this line of questioning.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Ninkovic, what was the situation in
8 your Secretariat for National Defence in Samac? In the period between
9 1991 and 1992, who were the employees of that secretariat? You already
10 said that the late Mr. Bogdanovic was secretariat of the secretariat. Can
11 you explain to the Trial Chamber what the atmosphere was within your
12 secretariat in Samac.
13 A. Yes. Well, you know, like in other organs and institutions at
14 that time there were these inter-ethnic tensions; that is to say, that
15 every employee who worked there in a way had a political point of view
16 stemming from the ethnic community it belonged to. That was not only
17 characteristic of the secretariat. That's the way it was in the police,
18 in the municipal agencies, various inspectorates, financial services, the
19 public utility services, et cetera. So there was a situation along ethnic
20 lines among people. And they defined their position on the basis of the
21 dominant views within the ethnic community they belonged to and the
22 political parties they were affiliated with. So this was a time of
23 turmoil, tensions ...
24 Q. Did anybody from any political party exercise any kind of control
25 over the secretariat at that time? If so, can you tell us more
1 specifically who this was.
2 A. In the secretariat there were people from various parties, from
3 the HDZ, from the SDP, from the Liberal Party. There were people who were
4 not in any political party but who did have certain political views of
5 their own and so on.
6 Q. Have you heard of the Hundzar Division?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What can you tell us about this?
9 A. This goes back to the time of the Second World War. These were
10 actually the elite units of the Muslim who is belonged to the Ustasha --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Why are you discussing this?
12 MR. PANTELIC: Because I would like to ask this witness about the
13 Exhibit D --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you move to your summary. Can you look at your
15 summary for this witness.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. If you look from the beginning, we've covered
18 the political situation.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: We've covered the relation between the SDS --
21 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, please.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: -- and the other parties. We've covered activities,
23 checkpoints, armaments, and the incidents.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Inter-ethnic tension between three groups.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We have done that. You can read through the
1 transcript. We should now start with establishment of Municipal Crisis
2 Staff. And this is in Bosanski Samac.
3 MR. PANTELIC: But I have some documents admitted in the
4 Prosecution case which I would like now to discuss with this witness.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Regarding what?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Reporting his personal knowledge of the existence
7 of certain documents. Maybe he -- he is --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Which ones? Which ones?
9 MR. PANTELIC: It's D4/1. D4/1.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.
11 MR. PANTELIC: And my question is to ask him whether he saw this
12 exhibit, in which form, when and --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That, you can go ahead. But we are not
14 interested in history.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. I'm going, yes, to show this exhibit to
16 the witness.
17 But Your Honour, to be frank, maybe we could do that -- because
18 it's -- it's about time for our adjournment, so I -- why should we -- I
19 don't believe that we shall have enough time to.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. We'll continue on Friday.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: And we'll stick to the summaries.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. I'm now going into the presentation of
24 exhibits already admitted and then this new, well, potential Defence
25 exhibits which are in this bundle. So we'll go through this, of course.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
2 at 4.16 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
3 the 6th day of December, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.