1 Thursday, 13 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Case number IT-95-9-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I apologise. I really don't want to
10 interrupt my colleague. But I was just informed by Mr. Zaric that he
11 hasn't received his medicine that he usually does, and I'm afraid that
12 this is what caused problems with Mr. Zaric a couple -- two days ago, when
13 he didn't receive this medicine, he suffered these pains and everything.
14 So I just asked the guards whether they brought this for Mr. Zaric. They
15 brought just one of his medicine, not the other one. So Mr. Zaric asked
16 me to -- this issue just to inform the Trial Chamber that the possibility
17 of some problems may occur, because this is what happened two days ago,
18 and he actually collapsed here.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: The position is that the medicine is available but
20 it hasn't yet been brought?
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. He -- well, I was informed by the guards
22 that they just have one, one pill, that Mr. Zaric usually does take, but
23 the other one they didn't get from the Detention Unit. They didn't get it
24 for Mr. Zaric.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: So that's the problem that we have.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber requests the Registrar's Office to
3 look into the matter right away and keep us informed, as we have to go on
4 with the witnesses who are already here. I do hope that the medicine gets
5 sent right away.
6 We can proceed. Is the Prosecution cross-examining?
7 MR. RE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Before I begin, there's
8 just one very brief matter in relation to the 92 bis statements. On
9 Monday, Your Honours asked us to file a response by Wednesday.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. RE: We actually filed it this morning, being Thursday, and I
12 apologise for that. The reason was Mr. Di Fazio was sick on Monday, and I
13 realised yesterday when we were doing it we had to file two, a
14 confidential and a publicly redacted version because of something referred
15 to in one of them which took longer than anticipated and I didn't have a
16 chance to speak to the Registry -- sorry to the legal officer or have it
17 filed by 5.00 yesterday. So we filed it at 9.00 and I apologise for
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Then it will be considered validly
21 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll proceed.
23 WITNESS: VLADIMIR SARKANOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Re: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Sarkanovic. I want to continue from where we
2 were yesterday --
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. -- firstly by -- I just want you to clarify something which,
5 having looked at the transcript overnight, isn't completely clear. That
6 was yesterday afternoon I was asking you about your investigations and the
7 statements you took and the law which you were personally applying. Now,
8 you worked in the -- you worked as part of your war assignment, in the SUP
9 for almost two months. Yesterday you said that it was the Penal Code.
10 What I'm trying to clarify, which wasn't clear from the transcript
11 yesterday, was which precise part of the Penal Code, what was the name of
12 the offence that you were investigating and taking statements in relation
13 to, the name of the offence and, if you can remember, the section of the
15 A. During my work at that time in the SUP, I used the Law on Criminal
16 Procedure and the Criminal Code, or the Penal Code, which had been adopted
17 from the former Yugoslavia. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure, I
18 conducted interviews. This is under this law, that there was a provision
19 in relation to criminal offences that provided for by the Penal Code and
20 this is to do with the armed rebellion and illegal possession of weapons.
21 Q. The armed rebellion you just referred to, is that an offence of
22 insurrection against a state?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the offences you were investigating in April, May, and June
25 1992 were insurrection against a state; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Which state was that?
3 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina.
4 Q. And the insurrection against the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 you're investigating in those three different months I referred to was
6 insurrection by Muslims and Croats against the state of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?
8 A. Considering that they were arming themselves legally [as
9 interpreted], that's how it was, yes.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one correction for the transcript. Line --
11 page 4, line 5. It should read illegally instead of legally. That is
12 what the witness said, otherwise it has no sense.
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, I just want to correct that. The transcript says
15 legally. You in fact said illegally, as Mr. Lazarevic just said, didn't
17 A. Illegally, yes. That's right. I said illegally. Illegal
18 possession of weapons.
19 Q. Sir, you testified two days ago that upon arrival at the SUP for
20 your assignment, you were told that it was "crime prevention and finding
21 out the perpetrators." You were aware, in April, May, June 1992, that
22 Serb forces had armed themselves and taken control of the municipality of
23 Bosanski Samac, in opposition to the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You
24 didn't investigate the arming of the Serb forces or their insurrection or
25 armed rebellion against the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Penal
1 Code you've just referred us to, did you?
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object. I believe that through this question,
3 my colleague is misleading the witness. First, we are talking about Serbs
4 armed themselves, and whether arming of Serbs, which by this moment we
5 already know that was done through the JNA and in the period when the JNA
7 MR. RE: I object to what my learned friend is saying in front of
8 the witness on the record. There's a proper way of making an objection,
9 and that's not the way to do it.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: And besides that, the question is clear. The
11 witness can answer. So go ahead, Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, do you understand -- do you remember the question
14 I just asked you or do you want me to repeat it? Just yes or no.
15 A. List the first part, please.
16 Q. My question was: Two days ago, you testified that upon arrival at
17 the SUP for your assignment, you were told that it was crime prevention
18 and your assignment was "crime prevention and finding out the
19 perpetrators." You were aware in April, May, and June of 1992 that Serb
20 forces had armed themselves and taken control of the municipality of
21 Bosanski Samac, in opposition to the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now,
22 you didn't investigate the arming of the Serb forces or their insurrection
23 or armed rebellion against the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Penal
24 Code referred to a few moments ago, did you?
25 A. At the time when I came to the SUP, and as I have already stated,
1 in order to work on crime prevention and finding out the perpetrators of
2 criminal offences, that was more or less the main duty of the crime
3 department, which had done this work before and was supposed to continue
4 doing it. And bearing in mind the situation that was in place at the
5 time, which was that in the detention and the SUP premises and the TO
6 premises, there were already people who were there, and I said that, first
7 of all, we started to talk and take statements from the detainees
8 regarding the circumstances of illegal arming and belonging to
9 paramilitary units. As far as the Serbs were concerned, they were armed
10 as members of the reserve force of the army, that is, at that time, of the
11 legal units that were in the state.
12 Q. Sir, your testimony has been that Serb forces and -- Serb
13 paramilitary forces and police had taken control of Bosanski Samac. Your
14 evidence yesterday was that Serb forces and Serb authorities had displaced
15 the democratically elected government and were controlling the
16 municipality. A moment ago you told us that your mission was to
17 investigate armed rebellion and insurrection. What I've just told you
18 describes a state of armed rebellion and insurrection against the state,
19 that is, Serb paramilitaries and police taking control of the organs of
20 government and the facilities in a democratically elected institution. I
21 repeat my question: You didn't investigate -- let me finish the question,
22 please. You can object when I finish the question, please.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re. Go ahead.
24 MR. RE:
25 Q. I repeat my question: In the circumstances I've described, you
1 did not investigate the arming of Serbs or their insurrection against the
2 state in seizing control of a democratically elected municipality, did
4 A. I was not in a position to work and to do what I wanted to do. I
5 was doing what I was ordered to do, and I was ordered by the chief of the
6 station, Stevan Todorovic, through my direct superior, Milos Savic.
7 Q. Are you saying you were prevented from carrying out your mission,
8 which was to investigate armed rebellion and the insurrection that had
9 actually occurred in Bosanski Samac by your superiors, Stevan Todorovic
10 and Milos Savic? Is that what you're saying?
11 A. No. What I wish to say is I was doing what I was ordered to do,
12 which was to interview and take statements from the detained persons.
13 Q. Your testimony two days ago was of your mission being to -- your
14 assignment was "crime prevention and finding out the perpetrators." While
15 you were working in the SUP for those two months, it was very obvious to
16 you that very, very serious crimes had been committed and were being
17 committed on a daily basis by Serb forces in Bosanski Samac, wasn't it?
18 A. That's right. That's right. But I said that we wanted to conduct
19 on-site investigations on certain sites of incidents and criminal
20 offences, but Stevan Todorovic wouldn't let us.
21 Q. When you say you wanted to conduct on-site investigations, sir,
22 you were actually working on site of one of the major crime scenes in
23 Bosanski Samac, weren't you, the SUP, because that is where many of the
24 daily beatings and torture of prisoners was occurring; correct?
25 A. I spoke about it, and I also said that we were not allowed to do
1 that. I said that these crimes took place, but I also said that we were
2 not allowed to do that.
3 Q. Sir, also from my reading of the transcript, I wish to clarify --
4 I'd like you to assist the Trial Chamber by clarifying the lines of
5 authority of the people who worked in interviewing people and the chain of
6 command. If you could be provided --
7 MR. RE: I wish to provide the witness with a piece of paper and
8 ask him to draw a diagram, in which he places the names and positions of
9 those working in the SUP between April and June 1992.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. RE:
12 Q. You understand what I want you to do, sir?
13 A. I understood.
14 Q. Before you start drawing, I'm just holding up a piece of paper
15 here, sir, Mr. Sarkanovic. I'm just holding up a piece of paper with
16 boxes and lines on it. I have written nothing on it. I'd like you, if
17 possible, to do it in that style: Boxes and lines; and if they go in two
18 directions, please do it that way.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. You have a box at the top of the page which is displayed on the
21 monitor for us. What have you written there, please?
22 A. "Chief."
23 Q. Can you please put the name of the chief, as well as the
24 position -- put the names of the people, as well as their positions,
25 perhaps in a different-coloured pen.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Thank you, sir. In blue, you have the position chief in the top
3 box and the name Stevan Todorovic. There's an arrow pointing down to the
4 next box. Please read what that says.
5 A. "Chief of the crime department, Milos Savic."
6 Q. And you have a line pointing to another box underneath that, and
7 it says "inspector."
8 A. "Inspector Vladimir Sarkanovic." That's me.
9 Q. Can you please put the names of other people who were working as
10 inspectors with you in that box.
11 A. There was no one else. When I left, then Simo Bozic came. But at
12 the time when I was there, there was no one else.
13 Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you for drawing that diagram for us?
14 MR. RE: May it be tendered into evidence, please.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can I have the number, please.
16 THE REGISTRAR: This will be treated as P170 ter. Thank you. ID.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to ask the Prosecution to have it
21 translated formally, the diagram.
22 MR. RE: We will do that straight away, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
24 MR. RE:
25 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, yesterday I was asking you about the system of the
1 establishment of detention centres. I just want to clarify something from
2 yesterday. The prisoners at the SUP and the other detention facilities,
3 who was feeding them?
4 A. I don't know. I simply don't know.
5 Q. Yesterday, in response to a question from Mr. Pantelic, you said
6 you interviewed between, you think, 50 to 100 people, while you were
7 working at the SUP over that two-month period. I think you said there
8 were people whose names appeared on lists. Over your career, you would
9 have interviewed hundreds, probably thousands of people, during your
10 career as a police inspector, wouldn't you?
11 THE INTERPRETER: [Inaudible]
12 MR. RE: I think the witness said yes.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the usher please assist the witness to sit close
14 to the microphone.
15 A. Yes. I can do it by myself. Yes.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. And for you, of course, as a police inspector, the interviewing or
18 taking statements is a routine part of your job, isn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it's not a routine part of a person's life to be interrogated
21 or interviewed by a police inspector, especially when in custody; you
22 would agree with that, wouldn't you?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. And for that reason, a person who is interviewed or interrogated
25 is more likely to remember the specific details, the finer details of the
1 interview, the questions, and the circumstances of it than the
2 interviewer, who has performed hundreds or thousands of these interviews
3 as part of his routine daily duties?
4 A. Yes. That's normal.
5 Q. Yesterday I asked you about your interviewing of Mr. Tihic - I'm
6 sorry - the interviewing of Mr. Tihic in the police station. I just want
7 to clarify several things which were unclear from my reading of the
8 transcript last night, Mr. Sarkanovic.
9 Your evidence was that Mr. Zaric was the person who interviewed
10 Mr. Tihic, but you also spoke to Mr. Tihic. That was your evidence,
11 wasn't it? Just in summary.
12 A. I said - and I stand by that - that the statement and the official
13 part of the interview was conducted by Mr. Zaric. He's the one who took
14 the statement. My involvement was more or less private, speaking to him
15 as a friend.
16 Q. You spoke to Mr. Zaric after he had obtained the statement from
17 Mr. Tihic, didn't you?
18 A. No. Mr. Tihic was brought to my office before Mr. Zaric came to
19 the same office.
20 Q. Sir, you had formed the view that there was no reason for Mr.
21 Tihic to be in custody at that point, hadn't you?
22 A. Let me tell you: That was my private opinion. After the taking
23 of the statement, the usual practice was that the statement would go to
24 the chief, Stevan Todorovic, where elements of it would be assessed, on
25 the basis of that statement. So all the -- whether there were elements
1 that constituted criminal offence. And then that -- the proceedings would
2 go further or people were released.
3 Q. Sir, your evidence on Monday - that's at page 16516 to 16517 of
4 the transcript - was that when Mr. Tihic was at the police station, and
5 you and Mr. Zaric were talking to him, your evidence was: "We encouraged
6 Mr. Tihic. We told him that there was no reason for him to be further
7 detained in the station after the interview. So in that sense, we told
8 him that after the interview he would be released."
9 A. I also said that I occasionally came in. I wasn't present
10 throughout the interview. I occasionally came into the office. And it's
11 true that I said that. That was before the statement was taken. And this
12 was just me talking to him, as friend to a friend, because the entire
13 official part regarding taking of the statement, that was done by
14 Mr. Zaric. What I said, that was just me speaking as a friend to him, not
15 knowing at all what Mr. Tihic would state. I was encouraging Mr. Tihic,
16 and another time when we saw him, three or four days later [as
17 interpreted], although I was not taking a statement from him.
18 Q. Sir, if you -- and your task was, you've already told us, to
19 investigate --
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. I really don't want to interrupt,
21 but the witness said: "When I saw him three or four days later," in page
22 12, line 15.
23 MR. RE:
24 Q. Sir, your evidence two days ago - and I was reading directly from
25 the transcript - was we, that is you and Mr. Zaric, encouraged him, we,
1 you and Mr. Zaric, told him there was no reason for him to be further
2 detained, and we, you and Mr. Zaric, told him after the interview that he
3 would be released. Okay? Now, your mission, you've told us, or your
4 assignment, was to investigate armed rebellion and illegal arming. Just
5 let me finish the question, please. Armed rebellion or illegal arming.
6 If there was evidence against Mr. Tihic of his involvement in the illegal
7 arming or the armed rebellion which you were investigating, you would not
8 have told him that he should be released from the police station, would
10 A. Let me tell you: At that time, there was no proof. There was
11 only suspicion that a crime had been committed. As for proof, there
12 wasn't any. And the suspicion was based on the lists that were found in
13 the premises or in the cupboard or the desk of the commander of the
14 reserve force. I did not know what Mr. Tihic would say at the time, let
15 alone whether a crime had actually been committed.
16 Q. Sir, if Mr. Tihic had confessed to leading an armed rebellion
17 against the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina in his interview, you would not
18 have told him that he would be released or should be released from
19 custody, would you, because he would have been in the category of the
20 person, the type of person you were interested in investigating and
21 detaining for the commission of those offences?
22 A. As for whether a crime had been committed or not, whether there
23 were sufficient elements to prove that, that was not for me to say. It
24 was up to the chief of the public security station.
25 Q. When you spoke to Mr. Tihic and told him he should be released
1 from detention, you were aware that he had not confessed to taking part in
2 an armed rebellion or illegal arming, and Mr. Zaric was aware of that too,
3 weren't you?
4 A. Well, let me tell you: Actually, I'm saying this yet again. This
5 talk took place before the statement was actually taken. Until the
6 present day, I haven't read that statement, because once it's taken, it
7 was sent to Chief Todorovic. I do not know what Mr. Tihic actually stated
8 at all.
9 Q. Sir, were you present when Mr. Zaric said to Mr. Tihic something
10 to the effect of: If it was up to me - that's Simo Zaric - I'd release
11 you, but I can't make such a decision without speaking to Blagoje Simic,
12 and also without speaking to Stevan Todorovic?
13 A. I was not present. However, I heard that this interview did take
14 place and that Mr. Zaric asked Mr. Todorovic for him to be released but
15 that the other man refused it.
16 Q. Were you present when Mr. Zaric telephoned Mr. Blagoje Simic to
17 discuss releasing Mr. Tihic from custody?
18 A. I was not.
19 Q. Did Mr. Zaric tell you about telephoning or speaking to Mr. Simic
20 about releasing Mr. Tihic from custody?
21 A. I cannot say for sure whether it was Mr. Zaric, but that's what I
23 Q. You've agreed earlier that the prisoner is more likely to remember
24 the circumstances of the interrogation and interview than the
25 interrogator. Mr. Tihic says that after the interview --
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
3 A. I've already answered that.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous interpretation continues] ... not
5 allowed in these proceedings to impeach the statement of one witness with
6 another witness.
7 MR. RE: I'm not impeaching. He's already conceded that the
8 interrogatee is more likely to remember the circumstances than the
9 interrogator. I'm not impeaching the witness.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. On this matter, the witness -- the Trial
12 Chamber is of the view that the witnesses of the same party cannot be
13 confronted during cross-examination by using the evidence of another
14 witness as against another witness, of the same party. But the witnesses
15 of an opposing party can be -- the evidence of witnesses of an opposing
16 party can be put to the other -- to the witnesses of the opposing party.
17 So the Prosecution can put the evidence of their witnesses to the evidence
18 of the witnesses of the Defence.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, if I may repeat my objection for the
20 record. This puts the Defence in a very unfair position toward
21 Prosecution. They go with their case first, and their witnesses come one
22 by one, and we cannot impeach them with our witnesses because we still do
23 not have any witnesses in our case. So this puts us in a very unfair
24 position towards Prosecution. We have nothing that we can present to
25 their witnesses, because we don't have statements of our witnesses yet, in
1 the Prosecution case.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. That is not correct, because by the time the
3 trial starts, the Defence will have already known what their defence is.
4 So they would put those issues of their defence case to the witnesses of
5 the Prosecution. So it's not a question of having formal statements
6 before the Trial Chamber, no. It's a question of what the defence which
7 the accused persons are putting up, and those are the issues that you use
8 in cross-examining the Prosecution witnesses.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I say something? I
10 have fully understood your decision, but I wish to recall the position of
11 the Trial Chamber that if one witness is shown what another witness had
12 said, this cannot undermine the latter witness's credibility. You said
13 yourself that you can have questions reworded. Regardless of the side on
14 which individual witnesses are, then in this way, the witness can be
15 confused by the words of another witness. So words from the testimony of
16 another witness cannot be taken from another testimony. It should not be
17 done so directly. The other witness should not be quoted directly,
18 because in this way, this witness is influenced by the words of another
19 witness, the actual words. That was my interpretation of the original
21 A while ago, I was not allowed to put questions in relation to
22 what a person said, and this person had not been a Prosecution witness.
23 This is when I was putting questions to Mr. Kemal Mehinovic. I wanted to
24 put questions to him related to police proceedings, and you would not
25 allow me to do that. I understood your decision, but the question can
1 simply be reworded, and it is then that the witness can say what he has to
2 say in relation to such matters, because I think that in this way, we are
3 being brought into a position of inequality.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. RE: Your Honours, can I make it quite clear? I was not
6 intending to confront the witness with Mr. Tihic's testimony. I'm not
7 attempting to impeach this witness with another witness's testimony. That
8 wasn't my intention. That's not what I'm attempting to do. There's no
9 forensic purpose in me doing that.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think let me explain. What the Prosecution
11 can do is to paraphrase the questions and then put them to the -- the
12 evidence, rather, and put that to the witness, instead of citing the
13 actual evidence of the witness and naming the witness. Understood? For
14 instance, you can say there is evidence before this Trial Chamber to the
15 effect that... whatever the evidence is, and then you ask the witness
16 what he says to that.
17 MR. RE:
18 Q. Sir, there is evidence to the effect before this Trial Chamber
19 that after you had this conversation with Mr. Tihic, he wasn't in fact
20 released but was in fact taken back downstairs to a cell, one metre by
21 twenty metres, approximately, in area, with seven to nine people in it,
22 and remained incarcerated there until he was transferred elsewhere.
23 You've got no reason to disagree with that, do you?
24 A. I know that he went there. However, I don't know how many people
25 had already been there. That's the only thing.
1 Q. There is also evidence that before he was placed in the cell,
2 either you or Mr. Zaric said that he couldn't be put together with other
3 detainees in the headquarters of the Territorial Defence because he had
4 gotten to know them already. Now, before you answer, I want to ask you
5 something further, and that's this: If either you or Mr. Zaric said that
6 to Mr. Todorovic, was it, in effect, a ruse when you said that to try and
7 get him away from further beatings, to try and get him away from the spot
8 where he was likely to be beaten further?
9 A. I think that I was the one who suggested that, for the following
10 reason: So that he would not be sent to the TO, where the members of the
11 special units would stop by, especially during the night, and beat up
12 these people.
13 Q. But what I'm asking is the way you phrased it when you said it to
14 Mr. Todorovic, the way you put it, was to frame it by saying: This
15 person, Tihic, shouldn't be put together with those other detainees
16 because he already knows who they are, in an attempt to fool Mr. Todorovic
17 into putting Mr. Tihic somewhere else, or persuade, if "fool" is the wrong
19 A. No, I did not say that to Mr. Stevan Todorovic at all. This was a
20 conversation between Mr. Zaric, Mr. Milos Savic, and myself. Stevan
21 Todorovic was not present at all.
22 Q. Mr. Zaric also agreed that Mr. Tihic should be released from
23 custody, and you said you had heard that he had spoken to Mr. Simic about
24 that. Now, Mr. Zaric's view on Mr. Tihic was that he should be released
25 because there was no evidence against him, wasn't it?
1 A. I said that I had heard --
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: One small clarification. I really don't feel like
3 interrupting my colleague, but that he had spoken, that you heard that he
4 had spoken to Mr. Simic. The witness said he didn't hear exactly that
5 Mr. Zaric talked to Mr. Simic but that he heard about the two of them were
7 MR. RE: That was my question.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. If you check line 22 of the question --
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just a matter of phrasing, because what we heard
10 as translation is that: You heard that Mr. Zaric was -- it's a bit hard
11 to explain. It's our language. It suggests that he was present when
12 Mr. Zaric was speaking to Mr. Simic. That's the only reason. And we
13 understood that perfectly. But in our language, it sounded that way.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we can just repeat the question, Mr. Re.
15 MR. RE: I will.
16 Q. Mr. --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Slowly.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, a moment ago I asked you -- I'm going to repeat
20 the question slowly: Mr. Zaric agreed with you that Mr. Simic - sorry -
21 that Mr. Tihic should be released from custody, and you told us, not long
22 ago, that you had heard that he, Mr. Zaric, you weren't present, but you
23 had heard that he, Mr. Zaric, had spoken to Mr. Simic about that, that's
24 Tihic's release - let me finish, please. Now, Mr. Zaric's view about
25 Mr. Tihic's detention was that he should be released because there was no
1 evidence against him, wasn't it?
2 A. I say this once again. The conversation about this took place
3 before Mr. Zaric conducted the official interview with Mr. Tihic. After
4 that, I heard - and actually, at that time we thought about this -
5 afterwards, I heard that Mr. Zaric had called Mr. Blagoje Simic in
6 relation to the release of Mr. Tihic. I don't know how all of this ended,
7 but Tihic was not released.
8 Q. You heard that Mr. Simic and Mr. Zaric had spoken after the
9 interview had occurred, didn't you, not before?
10 A. I heard indirectly. I was not there. I said it, and I'm saying
11 it now: I was not present, but I heard that they had talked. I heard
13 Q. Sir, that wasn't my question. My question was when. You heard
14 after the interview. It was after the interview had occurred that you
15 heard that Mr. Zaric and Mr. Simic had spoken - let me finish, please -
16 had spoken about Mr. Tihic's release, didn't you?
17 A. After the interview. After the interview.
18 Q. And you know the reason why Mr. Zaric spoke to Mr. Simic about
19 that was because Mr. Zaric believed or knew there was no evidence
20 justifying Mr. Tihic's continued detention?
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Calling for speculation.
22 A. -- know about that.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Do you know the reason why Mr. Zaric spoke --
24 A. I can explain.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. Surely it must be within the witness -- and the witness can answer
2 whether he knows or not. I mean, I don't know --
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness can answer that.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. Please, and can you please answer the question.
6 A. Would you please repeat the question, though.
7 Q. The question was: You know the reason why Mr. Zaric spoke to
8 Mr. Simic about Mr. Tihic's release was because Mr. Zaric believed or
9 knew, when he spoke to Mr. Simic, that there was no evidence justifying
10 Mr. Tihic's continued detention?
11 A. I can just assume why Mr. Zaric called Mr. Simic, but Mr. Zaric
12 was not in a position to assess Mr. Tihic's statement as to whether a
13 crime had been committed or not been committed, because this is a right
14 that only Stevan Todorovic had. Though Simo could only present his own
15 view, his personal view.
16 Q. That, of itself, Mr. Zaric's -- I withdraw that. Mr. Zaric, as
17 far as you know, didn't telephone Mr. Simic asking for the release of 50
18 to 100 people who you had interviewed in suspicion of conducting an armed
19 rebellion for illegally arming themselves?
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: We are talking about 20th of April in relation to
23 Mr. Tihic at this point.
24 MR. RE: I've moved on.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: At that point there is no evidence that there was
1 100 or 150 [sic] people arrested at that time.
2 MR. RE: I've moved on.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. The question is: As far as you know, Mr. Zaric didn't telephone
6 Mr. Simic in relation to the release or asking for the release of the 50
7 to 100 people that you say you interviewed over that two-month period, and
8 you interviewed them in suspicion of conducting -- with suspicion of
9 conducting an armed rebellion or illegally arming themselves. As far as
10 you know, Mr. Zaric didn't ring or speak to Mr. Simic asking for their
11 release, did he?
12 A. If you mean the transfer of prisoners from the TO building, I have
13 already said that the following day, after the detainees had been
14 transferred, I heard that they had been transferred from the TO for their
15 own security and safety.
16 Q. Sir, my question was their release. Your evidence is that you had
17 heard Mr. Zaric telephoned -- had heard that he had telephoned Mr. Simic
18 asking for Mr. Tihic's release, that is his freedom, and you had told Mr.
19 Tihic he should be free to leave. As far as you know, Mr. Zaric did not
20 telephone, make the same telephone calls to Mr. Blagoje Simic in relation
21 to the 50 to 100 people you interviewed on suspicion of illegally arming
22 or conducting an armed rebellion?
23 A. I don't know whether he did that or not, whether he telephoned or
24 not. I don't know.
25 Q. The fact that he had telephoned Mr. Simic in relation to
1 Mr. Tihic's release from custody, and you're unaware of him telephoning in
2 relation to all the other people in custody strongly suggests that he
3 believed that Mr. Tihic was innocent, after taking the interview, and that
4 there was no legitimate reason for his continued detention, doesn't it?
5 A. I can only engage in guesswork. How can I know?
6 Q. Sir, in the circumstances I've just outlined, you know he
7 telephoned or you heard he telephoned in relation to one prominent person
8 after interviewing him, seeking his release, but not all the others. The
9 fact that he telephoned in relation to one person and went straight to the
10 top, that's the head of the Crisis Staff, suggests that he believed that
11 person was innocent or there was no evidence justifying his detention.
12 That's the only conclusion you, as a police inspector, with a law degree,
13 can draw from those actions, isn't it?
14 A. Well, I've just said: I can give my opinion, but it is not
15 relevant at all. If you want me to do that, I shall. The assumption is
16 fine, but I don't know whether that's actually what happened. The
17 assumption is fine.
18 Q. The assumption being fine, sir, yesterday Mr. Lazarevic showed you
19 two documents: D14/4 and D25/4. Those were the lists -- the SDA lists
20 containing all the names. You remember seeing those documents? Yes?
21 A. I remember.
22 Q. Sulejman Tihic's name appeared on those documents, didn't it?
23 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.
24 Q. And the fact that Mr. Zaric was importuning Mr. Simic for the
25 release of this person who - and you agreed with the assumption or the
1 conclusion that he must have believed he was innocent or there was no
2 evidence if he went to the step of asking the head of the Crisis Staff to
3 release him - casts real doubts upon the authenticity of those documents,
4 if Mr. Zaric took that step, doesn't it?
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: I object to this question. This is call for
6 speculation 100 per cent.
7 MR. RE: Yesterday the witness was asked to --
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: How could the witness know what Mr. Zaric had at
9 this moment. Mr. Zaric could also have some other assumptions. I can say
10 that too.
11 MR. RE: I'm happy to break the question down into three, but
12 yesterday my learned friend Mr. Lazarevic specifically asked the witness
13 to authenticate the document and the witness gave an explanation of what
14 he thought the document contained. My questioning is just a logical a
15 contrario argument, I suppose. But if it assists, I can certainly break
16 the question down a bit.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You break it down so the question can
18 understand each other.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, agreeing with the assumption that the only reason
21 you agreed with that assumption that Mr. Zaric would have rung Mr. Simic
22 was because he would have believed that, after interviewing Mr. Tihic,
23 there was no basis to keep him in custody. The fact that Mr. Tihic's name
24 appeared on those documents and Mr. Zaric was importuning the president
25 of the Crisis Staff for his release must, in your mind, as a police
1 inspector with a law degree, cast some doubts on the authenticity, at
2 least in part, of those two documents, mustn't it?
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: If my colleague can explain what is the difference
4 of this question between the previous one. It's exactly the same one.
5 MR. RE:
6 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr. Sarkanovic?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... can you please answer it,
10 A. Let me tell you: 90 per cent of detainees that I interviewed,
11 they refused to say that they had been members of paramilitary units, that
12 they were in any way linked to this, although, on the basis of some other
13 statements where cooperation was somewhat different. I don't know how
14 many, 100, 200 pieces of weapons were taken away. Even those who said
15 that they didn't participate, they did, and they had weapons found. So
16 obviously, I would allow for the possibility that on the list, there were
17 persons who were not connected to this. However, a large number of
18 persons had been involved in the units and in the arming.
19 Q. Tihic's name featured prominently on both lists. Zaric telephoned
20 Simic asking for Tihic's release after interviewing.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That of itself must in your mind have cast some doubts on the
23 list's authenticity, at least as it involved Mr. Tihic's name being on it,
24 mustn't it? Just confine yourself to Tihic's name being on the list.
25 A. Well, let me tell you: I don't know what you want me to say. I
1 have already stated what I think. I can assume what you're saying is that
2 Mr. Zaric had this in mind when he made that call, but I don't know that.
3 He didn't tell me that. I can assume that, just like you can.
4 Q. Sir, the fact that he telephoned Simic, asking for Zaric's release
5 of a man whose name featured prominently on the list, which you were using
6 to conduct your investigations must, in your mind, I suggest, have cast
7 some doubts on the authenticity of the document you were using, at least
8 insofar as Mr. Tihic's name was on it, although not necessarily the other
9 names. You must agree with that, mustn't you?
10 A. No. Not insofar as I'm concerned. If you're thinking about the
11 authenticity of the list and everything else, no, because these lists had
12 been proven authentic before. But I told you already that there were
13 people who had said and for whom it had been proved that they were not
14 members of the units and they had not been armed and they had not had
15 weapons found with them. There were cases. That's what I said. But
16 there was no doubt as to the authenticity of the document.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, can we move on? We've been on this point
18 for too long.
19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Actually, Mr. Re, I'd just like to pose one short
20 question before you do that, to Mr. Sarkanovic.
21 Do you know whether Mr. Zaric released himself any other detainees
22 without speaking to Dr. Simic or to Mr. Todorovic? If you know.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he couldn't have done it, even
24 theoretically. Only Stiv who could have done that. I don't know of that,
25 in any case. I don't know.
1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Do you recall two detainees, the surname of one
2 was Mr. Jusufovic, and the other is a Mr. Fadil Sabanovic? Do those names
3 mean anything to you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fadil Sabanovic and Jusufovic, yes.
5 He was the son of the cake shop owner, Ferid. Yes. At the time when
6 Mr. Zaric was speaking to Mr. Tihic, I think I was interviewing with one,
7 and then the other, in an office which is used as a conference hall. We
8 saw that yesterday, that is, the room which is opposite my office.
9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And were these two gentlemen released?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard later that they were
11 released. I don't know who released them, but only Stiv could have
12 released them.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, Dragan Lukac, your former colleague, was arrested
16 on the 17th of April, 1992 and detained, and while in custody, was
17 severely beaten by one of the paramilitaries, Lugar. You accept that,
18 don't you?
19 A. Yes, he was severely beaten up, yes.
20 Q. And you interviewed him after he had been severely beaten by
21 Lugar, didn't you?
22 A. I don't know when Lugar had beaten him up, but I know that when I
23 spoke to him, he still bore traces of the beating. I don't know whether
24 Lugar was responsible or someone else, but there were traces that were
1 Q. Now, Mr. Lukic [sic] - don't get me wrong in any way - said your
2 treatment of him was fair and proper, but you, of course, because of all
3 the large number of statements you took, you can't remember the details --
4 I just want to clarify something for the transcript?
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Microphone not activated] For the transcript.
6 You are using the word Lukic.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel please. Microphone.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry. You're using the word "Lukic." This is
10 the name of the counsel, not of the witness. And again, we have
11 instructions from the Trial Chamber not to challenge the testimony of this
12 witness. So you can say: We have evidence in this case. Not: Mr. Lukac
13 said in his statement.
14 MR. RE: The second that was drawn to my attention, I was
15 attempting to correct it, which I will now continue to try to do.
16 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, I'm clearly referring to Dragan Lukac, not Novak
17 Lukic, seated over there. My question is - I've told you he has told that
18 there's evidence that your treatment of him was fair and proper - that my
19 question is: You've already agreed that you would not be able to remember
20 the details of someone's interrogation more than the person who is
21 interrogated. Mr. Lukac described his state at the time of his interview
22 by you, which he said was fair and proper, as being in a state of
23 psychological shock. You can't disagree with his assessment of his own
24 position when you interviewed him as being in a state of psychological
25 shock, can you?
1 A. That is quite possible. I agree with that, because he was really
2 in a very poor condition.
3 Q. And there's evidence before this Trial Chamber that in view of the
4 state that he was in, he couldn't say whether the statement he gave was
5 complete or whether it was recorded faithfully, or whether it was all in
6 there, that is, whether everything that he said was recorded in the
8 A. Let me tell you: Regardless of the condition that Mr. Lukac was
9 in, I allowed him to -- made it possible for him as a colleague that after
10 the interview that we had, that he himself, by himself, would dictate this
11 statement to be recorded as his statement. This statement that you
12 probably have has been dictated by Dragan Lukac, regardless of his
13 condition, of the condition that he was in. If he had not done it -- if
14 he had done it incorrectly, I followed it while he was dictating. More or
15 less we knew what we were talking about, what was supposed to go into the
17 Q. Sir, Mr. Lukac, having experienced -- having been beaten and
18 having experienced severe psychological shock, was really in no position
19 to give an accurate, reliable, and completely voluntary statement, no
20 matter how fair or proper you were of him during your interview with him;
21 you would agree with that, wouldn't you, because that would be consistent
22 with what you told us yesterday.
23 A. Let me tell you: I probably said that yesterday. I'm going to
24 say it again. Any detainee that I spoke to, whether it was Lukac or
25 someone else, was asked if he wanted to give a statement. Nobody - and if
1 this is different, then show me the statement -- but nobody was forced to
2 give a statement, nobody.
3 Q. Sir --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, you should be winding up now.
5 MR. RE: I am winding up. I was only asking about Dragan Lukac
6 not the other people and I'm asking the witness to concentrate only --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: That's not the point. I'm simply telling you you
8 should be winding up now. You have had three hours.
9 MR. RE: I am winding up. I'm almost there. Thank you, Your
11 Q. Look, Mr. Sarkanovic, I was only asking you about Dragan Lukac.
12 You're saying that he was in the same category as the other detainees who
13 were beaten and experiencing severe psychological shock and that any
14 statement he gave, no matter how professional or gentle you were --
15 A. [Inaudible]
16 Q. There was something we said we didn't catch, but I'll finish my
17 question. No matter how professional or gentle you were in your
18 interviewing of him, because of the circumstances of its taking, it would
19 of its very nature be unreliable?
20 A. The actual statement is not regarded as evidence in the
21 proceedings. It can be changed several times, completely. So the
22 statement that is given during the interview, interviewed by an inspector,
23 by me, does not represent any kind of evidence. So he could have said all
24 kinds of things, and then he could have just denied it afterwards? You
1 Q. What was the crime that Dragan Lukac had committed that justified
2 his arrest on the 17th of April, 1992, and his incarceration - just let
3 me finish before you answer, please. I know you want to answer it, but
4 please - and his exchange on the 4th of September, 1992? What was his
6 A. I know that the suspicion while he was detained, but the criminal
7 offence, I didn't assess that, or I didn't assess of any of the other
8 detainees that I spoke to. So the assessment whether there was a criminal
9 offence that was committed, that was ruled on by Stevan Todorovic, and
10 only by Stevan Todorovic.
11 Q. You said yesterday that Mr. Zaric had only taken one statement.
12 For time purposes, I'm not going to show you his record of interview, but
13 in his record of interview or statement to the Prosecutor, that's P141, at
14 page 5, I think, he said he had actually taken at least four. You can't
15 disagree with that, because you didn't see him take these interviews;
16 isn't that right?
17 A. Well, let me tell you: I only saw one, but he could have taken
18 not four, he could have taken 14 and I wouldn't know about that.
19 Q. I only wanted to clarify your evidence yesterday when you said he
20 only took one, and we clarified it that he only took one that you know of;
21 is that right?
22 A. That's what I knew, and that's what I said.
23 Q. Sir, finally, I'll finish now. I've already asked you about the
24 very serious crimes that you were aware of that had been committed by the
25 Serb forces, the police, the paramilitary, Mr. Todorovic, and those who
1 had ordered the arrests and detention of people on ethnic grounds. You
2 said yesterday that this system horrified you and you didn't want to take
3 any part of it.
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Inaudible]
5 MR. RE:
6 Q. Can you just --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer is not picked up by the interpreters.
8 MR. RE: We didn't hear what you said. Can you just lean closer
9 to the microphone, please.
10 A. I said -- perhaps I said it very quietly, but here I am quite
12 Q. We were actually interested in what you said. What was your
14 A. I said, yes I said it. What the Prosecutor said. I said it.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Sarkanovic, in normal circumstances, if those
16 things -- if you had witnessed or were aware of those horrific crimes
17 being committed, you would have taken action or complained to someone to
18 institute action against -- criminal proceedings against those responsible
19 for those crimes, wouldn't you?
20 A. If you tell me who, then that would be an affirmative answer.
21 Q. If those things had happened when you were working as a police
22 inspector before the war, that the police in charge of -- the police
23 officer in charge of the station was beating and torturing detainees, you
24 would have made a complaint up the line, wouldn't you, or asked someone to
25 investigate this gross abuse of authority? I'm talking before the war.
1 That's what you would have done, wouldn't you?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Krgovic.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object. Here, the
4 witness is being presented with a hypothetical situation: What would have
5 been had this happened, in normal circumstances. So this is a
6 hypothetical question, an "if" clause. What would the witness then in a
7 situation if something had been the case. Now, when the Defence was
8 asking questions in this way, the Trial Chamber said the Defence did not
9 have the right to ask questions of witnesses in this way, so we think that
10 this way of asking questions is not appropriate.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re. The objection is sustained. You are
12 asking the witness to speculate.
13 MR. RE: I'm not asking the witness to speculate. I'm asking him
14 on procedures. It's specifically on complaints.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But you are telling him that if it had
16 happened this way, what would you have done, or you would have done it
17 this or that way.
18 MR. RE: Your Honour, the man spent 18 years as police inspector
19 presumably during that time he would have seen some instances of police
20 abuse. It happens in every system in the world. There would have been
21 systems in place as to what to do. It's part of your training, it's part
22 of police regulations, as far as I know, everywhere in the world, what to
23 do if a crime occurs in the police station. All I'm asking him is:
24 Before the war, this is what you would have done, and I'm just about
25 to move to the next thing.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It is still asking him to speculate if the
2 things had been the way you are putting it to him.
3 MR. RE: I will rephrase the question.
4 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, during your time as a police inspector, did you
5 ever make complaints about or did you ever witness offences committed by
7 A. Yes, I did see it, but there was no need for me to complain to
8 anyone. We would do our work and we were not prevented in doing it by
9 someone. We would have done it had we not been prevented from doing it.
10 Q. I'm only asking you about the situation before and during the
11 war. Before the war, had a murder occurred in the police station, as a
12 police officer, it would have been investigated and a complaint would have
13 been made; correct?
14 A. I answered that.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Sarkanovic. Again, there is
16 a question with an "if" clause. Again, had there been a murder before the
17 war, and to make a parallel. But first of all, this witness is a fact
18 witness, not an expert witness, and certainly not a witness regarding the
20 MR. RE: The witness has already answered. He said: I've
21 answered it, I think meaning, naturally --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: You should be asking him. Obviously, crimes did
23 occur before the war, so you ask him if anything had occurred before the
24 war, what the witness did, or what the police officers did in those
1 MR. RE:
2 Q. If murders occurred in police stations -- when murders occurred --
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. When murders occurred.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. When beatings occurred in police stations, and I assume they
6 occasionally did, as in most systems, it has occurred, and it shouldn't,
7 there were systems in place before the war for reporting or investigating
8 police misconduct in -- well, in an official capacity, weren't there?
10 either be disciplined procedure or a criminal procedure -- criminal
11 proceedings, depending on what kind of transgression it was.
12 Q. But of course what you saw in the police station during the war,
13 that's April, May, June 1992, went far beyond the use of excessive force,
14 didn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You've already us that it was -- what you saw horrified you. But
17 what also horrified you was that there was nothing you could do about it,
18 that there was no one you could complain to?
19 A. I said that we were prevented from doing such work. There were
20 people we could have reported this to. There was the prosecutor's office
21 and so on. But we were banned. We were forbidden from doing this at all.
22 Q. And you were horrified that any complaint you would have made
23 would have gone back to those responsible for implementing this system in
24 Bosanski Samac in 1992, weren't you?
25 A. I said that the assessment regarding whether there was a criminal
1 offence committed or not, this was decided on by the chief of the station,
2 Stevan Todorovic.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, that's over.
4 MR. RE: Can I just ask one --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Your time is over.
6 MR. RE: Just on Todorovic, one issue.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: I told you to wind up. I've allowed you to go on
8 for 10, 15 minutes --
9 MR. RE: Just one issue in relation to Todorovic, which should be
10 about two questions, Your Honour. That's all I ask for.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
12 MR. RE: Thank you.
13 Q. Todorovic was, of course, a member of the SDS?
14 A. I presume he was, yes. Yes, he was.
15 Q. And the SDS -- sorry - and Blagoje Simic and the Crisis Staff --
16 sorry - the Crisis Staff was controlled by the SDS?
17 A. I don't know. I can assume so.
18 Q. And a complaint to Todorovic would have gone to the SDS about what
19 you saw in the police station, and you were afraid that nothing would come
20 of any complaint you made because of Todorovic's position; is that right?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Re. The witness already said he didn't
22 know, so you can't build on that and ask the question you have asked.
23 MR. RE: He said that Todorovic was a member of the SDS. He
24 said: Yes, he was.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: But the latter part that the Crisis Staff was
1 controlled by the SDS, he said he didn't know.
2 MR. RE: He said I assume so.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: He can only assume so, which doesn't take us
5 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. I'd actually like --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, before you start, the Judge would like
8 to ask a few questions.
9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'd actually like the assistance of our registry
10 assistant to show two exhibits to the witness, and I would like the
11 witness simply to look at the signatures and see if he can identify the
12 signatures. The first is Exhibit D28/3, and the second one is the
13 immediately following exhibit, D29/3. Obviously, to give the witness the
14 ter document in both cases.
15 So, Mr. Sarkanovic, if you could just look at the signatures and
16 comment on the signature on the right in each case. There's a signature
17 on the left and then there's a signature on the right. It's the one on
18 the right.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side is my
21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. That is D28/3 ter, the first document?
22 Yes? And then the second document, if you could just do the same thing,
23 29/3 ter, signature on the right.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this is Milos Savic's
1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it is. I think I said in
3 the reserve, but I believe it is his.
4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: That's fine. Thank you very much.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And just before we break, just one other short
7 question. I believe it was Mr. Krgovic yesterday or the day before raised
8 the issue of blank pages with signatures on, in terms of detainees giving
9 interviews, and I just wanted to be clear. Did you, with any of the
10 persons that you interviewed in the SUP during this period, April 1992 to
11 June, did you ever ask any of the persons you interviewed to sign a blank
12 sheet of paper?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Never. Each person I interviewed
14 could have refused to sign his own statement that he had already stated.
15 I don't know what I -- what use would I have had blank piece of paper.
16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And one last question: Did you know or did you
17 hear whether other persons, including some of the specials, the
18 paramilitaries, such as Lugar and Crni and so on, did they ever make
19 persons sign a blank sheet of paper? Detained persons, obviously.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't heard that they had forced
21 them. Perhaps they would have taken money from them. But no. No.
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll take our break and continue our proceedings at
24 1100 hours.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
1 --- Upon commencing at 11.03 a.m.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Re-examined by Mr. Pantelic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Sarkanovic. In order to
6 clarify matters, because I didn't want to keep objecting while my
7 colleague the Prosecutor was conducting his cross-examination: Whenever
8 you answered him in the following terms: "I think," "I assume," et
9 cetera, does that mean that you were not 100 per cent sure and that you
10 can only guess [as interpreted]?
11 A. That's right.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Instead of -- just correction to the transcript. I
13 asked him in B/C/S language, instead of word "guess" it should be
14 speculate. Thank you. Just for the correction.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Sarkanovic: When my colleague the
16 Prosecutor asked you about the episode related to the telephone
17 conversation between Mr. Zaric and Mr. Blagoje Simic, did you find out
18 later on or did you hear that on that occasion Dr. Blagoje Simic said to
19 Zaric that the subject-matter related to the release of Tihic was not
20 within Blagoje Simic's jurisdiction; it was within the line of work of
21 Stevan Todorovic, chief of police, and that he, as an employee, should
22 sort it out with him? Did you hear that later?
23 A. I don't know whether it was exactly that way, but it was along
24 those lines, yes.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Excuse me.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: There is something in this question that it's not
3 quite clear to me, that -- he said: As an employee, did Mr. Pantelic
4 refer that Mr. Zaric was an employee of Mr. Todorovic? Because frankly, I
5 didn't quite understand.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic can clear that.
7 MR. PANTELIC: I can rephrase, yes. I can rephrase. I can
8 clarify that.
9 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Sarkanovic, the point is in the
10 following: You heard later that Blagoje Simic had said that this was not
11 within his jurisdiction but that this was within the line of work of the
12 police, of the police authorities, Stevan Todorovic. Did you say that?
13 A. Well, I don't know whether that's exactly what I said, but it was
14 along those lines, yes.
15 Q. Furthermore, the Prosecutor asked you about some crimes, namely,
16 armed rebellion against a certain state, et cetera, and you said that the
17 state concerned was Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, I am asking you the
18 following: During that period while you worked as a police inspector, was
19 there an entity called Republika Srpska, or rather, the Republic of the
20 Serb people in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Are you aware of that fact?
21 A. It did exist.
22 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge about the fact that at that
23 time there was a constitution of Republika Srpska and certain laws?
24 A. No, at least I'm not aware of any such thing.
25 Q. Do you know that at that time, there was a Ministry of the
1 Interior of the Republika Srpska, that is to say, the Serb police?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. During the cross-examination of my learned friend Mr. Re, he put a
4 series of questions to you, starting between the 16th and 17th of April,
5 when the armed conflicts in Samac started, slowly but surely, he led you
6 to some answers that are not quite clear. I would like to clarify them
8 He mentioned, on page 51 of yesterday's transcript - it was line 9
9 - he spoke about the new system that was established and that ordered or
10 allowed mass arrests, et cetera. As regards this term "new system," do
11 you mean the municipal authorities, the Crisis Staff, or Stevan Todorovic
12 and the specials? What is your understanding of this new system or new
14 A. Stevan Todorovic and the specials.
15 Q. Furthermore, on page 50 of the transcript, yesterday's transcript,
16 I mean, line 3 and 4, and again, there is your answer, he asked you
17 whether the municipal authorities are responsible for the safety of the
18 population and the property security of the population, and your answer
19 was yes. And now I'm asking you, as an experienced policeman, whether the
20 local police is under the control of the local authorities or the
21 appropriate authorities within the Ministry of the Interior.
22 A. The appropriate authorities within the Ministry of the Interior.
23 Q. In conclusion, in relation to Stevan Todorovic, first and
24 foremost, Mr. Sarkanovic, did you ever attend in any official capacity
25 meetings of the Crisis Staff?
1 A. Never. I was not a member of the Crisis Staff and there was no
2 need [Realtime transcript read in error "was need"] for me to attend these
4 Q. How would you describe Stevan Todorovic? After all, he was a
5 layman in police work. Did he boast --
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: The answer that the witness gave was not properly
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: On page 41, line 19: I was not a member of the
10 Crisis Staff and there was no need for me. There is "no" missing.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. It will be corrected.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, my friend.
14 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Sarkanovic, how would you describe Stevan
15 Todorovic? What category would you place him in? Was he a professional
16 in his work? Was he a calm person, a cultured person, or --
17 MR. RE: I object.
18 MR. PANTELIC: I withdraw, I withdraw, I withdraw. Okay.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Sarkanovic: Do you know, with
20 absolute certainty, that he was a member of the Crisis Staff, on the basis
21 of some decisions, on the basis of some proclamations, some official
22 document, or did he tell you that, or rather, did you just assume that?
23 On the basis of what did you answer the Prosecutor along those lines that
24 you knew that he was a member of the Crisis Staff?
25 A. He told me that.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re.
3 MR. RE: Any objection I was going to make, I withdraw.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: The question was clear for the witness.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I've finished with my
6 re-examination. [Interpretation] That you, Mr. Sarkanovic.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Any questions, Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lazarevic?
8 Re-examined by Mr. Lazarevic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon once again, Mr. Sarkanovic. I
10 would just like to clarify a few matters now that arose during the
11 cross-examination, so could you please give me some clarifications in
12 terms of the questions that were put to you and the answers that you gave.
13 First of all, this last matter, Mr. Pantelic's question. So in
14 order to clarify this fully: Was Mr. Zaric an employee of the MUP, or
15 rather, of the secretariat of the interior of the public security station,
16 and was Todorovic his superior?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can the witness be shown document D28/3 ter.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you've seen this document. It was shown to
21 you. Judge Williams already asked you to identify the signatures. Could
22 you please put it there on the overhead projector next to you.
23 Sir, the second sentence of the statement that starts: "During
24 the night between the 16th and 17th of April, 1992," can you read that?
25 Read it to yourself. There is no need to read it out loud.
1 A. Where is this?
2 Q. Underneath statement, there is a sentence, the first one, that
3 says "unable to," and the other one that starts with "between the 16th and
4 17th of April, during the night." Could you just read it to yourself.
5 And please go on to read the next sentence immediately, that is "in the
6 morning, when gunshots were heard."
7 A. I've read it.
8 Q. Thank you. Now I just have a few questions to put to you in
9 relation to that. During your testimony, during your testimony, you said
10 that you personally saw, with your very own eyes, Esad Dagovic with a
11 group of armed men, armed, in the morning, on the 17th, before your house.
12 Is that what you stated before this Tribunal?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. RE: I'm objecting. Can the witness please not answer the
15 question. He knows not to answer if I'm objecting. The first point --
16 that's why I didn't interrupt you when you were -- I allowed you to make
17 your question.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What is your objection?
19 MR. RE: The objection is it doesn't arise from cross-examination.
20 Her Honour Judge Williams asked a question about the signature on the
21 bottom of the document. I asked the witness no questions at all relating
22 to Esad Dagovic. There is nothing that arises, nor requires
23 clarification, in my submission, from Her Honour Judge Williams's question
24 about whose signature is on the bottom of those documents.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: If I may answer that. My colleague is completely
1 right. He didn't ask specifically about Esad Dagovic, but all
2 questions -- there was quite a number of questions related to the taking
3 of statements, to the content of statements, whether they were properly
4 taken, and the condition in which these statements were taken. What I'm
5 trying to show with this, I believe that is quite obvious to the Trial
6 Chamber and also to the Prosecution, that whatever conditions were, the
7 statements are truthful.
8 MR. RE: If Your Honours please, if my learned friend is permitted
9 to ask questions about Mr. Dagovic's incarceration and interrogation, I
10 should be permitted to cross-examine the witness on that very point. I
11 have questions prepared which I didn't go to on that point. Mr. Dagovic
12 gave extensive testimony on that. I didn't take the witness to it.
13 Either it doesn't arise or I should be allowed to re-cross, if he is
14 allowed to ask those questions.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, you can go ahead and ask the
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will allow the Prosecution to ask
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Sir, it says here in this statement - I don't want to waste much
23 time by reading it - it says here that he spent that night in his house
24 and he was there with his brother and parents and neighbours in the
25 basement of his house the following day. Is that what it says there? Is
1 that right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. And in this statement, it doesn't say anywhere here that he had
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Has this statement also been compiled on the basis of what he told
7 you during the interview?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous interpretation continues] ... we don't
10 need this document any more.
11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Sarkanovic. I believe it was two
12 days ago you had mentioned that when you -- following the interview with
13 the detained person and following that person having dictated or saying
14 aloud what was going to go into the statement, that it would be typed up,
15 and then you also mentioned that you would append your own comments. Did
16 you do that in every case? Do you remember whether you did it in this
17 case of Mr. Dagovic?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never added my comments in any of
19 the cases. What the person stated in the interview when the statement was
20 taken, that was the only thing that was entered into the record of the
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me correctly, you did say not
23 that you put things into the statement but that following the statement,
24 there might be a separate sheet where you put your comments.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know what you mean. That was done
1 in the case of Dagovic. On the morning of the 17th of April, I saw him
2 with weapons in his hands, together with the Atic brothers, with Fadil
3 Sabanovic, I think there was Bicic brothers there as well. And after
4 that, when I came to take the statement from him, when I was interviewing
5 him - I don't know which day that was - I spoke to him, and he told me
6 what he told me. But it was according to my own knowledge, based on what
7 I saw on the 17th, in the morning, I wrote an official note, and this
8 should have been attached either to the statement of Dagovic or added to
9 the statement of any of the others who were with him in the group then
10 it would have included my official note about what I had myself observed
11 on the morning of the 17th of April.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Now that we are talking about the statements in respect of the
15 questions that the Prosecutor asked, first I would like to clarify one
16 matter. You have already answered something in relation to this, but I'd
17 like us to elaborate on this.
18 Here you said during the cross-examination already that each
19 person that you interviewed, after which you compiled a written statement,
20 first of all, you would ask them whether this person wanted to give a
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. You've already answered that. Were there any persons who did not
24 wish to give a statement?
25 A. Not one.
1 Q. And these persons who gave their statements, can you tell me, if
2 only just roughly: How many, approximately, percentage-wise, how many of
3 them said: Yes, that's correct. I had weapons. I was a member of units
4 that were established. Can you tell me based on your experience?
5 A. I've already --
6 MR. RE: It's cross-examining. He's putting words in the
7 witness's mouth. He's giving the answer to the witness: How many told
8 you this precise thing? There's a proper way of asking the question, in
9 my submission, but that's not it.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. He's asking him the number or the
11 percentage of the persons who told him what the counsel has cited to the
12 witness. He's asking for the number. He's not asking whether anybody
13 told him this; he's asking for the number.
14 MR. RE: I'm sorry. I must have heard something different to
15 what's on the transcript. Maybe I'm confused.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You may answer this question. How many of them refuted this? How
19 many said that they did not have weapons?
20 A. Well, approximately 90 per cent of them refused to say, that is,
21 what they stated was that they did have weapons and that they were not
22 members of paramilitary formations. And I have already answered this
23 question when asked by the Prosecutor.
24 Q. So 90 per cent of people that you interviewed said they had no
25 connection with weapons or with units; is that correct? Is that true to
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. So, sir, since we come from the same legal system and based on a
4 number of questions that the Prosecutor asked you, perhaps it would be a
5 good idea to clarify: What happens to a statement that you take? You
6 drew us a diagram here, and perhaps you could tell me: Considering that
7 you told me that you passed the statements on to your superior, Milos
8 Savic, can you tell me what happens to these statements afterwards?
9 What's the further procedure? Who does what with these statements?
10 A. Milos Savic would give these statements to the chief of the
11 station, Todorovic, Stevan Todorovic. He would then assess whether, on
12 the basis of the statement and any other evidence that was gathered
13 whether there were elements of the criminal offence, and then there was --
14 this was reported to the Prosecutor's office.
15 Q. Just a moment. So if the chief would say that there were -- there
16 was ground to file charges, then he would then pass it on to the
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Who signs the charges?
20 A. This would be done by the chief of the station, Stevan Todorovic.
21 MR. RE: There were a number of objections during my
22 cross-examination to speculation. Can we please clarify whether this is
23 in fact what happened or what should have happened. The word -- my
24 learned friend is using "would" in the subjunctive.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought he was asking the witness what the
1 procedure used to be.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Very simply, it is what I'm asking for: What is
3 the procedure. And definitely I will ask him -- my colleague will not
4 have a problem whether this is how it happened during war. And I will
5 have no problem about asking the witness this. I just want now to
6 establish what is the procedure of how does these statements -- are used
7 in further proceedings.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic. You can go ahead.
9 MR. RE: But, Your Honour, I'm just clarifying. The questions
10 were -- seem to relate to --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, can you just sit down, please.
12 Mr. Lazarevic, can you continue.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Sir, so when the prosecutor physically receives the charges and
15 the statement, what does he do then?
16 A. On the basis of this report on the charges and any other documents
17 that are attached to the charges, then he assesses whether he can raise an
18 indictment, issue an indictment. He then proposes that an investigation
19 should be opened.
20 Q. To whom?
21 A. The investigating judge.
22 Q. Thank you. Can we just stop here now. So we have two ways that
23 the prosecutor can choose: Either he can go with the indictment --
24 A. With direct indictment.
25 Q. Thank you. But of course he can also reject it?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And another way would be for the criminal charges to then be
3 forwarded to the investigating judge?
4 A. There is another possibility further --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re.
6 MR. RE: I'm not objecting. I don't know when they are talking
7 about. Before Mr. Lazarevic asked what happens, the witness answered -
8 this was my clarification earlier - Todorovic would. Now it seems to be
9 talking about the general procedure, and I'm not sure whether it was
10 before when he was a police inspector or during the two months when he was
11 employed -- when he was working during the war. That is very important.
12 I just ask for clarification as to when he's talking about.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. Maybe I can answer that by posing certain
14 questions to the witness, and I believe it will be -- we are strictly
15 talking about the procedure.
16 MR. RE: When? When? Before the war or during the war?
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Pose two questions. Just wait one second.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic --
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Sir, the Prosecutor asked you under which law, in terms of
21 procedure, was applied.
22 A. The law on criminal procedure.
23 Q. Thank you. Is that the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Socialist
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This is what we talked about the time before the war. Now we're
2 talking about the breaking out of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the
3 entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Republika Srpska, and the
4 Federation, as they are called now, what is the law that was applied in
5 terms of criminal procedure?
6 A. The same law. The same law. This is the law that was inherited
7 from the SFRY.
8 Q. Was the same law applied in Croatia?
9 A. I think it was.
10 Q. Thank you very much. So now we can draw the conclusion, from what
11 you've said, that before the war and throughout the war, there was one and
12 the same law that was applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was in force
13 before the war and throughout the war, in the entire territory of BH; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Thank you. We're now speaking about the situation which is
17 regulated by this Law on Criminal Procedure, and we have come to the
18 investigating judge. What does an investigating judge do when he
19 receives, according to law? What does he do when he receives a statement,
20 a statement of a person given to a police organ, according to the then
21 valid regulations?
22 MR. RE: Again, can we clarify when? Are we talking about the
23 period when the witness worked in the police station, April, May, and
24 June and if so, was that the procedure that was actually followed?
25 Otherwise --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness has said that during the war they
2 followed the same type of law. They inherited the same law from the SFRY.
3 MR. RE: Procedure is a different thing to law, Your Honour, and
4 that's what I'm trying to work out, whether they are talking about the
5 procedure that was followed April, May, June, when the witness was
6 working there or the law --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: But from the answers of the witness and the
8 questions of the counsel, it's the same thing. It's the procedure they
9 are discussing. Who did what, where did the statements do -- where were
10 the statements taken.
11 Mr. Lazarevic, continue, please.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So investigating judge would then receive a statement that was
14 taken in the police. What would he do with the statement?
15 A. He would then take it out of the case, place it in an envelope,
16 and would seal it.
17 Q. This statement, according to the rules that were valid then, the
18 laws that were applying then, valid in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 before and throughout the entire war, could this statement have been used
20 during the criminal proceedings against the person who had given the
22 A. In principle, no.
23 Q. Can you tell me: What was the only condition according to which
24 this statement could have been used?
25 A. If the accused wished this statement to be used himself.
1 Q. I think that we have now sorted out the importance of the
2 statements given in the police station. But now, so that the Prosecutor
3 can have the full picture of all this: What's your experience, and do you
4 know about this, whether this procedure, during the war, was this
5 respected during the war? Did Stevan Todorovic file charges according to
6 rules, et cetera? If you know.
7 A. I don't know.
8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So following on from that point: Do you know
9 whether, in fact, an investigating judge or judges became involved in any
10 of the cases where you had taken and witnessed the statements of detained
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't know whether
13 that would happen. In fact, the judges are included according to the
14 wishes of the prosecutor, if there is need for that.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, we are still dealing with the then valid regulations, and we
17 have three stages of criminal proceedings. First -- go on. You say them
18 so that I don't lead you. Can you tell me: What are the three stages,
19 according to the then valid regulations?
20 A. That would be pre-criminal proceedings, done by the police; then
21 the indictment, done by the prosecutor; and the trial, which is conducted
22 by the court.
23 Q. Let us start with the pre-criminal proceedings. This is to do --
24 this is something that you did. This is to do with the organs of the
25 police. First of all, was it obligatory to remand a person in custody for
1 everyone who would be interviewed?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Specifically now, during your work at the police station during
4 the war, which is part of April, May, June, were there persons who gave
5 statements and who, after that, were released and were not detained?
6 A. There were. There were. There were.
7 Q. I think from the question of Judge Williams, there were -- it was
8 obvious that certain persons were released.
9 A. Yes. That's when I said that that was Dzevad Jusufovic and
10 Sabanovic. Except that I'd like to add Safet Hadzialijagic, also known as
11 Pop and Hasan Izetbegovic.
12 Q. In relation -- sorry. Did you want to add something? In relation
13 to this, I wanted to ask you another thing: Who made a decision that
14 these people should be released and not kept in custody in detention?
15 A. I don't know.
16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Lazarevic. Just for the sake of
18 Mr. Sarkanovic, did you mention, I think before the break today,
19 that Mr. Fadil Sabanovic -- you had seen him with the Bicic brothers, I
20 think? Is this the same person that you had seen earlier on in the -- on
21 the morning of the 17th?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the same person. The same
23 person. They were very near my apartment, and it's the same person.
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And did you mention whether or not he had a gun?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned that he had weapons.
1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So you saw him, he had weapons, he was
2 interviewed, and then he was released?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So --
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: I need to ask for one clarification in the
8 transcript. It's on page 54, line 25. And the witness --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lazarevic please speak into the
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, if you put your microphone near you.
12 Can you repeat what you're saying.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. It's a clarification on page 55, line 25.
14 Instead of asked Safet Hadzialijagic, I'd like to add Safet
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That will be corrected.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Yes. So, sir, obviously there were cases of persons being
19 released, for whom there was clear evidence to the effect that they had
20 weapons and that they were in some kind of organised unit. According to
21 your testimony, there were also situations in which people against whom no
22 evidence was possessed were nevertheless held in custody.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Who decided on who would be released and who would not be
1 A. Stevan Todorovic.
2 Q. The Prosecutor asked you a certain number of questions concerning
3 the possible reasons that Mr. Zaric had to ask for Mr. Tihic to be set
4 free. He suggested to you that a possible reason could have been that
5 these lists had been forged and that perhaps Mr. Zaric knew that. So
6 let's deal with that reason first and foremost?
7 MR. RE: I object. I didn't say that. I said it gave you reasons
8 to cast doubts on the authenticity of the document, at least insofar as it
9 concerned Mr. Tihic.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. RE: Which is not the same as forging.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Reason to cast doubt.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. Yes. I apologise. I really didn't want to
14 mislead the witness.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So, sir, one of the reasons was doubts regarding
16 the authenticity of these documents. Do you remember that the Prosecutor
17 asked you that?
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you know --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreter didn't hear the answer of the
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you just repeat your last answer, whether you remember
1 A. Yes, yes, I remember the answer too.
2 Q. Do you know that there is evidence before this Trial Chamber, or
3 rather, a statement of a man who had personally compiled these lists, or
4 rather, the list of self-organised citizens, and confirmed its
5 authenticity? Are you aware of that fact?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you very much. I don't want us to go into speculation.
8 Furthermore, another possible reason that the Prosecutor mentioned as a
9 reason that could have led Mr. Zaric to ask for Mr. Tihic to be set free
10 was that Mr. Zaric was convinced that he was innocent. Do you remember
11 that the Prosecutor asked you that?
12 A. I remember.
13 Q. Now I'm going to ask you the following question: Could a possible
14 reason could have been their personal relationships, the years-long
15 friendship between Mr. Tihic and Mr. Zaric? Could that have been a
17 MR. RE: I object. It's cross-examining the witness. It's
18 putting words in his mouth.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think he should have asked whether --
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'll rephrase.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Whether the witness knew of any other reason.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Well, now I'm going to ask you something that has
24 to do with your very own assessment regarding Mr. Tihic and his release.
25 Mr. Tihic was, no doubt, president of the SDA in Bosanski Samac; isn't
1 that right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. What do you think? So I'm interested in your opinion. What do
4 you think: Would the release of Mr. Tihic contribute to calming the
5 situation in town?
6 MR. RE: The same objection.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: That is now asking for speculation.
8 MR. RE: It's also cross-examination, putting words into the
9 witness's mouth.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. LAZAREVIC: I withdraw that.
12 Q. [Interpretation] I'm just going to ask you some other questions,
13 then, related to the release of a certain number of persons from
14 detention. Did you personally know or did you see this perhaps, when it
15 had to do with some other persons for whom Mr. Zaric also made an effort
16 in order to have them released? So not only Tihic, the man we had already
17 been discussing.
18 A. I've already said - I don't know whether I said it yesterday or
19 the day before yesterday - that I was present on one occasion when
20 Mr. Zaric asked Mr. Todorovic to have some persons released, and he flatly
21 refused that. And then, let me say this once again, that I said to
22 Mr. Zaric that it would be better for him to ask for something else so
23 that he could get what he wanted.
24 Q. So the request for Mr. Tihic to be released was not the only one
25 of its kind that Mr. Zaric addressed?
1 A. No.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Just one more question: Milos Savic, yourself and Mr. Zaric, to
5 the extent to which he was there, what was your position vis-a-vis the
6 detention of these people, generally speaking?
7 A. Generally speaking, it was negative. Notably, the fact that they
8 were kept in custody, because we thought that if there were no grounds for
9 detention, then people should be allowed to go home.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you. I have finished with my
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re.
13 MR. RE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Further cross-examination by Mr. Re:
15 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, I'm just going to ask you some questions related
16 to Mr. Dagovic. You heard the exchange between Their Honours and me
17 about this. You've already -- we've already extensively covered the
18 situation of the prisoners in custody, and I'm not going to go back over
19 that. Mr. Dagovic was arrested on the 5th of May, 1992. While in
20 custody, he was severely and repeatedly beaten by the people who were
21 detaining him. You're aware of that, aren't you?
22 A. I don't know when I talked to Mr. Dagovic, but, as I recall this,
23 he was always dressed up, he always looked well. I think that on that
24 occasion, there were no visible signs of beatings or anything like that on
25 him. Perhaps it was later. I know him well. He was a neighbour of
1 mine. I'm sure that it would have been noticeable on him in respect of
2 the way in which he dressed and so on.
3 Q. Sir, you know that if a person is beaten, they're not necessarily
4 beaten about the face in a way which is immediately visible to someone
5 else? You will accept that a person can be beaten on the back, stomach,
6 legs, genitals, without any marks showing on their face? You'll accept
7 that, won't you?
8 A. I did not say that he had not been beaten. I said that there were
9 no noticeable, visible signs of beating on him. That's what I said.
10 Q. Sir, there's evidence before this Trial Chamber that Mr. Dagovic
11 was severely and repeatedly beaten in custody --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, the witness's answer is clear. The witness
13 is not denying that this -- Mr. Esad Dagovic was beaten. So please move
15 MR. RE:
16 Q. Mr. Dagovic -- I'm sorry. The only way I can put my question,
17 Your Honour, is to premise it on that and then move to the question. If
18 the witness is accepting, you accept that Mr. Dagovic was severely and
19 repeatedly beaten --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, if you're going to repeat that, I'll order
21 you to sit down, because we can't go on discussing one point. This
22 witness has clearly said that he's not denying that this particular
23 witness was beaten.
24 MR. RE: I'm talking about before interrogation, Your Honour not
25 in the whole --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: How would he know?
2 MR. RE: Your Honour, I'm only moving to --
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Because he explained that when he saw him, he didn't
4 have visible marks, so it follows that you didn't know whether on the
5 hidden parts he was beaten before or after interrogation.
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, if you can accept that although you didn't see
8 marks, he had been severely and repeatedly beaten before interrogation,
9 you would accept that he would not have been in a psychological or
10 physically fit state to undergo interrogation?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Re, if you accept that --
12 MR. RE: There are statements before the -- two statements.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MR. RE: Mr. Lazarevic specifically asked about the circumstances
15 of what was in those statements.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. RE: I'm asking, based upon the evidence before the Trial
18 Chamber of Mr. Dagovic, to accept something and to move to the point as to
19 the circumstances of the taking -- Mr. Dagovic --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Just ask him what happened.
21 MR. RE: I'm sorry. I thought that I was by putting it that way.
22 I thought I was getting him to accept a premise for which my next question
23 would be that. To get to that point, I was asking him to accept that a
24 person in those circumstances would not be psychologically or physically
25 fit for interrogation, then move to the statement --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: As a general question.
2 MR. RE: Yes.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. A person who has been severely and repeatedly beaten before
6 interrogation would not be psychologically or physically fit for
7 interrogation in the police cells; you accept that, don't you?
8 A. In principle, that's right, but it doesn't really have to be that
10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Re.
11 MR. RE: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I wonder, Mr. Sarkanovic, whether you can
13 remember whether you or Mr. Savic, when you were together interviewing
14 Mr. Dagovic, whether either you or he ever said to Mr. Dagovic, perhaps
15 other detainees as well, did you ever ask whether he had been beaten,
16 whether he was fit to answer questions? Was there ever any conversation
17 as to that type of thing?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every detained citizen that I talked
19 to, after this person would be brought into my office, before starting the
20 official interview, we would always chat. We would exchange a few
21 sentences about general matters. I asked everyone whether they wanted to
22 give a statement. On some of them, there were traces of beatings; on some
23 more, on some less. I've already said that. Although there were some on
24 which there were no visible traces. Not a single one of them looked to me
25 as if he could not make a statement. In my opinion, Dragan Lukac and Grga
1 Zubak were beaten most of all. He did not look to me as if he could not
2 make a statement. He even dictated it into the record himself, Dragan
3 Lukac did. I did not speak to Grga, though, but I heard that he had been
4 beaten, yes.
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I just would like you to answer the question that
6 I asked, which is whether you actually said to any of these persons you
7 were interviewing, whether you actually asked them: Have you been
8 beaten? Where did you get those bruises on your face? Or what have you.
9 Did you ever try to find out why and what had been done to them?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not ask, simply because I saw
11 some of these beatings myself through the window, because the TO is in
12 front of my window. And it was known that there was no one else who could
13 have been beating them but the specials, or policemen, if there were such
15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. Mr. Sarkanovic, there's evidence before this Court that you and
18 Mr. Savic did not use force, but immediately before Mr. Dagovic gave his
19 statements, and immediately after, he would usually be beaten and would
20 have to give a subsequent statement, and that the statement, not
21 implicating you, was not deemed satisfactory, he would be beaten again and
22 would be expected to provide another statement. You would accept, in
23 those circumstances, because you didn't see -- you didn't see these
24 beatings of him, that any statement that he gave to you or Mr. Savic would
25 have to be unreliable, wouldn't you?
1 A. Well, let me tell you: Had Dragan Lukac said that, or Grga Zubak,
2 I would have agreed completely. But Dagovic - I repeat this once again -
3 I did not notice any signs of beating on him. I mean, I don't agree with
4 that, at least in this specific case. I mean, had Dragan Lukac said that,
5 or somebody else who had been beaten a bit more or way too much, then I
6 would have agreed. But in view of the condition that he was in when I saw
7 him, no, I can't agree.
8 MR. RE: I don't wish to take it any further.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Mr. Sarkanovic, for giving
10 evidence to the Trial Chamber. We are finished now. You may go.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much as well for this
12 correct treatment.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, maybe before we bring our other
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe it is a good time to tender three more 92
18 bis statements.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: In evidence.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Are those the last ones?
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, these are the last three.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: For your...?
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: From our list of 92 bis statements.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have them? Yes.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: The first statement that we would like to tender
2 into evidence is a statement of Mato Antunovic.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number for this one?
4 THE REGISTRAR: This will be treated as document D45/4 ID and
5 D45/4 ter ID.
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Okay. The next statement we would like to tender
7 into evidence is the statement of Jasenica Dzemal.
8 THE REGISTRAR: This will be treated as document D46/4 ter ID and
9 D46/4 ID.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: And the last one is the statement of Stevan
12 THE REGISTRAR: This will be treated as document D47/4 ter ID and
13 D47/4 ID.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, maybe it's a good moment to ask
16 the -- we still don't have any response from the Prosecution as a draft
17 statement of Nizam Ramusovic that we are discussing with the Prosecution
18 whether they have intention to cross-examine this witness or at least to
19 give us their position in respect to that witness, so we can organise
20 certification of this statement.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution? The legal officer was -- did
22 ask the Prosecution to deal with this statement.
23 MR. RE: I apologise. It seems that we have overlooked that.
24 Could we have until tomorrow to do so, and maybe address the Court orally
25 tomorrow or file something by tomorrow?
1 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So you deal with it first thing
3 MR. RE: That's orally, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes?
5 MR. RE: Orally or filing?
6 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Orally. Yes.
7 Nothing else?
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. And before we bring in the
9 next witness, Mr. Pisarevic would like to address the Court. It is in
10 respect to the next witness.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Yes, Mr. Pisarevic.
12 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. We
13 have rather a new, fresh situation regarding the witness that we have to
14 call, who is waiting to testify. He has asked me to request Your Honours
15 if he would be able to testify in closed session today, because this is a
16 request, in fact, that comes from his family, of many members, these
17 family members are strewn all over Western Europe, working there. He
18 doesn't have, himself, his own personal reasons that he should be a
19 witness testifying in closed session, but he would wish to respect the
20 worries and the anxieties of his brothers, sisters, and his family, and to
21 protect him in some way from some possible consequences, because he is
22 coming to testify here before this Honourable Court.
23 Now, this is what we are requesting: That the next witness to be
24 called testifies in closed session.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the basis of their anxiety?
1 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Well, the basis is that their
2 brothers and sisters, and many relatives, are working temporarily in
3 Western Europe, in many different countries. And because in Western
4 Europe there is a large number of other ethnicities and possibly also
5 victims, while he's here coming to testify as a Defence witness, he has
6 been asked by his relatives that when he comes to testify, that he
7 testifies in closed session, because they have some indications, some
8 possible signs that this would make it much more difficult for them where
9 they are, it could make it more difficult for their status in those
10 countries, and so on.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Has this got to do with his ethnicity?
12 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, we oppose the application.
15 I was informed recently - I can't remember precisely when - by
16 Mr. Lazarevic that in fact the concern of the witness related to a
17 daughter who is living in a European country. It may be that the concern
18 is more -- is larger and wider than that, but I was informed that it was
19 related to the concerns of a daughter living in a European country. The
20 concerns have not been articulated or expanded upon so that you can assess
21 just how serious or valid or realistic those concerns are. You've simply
22 been told that they're worried and concerned. If the relatives are living
23 outside of Bosanski Samac, in other countries in Europe, then one would
24 have thought that their concerns would be considerably less than people
25 living in the area. So at this stage, the Prosecution's submission is
1 they haven't even made it to first base, so to speak, in terms of raising
2 anything that you can reliably look at in order to assess whether or not
3 the evidence would be -- needs to be in closed session. All that we know
4 is concerns of family members. Well, that simply is not enough. The
5 prima facie principle is public justice, and in my submission, you should
6 ensure that this witness's testimony is in open session.
7 Furthermore, it's been, I think, extremely well known that this
8 witness is going to testify. His position in Bosanski Samac would be
9 clear to all observers of this trial or interested observers of this
10 trial, and the content of his testimony, again, is something that -- the
11 general content of his testimony is again something that should be well
12 known to all interested observers of this trial.
13 So in my submission, there's nothing realistic that's been raised
14 by the Defence calling for closed session.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Having considered the submissions of the parties,
17 the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that there are -- there is a reasonable
18 basis for this request that the evidence of the witness should be given in
19 closed session, especially that the witness himself has no concerns at
20 all. So the witness will give evidence in open session.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Please make your solemn declaration.
24 WITNESS: RADOVAN ANTIC
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
2 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.
4 Mr. Pisarevic, you can go ahead.
5 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Examined by Mr. Pisarevic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Antic. Before you introduce
8 yourself to the Honourable Judges, I will inform you of the fact that we
9 have made a submission to the Trial Chamber in respect of the protective
10 measures that we have discussed; however, the decision of the Trial
11 Chamber is that these reasons that have been raised are not justified
12 enough in order for the protective measures to be approved. I have to
13 tell you this before you start to testify so that you know.
14 A. Thank you.
15 Q. Since we are speaking the same language, I will ask you to pause
16 before you answer my question. Please answer slowly and articulately so
17 that the interpreters can interpret. However, if there is a problem, if
18 you cannot hear the sound or picture on the screen, so that we can all
19 have communication, those of us who are in this courtroom, please let us
20 know in some way so that we can resolve these problems.
21 Now, please, could you tell me - that is, could you tell the
22 Chamber - your name and surname.
23 A. My name is Radovan Antic.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you tell me your date of birth?
25 A. 6th of March, 1940.
1 Q. Can you tell me where you were born?
2 A. I was born in the village of Batkusa, municipality of Bosanski
4 Q. Could you tell me which republic that is?
5 A. That is in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 Q. Thank you. Your ancestors, do they also come from that place,
7 Batkusa, and how long has your ancestral family lived there?
8 A. Yes, they are from Batkusa. The origin of my family, that is, the
9 length of how long my family has lived there, is about a hundred years,
10 just over a hundred years.
11 Q. Where did you complete primary school?
12 A. Four years of primary school I completed in the village of
14 Q. And where did you complete secondary school?
15 A. After I completed four years of primary school in the village of
16 Obudovac, I continued the lower years of grammar school, the junior
17 schools, in Bosanski Samac, and I completed that in 1956.
18 Q. And what did you -- what school did you enroll into after the
19 grammar school?
20 A. In 1956, after completing the grammar school, I enrolled in the
21 secondary agricultural school in Bijeljina, which I completed in 1960.
22 Q. Did you continue your education? And if you did, where?
23 A. After I completed my secondary agricultural school and worked for
24 about a year, I then went to serve my military service.
25 Q. Very well. Could you tell me: Where did you serve? The JNA?
1 And when?
2 A. I served in the JNA in 1961 and 1962, in the school for reserve
3 officers in Bileca.
4 Q. Thank you. When you completed this reserve officers' school in
5 Bileca, what was your rank when you left, when you left that school?
6 A. After I completed the school, I was sent to work in the JNA, in
7 another unit, as a work practice and after I finished that, my rank was
8 second lieutenant.
9 Q. Thank you. During your life and your career, did you do any
10 military exercises? Did you continue to advance in your rank? And in
11 fact, what interests me is: What was your rank in the beginning of 1992?
12 A. After I left the JNA, with the rank of second lieutenant in
13 reserve, because of completing the establishment rank force with the
14 reserve officers, I was not appointed to a unit, assigned to any unit, but
15 after the Territorial Defence was established in 1968, I was then assigned
16 to the Territorial Defence as the platoon commander.
17 Q. How long were you there in the Territorial Defence, and how did
18 your career then proceed, and what were the functions that you did?
19 A. After I entered the Territorial Defence, I was sent to many
20 different exercises, manoeuvres, for professional development and after I
21 spent a certain number of years in the Territorial Defence, I would then
22 be given according ranks. First of all, there would be lieutenant; and
23 then after several successful years at the Territorial Defence, I would
24 then be promoted to the rank of captain; and then after another number of
25 years and many successful exercises, I would be promoted to the rank of
1 the Captain First Class. And so in 1991, that is the rank that I held.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me: After you completed your serving in
3 the JNA, what other schools did you complete?
4 A. After I completed my military service in 1962, I enrolled in the
5 higher teacher training college in Sarajevo, which I completed
6 successfully in 1964, and so I was qualified to work as a teacher of
7 physics and chemistry.
8 Q. Thank you. Did you continue your professional development, your
9 studies and so on?
10 A. After I completed this higher teacher training college, I worked
11 at the primary school as a teacher; and then, in 1973, I then left the
12 school and went to work as an administrative clerk at the authorities of
13 the Bosanski Samac.
14 Q. Did you complete -- do you have a university degree?
15 A. Yes. In 1967 [as interpreted] I enrolled as part time in
16 Belgrade, the faculty of National Defence, and I obtained my degree into
17 two years, that is, I got my degree in 1977.
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous interpretation continues] ... transcript
19 on page 73, line 6. The witness actually said: "In 1977."
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. Instead of "1977,"
21 it's "1979."
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we just have the year again from the witness.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. He listed in 1977 and completed in 1979.
24 That's what the witness said.
25 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Which year did you enroll?
2 A. I started the National Defence university at 1977 and I got my
3 degree in 1979. So that was in two years.
4 Q. So you worked as a teacher most of your career, if I understood
5 that correctly.
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Can you just please list the schools that you worked in.
8 A. I worked only at the primary school, Mitra Trifunovic Bosanski
9 Samac and at the secondary school centre as a teacher in the secondary
10 school in Bosanski Samac secondary school centre.
11 Q. During your work, did you have any public posts that you were not
12 linked to education?
13 A. During my career, I was at a public position from 1969 to 1973. I
14 was -- as a volunteer. I was a vice-president of the Municipal Assembly
15 of Samac. And from 1977 -- from 1987 --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
17 A. -- until 1991 [Realtime transcript read in error "1981], I was the
18 chief of the secretariat of the interior in Bosanski Samac.
19 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. So you were a chief of the secretariat of the interior until 1991;
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So there's been a mistake in the transcript.
24 A. Until the 1st of July, 1991.
25 Q. Thank you. What is your status now?
1 A. Now I'm retired.
2 Q. Thank you. Could you tell me: Where do you live now? You don't
3 have to give your address; just the town, municipality.
4 A. I now live in Bosanski Samac.
5 Q. If I've understood you correctly, throughout your life, you've
6 lived in Bosanski Samac, that is, in Batkusa and Bosanski Samac.
7 A. Yes. I was born in Batkusa, and from 1964 to date, I have been
8 living in Bosanski Samac.
9 Q. Thank you. When you mentioned this Territorial Defence staff that
10 you were a member of, you are a Serb by ethnicity; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At this Territorial Defence staff of the Bosanski Samac
13 municipality, were there officers, reserve military officers, of other
15 A. Yes, there were. Throughout the period from 1968 that this
16 Territorial Defence staff operated, always in its structure there were
17 members of all three peoples.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me: Were you a member of the League of
19 Communists; and if so, until when?
20 A. Yes, I was a member of the League of Communists until 1987, when I
21 started to work at the organ of the interior, and because of the
22 employment within this organ, I then could not be a member of a party
24 Q. So as a policeman, you were not allowed to be politicised; is
25 that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. Thank you. Are you now a member of a political party?
3 A. Yes. From recently, I am a member of PDP Mladen Ivanic's party.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, let us talk about the time before the breakout of
5 hostilities in the municipality of Samac, that is, before the beginning of
6 1992 and the end of the 1991. Do you recall that in the municipality of
7 Samac and in the town of Samac, certain activities were undertaken by the
8 Yugoslav People's Army with respect to establishment of units of the
9 Yugoslav People's Army? Can you tell us what you can recall.
10 A. Sometime in the latter part of 1991, secretariat National Defence
11 called two meetings, and two meetings were held, of all reserve officers
12 who at that time lived in the municipality of Bosanski Samac.
13 Q. Can you just wait a minute?
14 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe it is time
15 for a break now. Could we have a break?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll have our break for 20 minutes.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pisarevic. You continue.
20 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Before this break, you said that there were two meetings. Can you
22 give us a bit more detail about these meetings? Who spoke at the
23 meetings? Who was present? And what was said at the meetings?
24 A. Practically all the officers that lived in Samac then responded to
25 the invitation to attend the first meeting. At this meeting, the
1 situation, the political situation in Yugoslavia, was discussed. The
2 problems related to the functioning of the Yugoslav People's Army. As for
3 the second meeting, far less people came, because of the well-known
4 positions of the national parties regarding the calls that were being made
5 that they should leave the Yugoslav People's Army.
6 Q. Please, at the first meeting, all the officers were there,
7 regardless of their ethnic background: Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and
8 others; right?
9 A. Yes. Yes. Officers from the ranks of the Serb, Croat, and Muslim
10 peoples attended the first meeting, first and foremost.
11 Q. What are these well-known positions that you just referred to?
12 What did you mean? Which positions? Of which leaders? Which ethnic
14 A. These were the positions of the leaderships of the national
15 parties, namely, the HDZ and the SDA.
16 Q. Thank you. Who spoke at this meeting from amongst the active-duty
17 officers of the Yugoslav People's Army?
18 A. As for active-duty officers of the Yugoslav People's Army, Stevan
19 Nikolic spoke and some of his co-workers.
20 Q. Stevan Nikolic, did he hold a rank?
21 A. Yes. He was the lieutenant colonel.
22 Q. Are you aware of the existence of the 17th Tactical Group? What
23 can you say about that?
24 A. Yes, the 17th Tactical Group existed. Its command was in the
25 village of Pelagicevo. It was within the 17th Tuzla Corps, whose
1 commander was General Savo Jankovic.
2 Q. Can you tell me now: Who was the commander of the 17th Tactical
4 A. Yes. The commander of the 17th Tactical Group was Lieutenant
5 Colonel Stevan Nikolic.
6 Q. Thank you. You said that the command was in the village of
7 Pelagicevo. Can you say how far away from Bosanski Samac this village is
8 and in which municipality the village is?
9 A. The village of Pelagicevo is one of the biggest villages in
10 Posavina, I think. In territorial terms, it then belonged to the
11 municipality of Gradacac. It is about 40 kilometres away from Samac.
12 Q. Thank you. Are you aware of the area of responsibility of the
13 17th Tactical Group of the Yugoslav People's Army?
14 A. The area of responsibility of the 17th Tactical Group of the
15 Yugoslav People's Army was part of the municipality of Brcko, part of the
16 municipality of Gradacac, Samac, and part of the municipality of Orasje.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please - and I'm not objecting, I'm
18 merely asking perhaps a question of the Defence - Mr. Pisarevic led this
19 witness to two meetings that took place in late 1991, at which this
20 particular witness attended and which was addressed by army officers. The
21 significance of that evidence is not apparent to me, other than the fact
22 that the meetings occurred and this witness went there. It's got to be
23 relevant to the proceedings in this case in some way, and apparently
24 relevant. On the face of it, the evidence doesn't mean anything. If it's
25 related to the birth of the 4th Detachment, then that should be made
1 clear. If it's related to some other issue, then it should be made
2 clear. Otherwise you will be left with evidence of this witness went to
3 two meetings. So what? What happened? What was the point of that
4 evidence? And I submit that we need to clarify that for you to make head
5 or tail of that.
6 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand. I'm so sorry,
7 but my learned friend should have been just a bit more patient. We would
8 have come to the 4th Detachment and these meetings. Just a bit more
9 patience, please.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I feared that, and in that case, I apologise, and
11 Mr. Pisarevic will develop his evidence in the way he sees fit.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You said what the area of responsibility of the 17th Tactical
15 Group was, and you said the municipality of Samac. Please, since the
16 municipality of Samac is quite special, there is part of the municipality
17 that is on the other side of the Bosna River, was part of the
18 municipality, was that part of the municipality that is on the other side
19 of the Bosna River also within the area of responsibility of the 17th
20 Tactical Group?
21 A. On the left bank of the Bosna River is the area of the
22 municipality of Odzak, which was not part of the area of responsibility of
23 the 17th Tactical Group.
24 Q. The village of Prud, it was within the municipality of Bosanski
25 Samac. Did it enter the zone of responsibility of the 17th Tactical
2 A. The village of Prud seceded from the municipality of Bosanski
3 Samac. As far as I know, in it there were --
4 Q. We'll go to -- move on to that later. Just tell me: What was the
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you. Now we've come to the second meeting. What was said
8 by Commander Nikolic at these meetings? What kind of decisions were
9 adopted in relation to the organisation of the 17th Tactical Group and the
10 objectives of the Yugoslav People's Army?
11 A. The objectives of the Yugoslav People's Army in this area were to
12 protect the population, to safeguard certain facilities, the territory,
13 and so on.
14 Q. Did Commander Nikolic then call upon the reserve officers to join
15 the Yugoslav People's Army, irrespective of their ethnic, religious, or
16 other affiliations?
17 A. The motto of these meetings was that all reserve officers should
18 join the Yugoslav People's Army, so that the entire population in this
19 territory could be kept safe through a concerted effort.
20 Q. What followed after these meetings? What kind of decision was
21 made by the commander of the 17th Tactical Group regarding the
22 establishment of detachments?
23 A. After these meetings were held, and of course, an analysis was
24 made of the events that could have followed, on the 5th of January, 1992,
25 the commander, Lieutenant Colonel Stevan Nikolic, passed an order on the
1 establishment of the 4th Detachment in the town of Samac.
2 Q. What was the area of responsibility of the 4th Detachment of the
3 Yugoslav People's Army?
4 A. The area of responsibility of the 4th Detachment of the Yugoslav
5 People's Army was solely the town of Samac.
6 Q. Thank you. In the 17th Tactical Group, were there any other
7 detachments that were established in the territory of the municipality of
9 A. Yes. The 4th Detachment was only one of the detachments within
10 the 17th Tactical Group. There was the 1st Detachment, the 2nd
11 Detachment, the 3rd Detachment, and the 5th Detachment as well. I mean in
12 addition to the 4th one.
13 Q. Yes, including the 4th Detachment. On that occasion, when the 4th
14 Detachment was established, the commander, Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic, who
15 was the commander of the 17th Tactical Group, did he also establish the
16 command of the 4th Detachment?
17 A. Yes. The order on the establishment of the 4th Detachment also
18 set out its area of responsibility, but, at the same time, the command of
19 the 4th Detachment was established too.
20 Q. Very well. Who was appointed commander of the 4th Detachment in
21 this order?
22 A. I, Radovan Antic, was appointed commander of the 4th Detachment.
23 Q. Who was appointed deputy commander?
24 A. Captain Jovo Savic was appointed deputy commander.
25 Q. Were there any other positions in the detachment command, like
1 assistant commander?
2 A. Any command, within its command, in addition to the commander and
3 the deputy commander, has a number of assistant commanders as well.
4 Q. Who were the assistant commanders in your detachment, and what
5 posts did they hold?
6 A. My assistant commander for intelligence and security affairs was
7 Simo Zaric, Sergeant Simo Zaric.
8 Q. Thank you. And who were the other assistant commanders you had?
9 A. I had an assistant commander for logistics, Mr. Miroslav Tadic.
10 Then we had an operations officer. That was Mehmed Vukovic.
11 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us now: What was the organisational
12 structure of the 4th Detachment? What kind of organisational units were
13 included in it?
14 A. Every unit of the Yugoslav People's Army has a prescribed
15 establishment. According to this establishment, the 4th Detachment
16 consisted of four companies, and within each company there were squads, or
17 rather, platoons and squads. I beg your pardon.
18 Q. We saw that the command was set up by the commander of the 17th
19 Tactical Group. Who appointed the commanding officers of the companies,
20 squads, and platoons?
21 A. The commanding officers of companies were established by the
22 commander of the detachment, and the commanding officers of platoons and
23 squads, respectively, were proposed by the company commander and were
24 actually appointed by the commander.
25 Q. Tell me, please: What was the ethnic make-up of the members of
1 the 4th Detachment?
2 A. The 4th Detachment was of a mixed ethnic make-up, or rather, it
3 had members from the ranks of all three peoples, and there were even
4 members of some national minorities who were there.
5 Q. Was this the case also in the command staff? I mean the command
6 companies, the command squads?
7 A. Yes. That is this mixed composition of the superior staff at the
8 4th Detachment. That was also fully respected. So at the command we also
9 had an officer who was Muslim, we had two commanders of companies who were
10 Muslims; then we had squad commander, or commanders, who were also from
11 the Muslim -- with a Muslim ethnic background.
12 Q. Thank you. Let us now discuss the way the 17th Tactical Group
13 operated, and of course the 4th Detachment. Who were you subordinated to,
14 specifically, within the 17th Tactical Group? Whose orders did you have
15 to comply with?
16 A. All detachment commanders were subordinate exclusively to the
17 commander of the 17th Tactical Group.
18 Q. And your deputy detachment commander and your assistants and the
19 commanders of squads, who were they subordinate to?
20 A. At the command of the detachment, all members were subordinate to
21 the commander of that detachment. But in case that he was absent, the
22 authority would be taken over by his deputy.
23 Q. You, as a detachment commander, would you be able to place the
24 detachment into any kind of operation without first receiving the order of
25 the commander of the 17th Tactical Group?
1 A. None of the detachments could autonomously undertake any operation
2 without receiving the appropriate order of their superior.
3 Q. Within the 4th Detachment, any executive order, could it have been
4 given by anyone amongst your deputies or assistants, if you were present
6 A. None of the executive orders, without the knowledge of the
7 commander, none of the members of the command could have issued.
8 Q. Please, now could you please explain: What was the role of the
9 assistant commander for intelligence and security matters and for morale?
10 That is, what was Simo Zaric's authority and what were your methods of
11 work, and his tasks?
12 A. The task of the assistant commander for intelligence and security
13 matters, this was to gather the relevant security information in relation
14 to the members of the 4th Detachment, and all other events that could be
15 relevant or important for the members of the 4th Detachment, and of course
16 the processing of data, and also, along the chain of command, the
17 assistant could undertake certain activities. That is, he had to report
18 to the commander and to his superior, according to the chain of command.
19 Q. Now, please, let us clarify the chain of command, and can you tell
20 us about this responsibility, that is, the obligation, of Mr. Zaric, that
21 is, the assistant commander for security matters, in the detachment where
22 he is per establishment and also in relation to the higher organs of
23 security and intelligence matters that existed as part of the 17th
24 Tactical Group.
25 A. Assistant for security and intelligence matters was an autonomous
1 organ within the detachment, in the stage of gathering the security
2 information. And then he had the obligation, according to the chain of
3 command, that is, according to the vertical of the chain of command, along
4 the vertical line, he had to report to his superior officer, to the
5 assistant commander of the 17th Tactical Group, who is in charge of
6 security and intelligence matters. That is the main rule in the Yugoslav
7 People's Army. That is the principle of superiority and subordination.
8 Q. Can you tell me, if you recall: Who was this officer, this
9 security officer? That is, who was the chief of the security and
10 intelligence department at the 17th Tactical Group?
11 A. In the 17th Tactical Group, the chief for security and
12 intelligence matters was Maksim Simeunovic.
13 Q. Thank you. Did you, apart from these tasks that he carried out in
14 security and intelligence, did you task Simo Zaric to conduct any other
15 work that he had to do in the interest of the detachment?
16 A. Since Mr. Zaric was my assistant for security and intelligence
17 matters, in terms of establishment structure, this is what he had to do:
18 He was in charge of morale of the unit and for information, either in
19 terms of internal information or external information, in relation to
20 other subjects, that is, the media.
21 Q. Mr. Zaric, was he able to do anything without acquiring, prior to
22 that, an order or an authority to do anything whatsoever, any tasks that
23 he did?
24 A. Assistant commander for the aforementioned matters, he always had
25 the obligation to inform his commander about his planned activities that
1 he would undertake in the period to follow.
2 Q. Specifically, Mr. Zaric, was he able to go to an official meeting
3 for the 4th Detachment without you authorising him to go there and
4 represent the 4th Detachment?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you issue such orders and authority to Mr. Zaric?
7 A. Yes, I have. I have issued such authority to him.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, a matter that you might
10 find, and again, I hope I'm not preempting Mr. Pisarevic here. He may be
11 coming to this issue. But it seems to me that it might have been bypassed
12 and I'm concerned about it, is the witness saying that as far as the chain
13 of command was concerned, Mr. Zaric reported directly to Simeunovic in the
14 17th Tactical Group, bypassing this witness, or whether the reporting to
15 the command in the 17th Tactical Group went via this witness, through this
16 witness. From the way the evidence came out, that wasn't clear, and it's
17 important, I submit, for you to know that, whether, in the course of
18 reporting on intelligence issues, Mr. Zaric went not only to the 17th
19 Tactical Group but through this witness.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio. Some of these things you clarify
21 in cross-examination.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, Your Honour.
23 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] I think that the witness has
24 answered. But never mind. We won't go back to that.
25 Q. Can you tell us: When, or rather, where was located the command
1 of the 4th Detachment of the Yugoslav People's Army?
2 A. The accommodation facility of the command of the 4th Detachment
3 was allocated by the decision of the secretariat for National Defence, and
4 it was located in the Sit company building.
5 Q. How much of the premises did you have in that building?
6 A. We had one office.
7 Q. In that building where you had one office, did you have put up any
8 kind of symbol, any kind of insignia?
9 A. Yes. Since we were the regular unit of the Yugoslav People's
10 Army, on the building of our command, at a prominent place, facing the
11 main thoroughfare, we had the flag flying of the SFRY and of the
12 socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. Thank you. Since you're an officer, can you tell me: What
14 regulations were applied in the operating procedures of the Yugoslav
15 People's Army in the 17th Tactical Group, and in the 4th Detachment?
16 A. The 4th Detachment operated in accordance to all legal
17 regulations that were in force then, which were the law on National
18 Defence, the law on the armed forces, the law on the military service,
19 then the relevant instructions, and so on.
20 Q. Thank you. We will now speak a little about this 4th Detachment.
21 The 4th Detachment, did it have any exercises, manoeuvres, and how did it
23 A. From the time when it was established, that is, from the order of
24 the 5th of January, when it was established, members of the 4th Detachment
25 had the relevant exercises, that is, training, mostly in shooting,
1 training in shooting, then training in handling infantry weapons,
2 et cetera.
3 Q. Where was this training conducted?
4 A. These training sessions were conducted on the training ground of
5 the Yugoslav People's Army.
6 Q. Can you tell us exactly?
7 A. Specifically, this was the training ground in Potocari, in the
8 municipality of Brcko.
9 Q. Can you now tell us: What was the weapons -- what were the
10 weapons that the members of the 4th Detachment had?
11 A. Members of the 4th Detachment had only infantry weapons, and by
12 that I mean automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifle, and automatic and
13 semi-automatic machine-gun, and a hand-held rocket launcher.
14 Q. Now, can you tell us: How were the weapons issued to the members
15 of the 4th Detachment, the weapons that you have just mentioned now?
16 A. The 4th Detachment did not have its warehouse. It had no storage
17 places, and the quartermaster's equipment and the weapons this 4th
18 Detachment had issued directly from the warehouse and the storage spaces
19 of the 17th Tactical Group.
20 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to now ask
21 the usher if he could show a document, and that we would like to tender as
22 evidence. This is precisely the permits to bear weapons, which is exactly
23 how we demonstrate how the 4th Detachment members were authorised to have
24 weapons issued to them. And could we have one copy for the witness,
1 Q. Now, could you have a look at the document, please. Did you have
2 a look at this document? Did you read it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now just could you please put it on the ELMO, and the usher will
5 help you, so that the other people in the courtroom can see it, especially
6 the accused. Thank you.
7 Were you in a position to see this before, and can you tell us
8 what does this document mean?
9 A. This document is a permit, a weapons permit, and it was issued by
10 the 17th Tactical Group. And on this permit, certificate permit, there
11 would be the type of the weapon that is entered, that is issued to the
12 named member, and his obligation was to carry this permit on his person.
13 And here, as I can see, the signature is that of the Lieutenant Colonel
14 Stevan Nikolic.
15 Q. Could you please read in the top-left corner what it says.
16 A. Yes. It says: "Military post code TG 17." And then there are
17 some numbers: 943/1/9. And then it says the date, being the 21st [as
18 interpreted] of March, 1992.
19 Q. Thank you. You don't need to read any further.
20 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] And I no longer need this
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number? Yes.
23 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Could we have a number?
25 JUDGE MUMBA: As an exhibit.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, maybe --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the speaker, please.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone, Mr. Lazarevic.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. One small correction for the transcript.
5 Here on page 89, line 7. It says: "Between the 21st of March, 1992." And
6 what I heard witness actually stated was the 1st of March, 1992. So maybe
7 this can be clarified with the witness. I believe that it is obvious from
8 the document, but ...
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. -- let's have the number first so we can --
10 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D48/4 and D48/4 ter. Thank
12 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. This was just a small correction in the transcript. The date that
14 you read from this document a minute ago, was it the 1st of March or --
15 A. On this document, in the upper left-hand corner, one cannot see
16 the corner, so I used the date from the other one where you could see the
18 Q. Tell us: What date is this?
19 A. The 1st of March.
20 Q. The 1st of March. Did all members of the 4th Detachment have to
21 have such permits, as well as members of other detachments that were
22 within the 17th Tactical Group?
23 A. Absolutely. Everybody had to have this kind of permit and to
24 carry them on their person.
25 Q. Could anybody, especially you, as commander of the 4th Detachment,
1 could you give permission to any member of the 4th Detachment to carry
2 this kind of weaponry?
3 A. All permits went from the Tactical Group, the 17th Tactical Group.
4 Q. Thank you. Please, now give me an answer to the following
5 question: What about communications, communications equipment? What did
6 the 4th Detachment have?
7 A. I'm not a signalsman by training. I'm an infantryman. But I know
8 what communications equipment is, the communications equipment used in the
9 Yugoslav People's Army. These are field telephones, then an RUP 4, RUP 2,
10 et cetera, other radio communications equipment.
11 Q. What equipment did you have at the command of the 4th Detachment?
12 A. An RUP 2.
13 Q. Is this a radio transmitter?
14 A. Yes, this is a radio transmitter.
15 Q. Very well. Can you remember where and when the members of the 4th
16 Detachment were actually issued with this weapons and equipment?
17 A. The members of the 4th Detachment were issued weapons,
18 quartermaster's equipment, and protection masks on two occasions. The
19 first time this occurred at the training grounds that I already referred
20 to, in Potocari, where there was an all-day training course for the
21 members, and it is then that they were issued weapons and quartermaster's
23 The second time was at the command of the 4th Detachment, and it
24 concerned the weaponry that the 17th Tactical Group brought to the command
25 in their own vehicles, so that people would not have to go individually to
1 have all of this issued to them.
2 Q. Very well. Thank you. Did you monitor how these weapons were
3 kept and how the members of the 4th Detachment behaved?
4 A. Yes. The members of the 4th Detachment kept these weapons at
5 their homes, but they were duty-bound to clean them, lubricate them, look
6 at them, and if there was anything wrong, they were duty-bound to report
7 this to the command so that the technical group could deal with this,
8 either replace the weapon or repair it.
9 Q. Were there cases when members of the detachment used the weapons
10 in contravention of the orders that you issued to them?
11 A. No, not a single member could take weapons out into the street or
12 show them in public.
13 Q. Very well. Now we're going to talk about the members of the 4th
14 Detachment a bit. What was the life of the 4th Detachment like? Did they
15 live in barracks? Was it that type of living, or was it somewhat
16 different? What did they do? Could you just give us a brief
17 description. And did they get any compensation for the fact that they
18 belonged to the 4th Detachment?
19 A. The members of the 4th Detachment were people with different
20 professions. Many of them worked in certain companies. There were even
21 some who had privately owned shops of their own in Samac and who were
22 involved in certain crafts, arts, et cetera. Then there were some of us
23 who were pensioners. So mostly people had their own jobs, and therefore,
24 they did not receive any compensation from the Yugoslav People's Army,
25 because it would have been senseless to employ these people and to give
1 them compensation. So no compensation was given to people on account of
2 the fact that they belonged to the 4th Detachment.
3 Q. Did the members of the 4th Detachment have to ask for permission
4 to go away for a few days to finish some job? Did they have to ask the
6 A. No. The members of the 4th Detachment did not have to ask for
7 permission. They were free men who could go around wherever they wanted
8 to go, and so on. So no special permission was required in terms of their
9 movement. They led normal lives.
10 Q. How did the command function? Did you have people on duty? How
11 did you communicate with the command of the 17th Tactical Group? What did
12 this look like?
13 A. As for the command of the 17th Tactical Group, we most often
14 communicated with them by telephone, so we talked. However, if it would
15 happen that there was no electricity, for instance, then we used the
16 communications equipment we were given through the establishment itself,
17 because I had two signalsmen in the detachment, that is to say, two
18 persons who were trained to use this kind of equipment.
19 Q. Can you tell me, if you remember, whether the existence of the 4th
20 Detachment was a matter of public knowledge? Was this a secret
21 organisation? What did this look like in public? In Bosanski Samac, did
22 people know about this? Did the citizens know about this? Did you appear
23 in the media? If so, tell us where and when? Could you tell us about
24 this, about how you operated at the time?
25 A. When the 4th Detachment was established, the command immediately
1 came to the conclusion that they should come out as an established unit of
2 the Yugoslav People's Army. In that sense, we did come out. We were on
3 the radio. We explained, particularly Mr. Zaric and I - Mr. Zaric in
4 terms of the position he held and I as commander - we explained the
5 reasons and the objectives why the 4th Detachment was established in the
6 town of Samac.
7 Q. Was this within the programme of the radio station in Bosanski
9 A. Yes. We expressed ourselves in writing as well, but the two of us
10 were directly broadcast over Radio Samac.
11 Q. Was this a live broadcast? Could the listeners put questions to
12 you and so on?
13 A. Well, I can't remember whether this was possible. I think that on
14 one occasion the listeners could put questions. And on one occasion -- or
15 the first time, rather, I remember that we explained the reasons why the
16 4th Detachment was established.
17 Q. Please, could you try to remember: How did you then explain
18 through the media the objectives and tasks of the 4th Detachment of the
19 Yugoslav People's Army?
20 A. In that respect, that is to say, in terms of explaining the
21 objectives, we asked the citizens to join us, the more the better. We
22 asked them to look upon the 4th Detachment as a unit of their own. We
23 explained that we were a mixed unit, that our joint objective was to spare
24 Samac any kind of destruction, or rather, war operations.
25 Q. Did you speak to the citizens then in favour of coexistence,
1 tolerance, et cetera?
2 A. Yes. That was the main motto of what we were saying. We were
3 trying to spare the city of any destruction. We were calling for
4 coexistence, togetherness. We were asking the citizens not to be divided
5 along ethnic lines and other lines, and I think that we were rather
6 successful in that.
7 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that the
8 time has come for us to adjourn for the day.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But before we do, I would like to ask the
10 Prosecution to indicate their position on these statements: D45/4, 46/4,
11 and 47/4, by Wednesday, next week, the 19th of March. Yes. We'll adjourn
12 now and continue our proceedings tomorrow.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Friday, the 14th day of
15 March 2003, at 9.00 a.m.