1 Wednesday, 8 January 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: A very good morning to everybody. On behalf of
6 the entire Chamber, I should like to wish all of you good, healthy and
7 hopefully peaceful New Year 2003. Let us hope that the rule of law will
8 be respected by everybody.
9 May the imperative of the rule of law help us, also here in this
10 small courtroom, to overcome all impediments, obstacles, frustrations and
11 even prevent us from making mistakes when bringing this case we hear it
12 today, the 94th day, since April 2002, to a safe and fair end in due time
13 as envisaged, if not even earlier. But please, Madam Registrar, would you
14 please call the case.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the
16 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may we hear the appearances for the
18 Prosecution, please.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, good morning, and may I return your good
20 wishes Happy New Year to all Your Honours on behalf of the OTP. It's
21 Joanna Korner, Nicholas Koumjian, and Ruth Karper, case manager, this
23 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. The Defence wishes you
24 Happy New Year and Merry Christmas. And Branko Lukic, John Ostojic, and
25 Danilo Cirkovic on behalf of the Defence.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
2 May I start with some issues before I give the floor to the
3 parties. And please, tell us immediately that if one or the other party
4 believes that we have to discuss an issue which should be better discussed
5 and more fruitfully discussed in the framework of a 65 ter meeting or in
6 closed session, then please give me a hint.
7 Let us first know, the Defence gave us at the end of last year a
8 list of nine witnesses. We had one additional witness added orally. This
9 would be Witness number 9. I don't want to mention the name because I
10 don't know whether the name is protected or not. It was number 43, 65 ter
11 number 71. Whom can we expect this week and whom next week?
12 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, unfortunately, that's true that we are
13 changing the order of our witnesses. And in December, it was mostly due
14 to illnesses of the witnesses. And now, again, we have to change it but
15 mostly because of the Orthodox Christmas and Orthodox New Year. So we
16 have problems for the second week. And we have already informed the
17 Prosecution before this hearing. So we'll submit one motion today, or if
18 you want, I can tell you orally who would be, if you permit our witnesses
19 for the next week. Because it's completely changed, the whole group has
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe you can do it immediately after the first
22 break, that we know about the witnesses of next week. But please, can you
23 tell us about witnesses of this week. Is there any change? I heard that
24 we would start with Witness 54, followed by 46, and then 29.
25 MR. LUKIC: No changes this week, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be limited to the three witnesses for
2 this week.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, then, let us hear after the first break
5 what about the next witnesses, because in case there are no other
6 witnesses, we would have to take the initiative and try to call own
7 witnesses in the meantime because there's no day to lose. The parties
8 should be aware that there is no leeway at all. We have to stay in the
9 framework of the time limit as I told you last year in order that this
10 Trial Chamber is ready to start a new case.
11 And so let us wait until the break how to proceed. I have to
12 inform you that the 21st, maybe also the 22nd, there will be a kind of
13 relief for the Defence because Ms. Nada Balaban will appear the 21st. We
14 took care that if need may be, she is also available the 22nd. As you
15 have seen by our decisions, she will appear as a Trial Chamber witness.
16 We have some - I don't want to call it problems - but issues
17 related to new and additional cross-examination. Is it correct that I can
18 declare the problems and the dispute between the parties moot related to
19 Witness Murselovic, whether or not there was a second or even third
20 letter, or whether there was an oral discussion related to this witness.
21 I don't think we need any longer to go into this discussion. We have
22 heard this witness.
23 MS. KORNER: I think, Your Honour, the only thing I ought to say
24 because I wasn't here and I had messages relayed to me where I was, I
25 certainly recall a discussion with Mr. Ostojic. I certainly wouldn't have
1 remembered the details because it was in a social connection, when I say
2 social, I mean simply not profession. And I would have expected a letter.
3 That's all I wanted to say. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that he
4 mentioned the name of Murselovic to me, because I gather there was a
5 discussion about that.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But please, both parties should know that
7 it's not sufficient that the parties discuss these issues. The Chamber
8 should know.
9 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, certainly. If it's a formal
10 request, I agree and it should go into writing on both sides. Your
11 Honour, may I just mention while I'm on my feet two connected witnesses
12 who were returning to the Court for this case.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be my next point. We have two
14 witnesses. You indicated this in January in Brdjanin/Talic. At the
15 moment it's only Mr. Brdjanin. And these witnesses would appear on -- we
16 didn't hear anything until now by the Defence whether or not they want to
17 restart the cross-examination of these two witnesses.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know whether -- I'm not sure if
19 the first witness was protected and I don't know what his number was. The
20 first witness who is returning is Mr. Sivac. He's coming to testify on
21 Monday in the Brdjanin case. So if the Defence wish to put further
22 questions, which they notify the Trial Chamber and us based on information
23 that was provided to them in the material from the summonses, then perhaps
24 they would be kind enough to let us know because that may be an
25 interruption on the Defence witness schedule if Mr. Sivac is to come back
1 into this Court to be further questioned. But I think Your Honours'
2 ruling was that the questions must be notified in advance and must arise
3 from material that they weren't aware of before in the summonses.
4 Your Honour, the second witness is Mr. Mayhew. I don't know
5 whether the Defence wanted to ask him further questions. He will be
6 testifying in the Brdjanin case next Friday, potentially, although there's
7 a very long witness coming on Tuesday. So it would probably be either the
8 Friday or the Monday. There were -- after he had finished testifying, he
9 was able to point us in the direction of some further documents which we
10 hadn't seen before because they didn't contain his name. These were
11 disclosed to the Defence, so if they want to question him on any of those
12 documents, then he would be available.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And I think there was also another name
14 you mentioned in an earlier letter that would appear -- person would
15 testify in Brdjanin also in January, not only the person you just
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's -- yes. He has not been --
18 although he was originally schedule -- for some reason I must say I got
19 myself confused bout which witnesses were coming in which case. But the
20 other witness is not actually coming on the 17th of January. I'm not sure
21 when he was coming now.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. So please let us know immediately when he
23 will come, and I expect the submission, it may be an oral submission, by
24 the Defence that we immediately know whether or not we have to hear -- the
25 name was already mentioned -- Mr. Sivac. I hope he is not protected.
1 Please let us know that we could correct that.
2 MS. KORNER: No, I asked that. I was worried about, that but he
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Whether or not you want to hear Mr. Sivac, do
5 you know already or...?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honour. We do, as our
7 correspondence suggested when we wrote on December 4th to the OTP copying
8 the Court, that we would be interested in asking questions of Mr. Sivac
9 deriving strictly from the six testimonies that were provided to us
10 pursuant to Rule 68. We are in the process of preparing written questions
11 at the Court's request and we hope to submit that to the Court by Friday
12 afternoon. We mentioned at the close of last year's session that we
13 prefer not to distribute those questions to the OTP. One, because we
14 consider that to be a work product and we consider it to be privileged.
15 Secondly, we wouldn't want, with all due respect to the OTP, for their
16 witnesses to get an advance notification of the questions we would be
17 asking the witness. But if the Court deems it necessary to provide that
18 to the OTP, then we will have to accept that decision. But we hope to
19 submit the questions and the areas of questioning for Mr. Sivac, again, by
20 this Friday afternoon.
21 It's my understanding he is coming on the 10th to testify in the
22 Brdjanin case. So can we expect him to testify on the 11th in our case,
23 or is it he first testifying here?
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, no. He's testifying on Monday which by
25 my reckoning is the 13th. We're not sitting in that case until that week.
1 And he will testify in the Brdjanin case first.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the morning, and then it could be possible to
3 hearing in the afternoon; correct?
4 MS. KORNER: Yes, I think so. I notice and I am grateful that we
5 seem at the moment to have alternated the two cases, so they are not both
6 sitting at the same time.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We tried to do our best with all the assistance
8 of the Registry and that we manage to have this possibility.
9 So I think in principle, the parties should be prepared to hear
10 this witness the 13th of January in the afternoon, provided we get
11 sufficient information related to the questions. What about the
12 questions? May I hear a submission by the OTP whether or not they can
13 live with this procedure of giving the questions first?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the problem is this: That the
15 allegation was that prejudice had been caused because had they had these
16 documents before, they could have asked questions arising from them. What
17 we're concerned about is that this shouldn't be an opportunity to reopen
18 cross-examination based on matters that simply do not arise from the
19 summonses well in the possession of the Defence before. And it may become
20 a matter of argument. Your Honour, we're not anxious to put witnesses
21 through the problem of giving evidence yet again if it's unnecessary. So
22 Your Honour, if it's a matter of law, well then, we would be entitled to
23 see the questions. We would give our undertaking, which I hope would be
24 accepted, that we would not be talking to the witnesses about the
25 questions that they were going to be asked.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is self-understanding. And on the
2 other hand, the Defence counsel should know that there is a right to be
3 heard from the side of the OTP. And before we admit the additional
4 cross-examination, also the OTP may give their submission whether or not
5 it's sufficient from their point of view to reopen this cross-examination.
6 Therefore, under this principle rule of the right to be heard, I can't see
7 any possibility to refrain from giving the questions also to the OTP.
8 So we expect your questions, but in principle, the OTP is prepared
9 to present once again Mr. Sivac on Monday afternoon.
10 I think far more important is that what happened in the meantime
11 related to a member of the joint criminal enterprise as we can read it
12 from the fourth amended indictment. And here, the problem emanating from
13 this should be discussed in open court in order that we can take the
14 necessary measures. We can read in paragraph 27 of the fourth amended
15 indictment that it is alleged that Dr. Milomir Stakic, together with Madam
16 Biljana Plavsic, committed crimes in the framework of a criminal
17 enterprise. Until now, all the persons mentioned there had the right to
18 remain silent. In case that there will be a final and binding decision
19 against Madam Biljana Plavsic, we can't no longer apply Rule 90(E) or the
20 principle rule of the right not to testify against herself.
21 So the question is two-fold: First, will one of the party call
22 this then witness in this case? And as we are hearing now the Defence
23 case, the first right would, no doubt, be for the Defence to hear this
24 witness; and in case Defence does not want to hear this witness, we have
25 to decide whether or not it is recommendable, if not mandatory under the
1 jurisprudence related to Rule 98, to hear the alleged partner in the joint
2 criminal enterprise, Madam Biljana Plavsic as soon as possible. This
3 means immediately after the sentencing and before she is leaving The Hague
4 here in this case as a witness. And I don't think there's any right of
5 Ms. Plavsic then to remain silent, and she then can no doubt be compelled
6 to answer the questions. And I think it would be a big mistake not to
7 take this opportunity, if not even duty.
8 Second point emanating from this guilty plea in the end of
9 December is the question to the Prosecution. Of course, the Prosecution
10 appears in front of us as one entity. And if there should be any material
11 which tend to be exculpatory under Rule 68, I would ask the OTP to
12 disclose this material as soon as possible to the Defence and to the
13 Chamber. A third additional point is that admittedly, this Chamber
14 indicated that the Chamber would no longer be prepared to ex officio start
15 another attempt to bring the parties together in order to come to a
16 consensual solution of this case. Maybe in the light of that what
17 happened in the end of December in the case against Biljana Plavsic, this
18 approach may have changed. The Prosecution dropped their allegation of
19 genocide, and there was a request for -- yes, I don't want to comment
20 this, the framework, but for a certain sentence.
21 The question arising from this is whether the Defence, and
22 especially Dr. Stakic, when hearing all this, would be prepared to change
23 their view related to a possible consensual solution, and whether the OTP
24 in the light of this new development would be prepared to rethink their
25 view related to this issue. As time is of essence, and we don't know when
1 there will be this sentencing hearing, and the decision on the sentence,
2 we have to act immediately. And therefore, I want to invite the parties
3 to comment directly on this issue. If you want, we can go into a closed
4 session, but if necessary, I can't see any such desire. So therefore, may
5 I first ask the Prosecution, from their point of view, you know better
6 than all of us, both the content of the arrangement and the possible
7 statements of Ms. Plavsic in the other case.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I, as it were, work backwards from
9 the points that Your Honour has just raised. Firstly the question of an
10 agreement with the parties. I ought to make it absolutely clear that the
11 only reason that the allegation of genocide was not pursued against
12 Mrs. Plavsic was because she agreed to plead guilty to persecutions. It
13 is not to say that the Prosecution does not maintain its stance that
14 genocide happened as a result of the criminal enterprise, and indeed it is
15 being pursued against Krajisnik. But the view was taken that as she had
16 volunteered a plea, and I rather think in the light of her age, not to put
17 her on trial in respect of genocide. Your Honour, that's the first point.
18 As far as an agreement between the parties on which this case
19 could be brought to a speedy end, the discussions, as Your Honour knows,
20 have really revolved around the question of the type of sentence that the
21 Prosecution would be seeking, and the type of sentence that the Defence
22 would be seeking as opposed to any difficulty over what the plea would be
23 to. So I really think that's a matter for the Defence to deal with. We
24 made our position clear on the sort of sentence we would be seeking in the
25 event of a plea, and the plea by Mrs. Plavsic doesn't change that at all.
1 Your Honour, in respect of Rule 68 material arising, the sentence
2 hearing itself, of course, was entirely public, I think. And so if
3 anything was said in that, either by Mrs. Plavsic herself or any of the
4 witnesses who came, then that's available to the Defence. She was
5 interviewed before. The Defence have already asked us to look at that
6 interview, and we have been doing so. The difficulty has been that most
7 of apparently what appears in that interview was to the effect that there
8 was no criminal enterprise, and that of course is negated now by her plea
9 of guilty. But we're going to have another check. I've asked, and we
10 rather think there is no Rule 68, but we will check that.
11 As to calling her, at the moment, Your Honour, the Prosecution
12 doesn't have the right to reopen its case in any event. So I think that's
13 really a question for the Defence first of all, and then Your Honours.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Well, the question to the OTP is whether or
15 not -- I'm not quite sure whether I really got the entire agreement. I
16 only heard and read from this sentencing hearing that she would not be
17 prepared to give any testimony in other cases.
18 MS. KORNER: Correct.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But this is not her decision, I think, and it's
20 not subject to any agreement between the OTP and Mrs. Plavsic to decide on
21 this. And can we agree that also the Prosecution is of the opinion that
22 in case she is called by the Defence or by the Chamber, she has to answer
23 and she may be compelled to answer?
24 MS. KORNER: After sentencing, Your Honour, that's right. The
25 only reason that was mentioned was whether there would be a reduction or
1 the Prosecution would be willing to give her credit on the basis she would
2 agree to testify. But whether she -- there is no agreement and there
3 could not be that she won't testify.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Thank you for this.
5 May I hear the Defence on these issues.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, we, the Defence, believe that
7 Dr. Biljana Plavsic is an important witness. The Court asked a two-fold
8 question. The Defence does not have a right, and it's my understanding
9 from speaking with counsel that she would not appear voluntarily for the
10 Defence. We would ask that the Court do call Biljana Plavsic to testify.
11 I disagree with my learned friend at the OTP that the allegations of joint
12 criminal enterprise are confined to only the count relating to
13 persecutions. If the Court has read the fourth amended indictment,
14 clearly paragraph number 27 is reincorporated within counts 1 and 2 which
15 include both genocide and complicity in genocide. That same joint
16 criminal enterprise, if denied by Dr. Plavsic, may be attributed to those
17 counts as well as the counts of persecution. Therefore, based just upon
18 what the OTP has suggested, they do clearly fall within Rule 68, and we
19 submit that they should be produced. Biljana Plavsic did not give a one
20 hour or a one day interview to the OTP. It's our understanding, based
21 upon information and belief, that it exceeded 15 days of intense
22 interrogation of time periods that do go beyond the parameters of the
23 indictment charged against Dr. Milomir Stakic. We requested before, and
24 we will request again, that the entire interview of Dr. Plavsic be
25 submitted and produced to the Defence and to the Court.
1 With respect to the fact that the OTP maintains their genocide,
2 that interview also becomes important as well as on the count of
3 complicity in genocide. The other counts that remain that we know of are
4 the forcible transfer, and the deportation. Those counts were likewise
5 dropped against Biljana Plavsic, likewise her interviews in connection
6 with those issues would perhaps enlighten us as to why they were dropped
7 and what the position of any coconspirator, as alleged, what their mind
8 set was at the time and what the specific acts of those people were. We
9 would like the Court to call Biljana Plavsic as a witness, and we believe
10 that the Court should do that at a time immediately after her sentencing,
11 but prior to her testimony we would like to get the entirety of her
12 interview with the OTP. I don't think that it's privileged any longer,
13 which a position that they took early on. It's something that a necessity
14 in our opinion because it will promote justice, and it will promote the
15 truth. And the Court in this case specifically since we've alleged and
16 have maintained the position that since Biljana Plavsic and others
17 mentioned in paragraph 27 of the fourth amended complaint are alleged as
18 coconspirators, that information was relevant at the start of this trial,
19 during the OTP's case, and even today after her plea agreement. So we're
20 grateful for the Court to bring this issue up, and we would ask orally and
21 move that that -- the OTP produce her interview to us and that the Court
22 schedule when Biljana Plavsic can testify in this case, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, of course the joint criminal enterprise
25 relates to genocide as well, but the point is that for Biljana Plavsic to
1 say in her interviews there is no joint criminal enterprise is utterly
2 negated whether it applies to persecutions or genocide by the plea
3 agreement by what she herself said. That's why it's not Rule 68. And it
4 doesn't matter whether it applies to genocide or persecutions. Your
5 Honour, the difficulty is we don't know when sentence is going to take
6 place. And if Your Honour decides to call her as a court witness, then of
7 course we will disclose all the interviews. At the moment our only
8 obligation is to disclose such material as amounts to Rule 68.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I think there is more agreement than
10 disagreement between the parties. In case, and we should decide as soon
11 as possible on the issue whether or not to call Ms. Plavsic under Rule 98,
12 then it's not disputed that the Defence and the Trial Chamber has a right
13 to see earlier statements and that all of us can prepare for this
15 I think it's absolutely necessary immediately to decide on the
16 question whether or not to call this witness, because the necessary
17 preparations have to be done, that she can be heard immediately after the
18 sentencing before she is brought to a third country to serve a possible
19 sentence. So therefore, we will decide without any delay on this, I
20 believe very, very important issue.
21 But I missed any submission by the Defence related to the question
22 of another own initiative on a possible agreement. The Prosecution
23 already made the point that until now, there seems to be no possibility at
24 all from the side of the Defence. But I think from now on, we should
25 discuss the question whether or not to come to such an agreement in open
1 Court. And we should also include Dr. Stakic in person in this -- in the
2 discussion of this question.
3 Maybe, under the impression of the guilty plea of Ms. Plavsic, he
4 also may have changed his point of view related to this. And we would
5 like to hear whether or not we can expect any kind of change in the near
6 future. We can't expect an immediate answer here and today, but there
7 should be a clear answer from the side of the Defence.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just say that if there is going to
9 be perhaps any further discussions, it ought to be in closed session as
10 opposed to in open session.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let us please go in closed session.
12 [Closed session]
12 Pages 9902 to 9907 – redacted – closed session
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any other issues to be discussed before we start
11 with the witness? Please.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just return to this question of
13 the change of order of the witnesses. I fully understand, and sympathise
14 with the difficulties the Defence have. Can I just make this point?
15 Unlike the Prosecution witnesses where the Defence had all of their
16 statements and indeed previous testimonies if relevant, we have nothing. A
17 constant change like this, as we have had over the last few days, causes
18 two problems, one a major one and one a more minor one. The first is we
19 conduct searches on the basis of what we're told are the up and coming
20 witnesses. The unit that does these searches is obviously inundated with
21 requests, and the only way we can get them done is by saying these
22 witnesses are coming. When there's a sudden complete change, and as I
23 understand there's going to be again next week, that makes it almost
24 impossible for us to do the required research in advance. The summaries
25 we're given are pretty limited in the information that they provide to us
1 and to the Court. And it's obviously right in the interests of justice
2 that the Prosecution should be able to do its searches before the witness
3 is called. So that's the first problem.
4 Your Honour, so I'm going to ask, I understand the difficulties
5 now over the Christmas and New Year Orthodox period, but I would ask in
6 future these changes are kept to an absolute minimum and are not a
7 wholesale as has been happening over the last two weeks.
8 The second matter is this: It causes a problem particularly at
9 the moment with the lawyers allocated to take witnesses because all the
10 lawyers who are in this case are also taking witnesses in the Brdjanin
11 case where we're still on the Prijedor aspect. And we allocated witnesses
12 on the basis of the ones we were told would be called this week to certain
13 lawyers. Because of the changes the lawyers who were going to do
14 different ones are now on the Brdjanin case and so next week. I said
15 that's a more minor problem, but it is one that we think could be avoided.
16 So We would ask very much that in future after this period there aren't
17 these sudden changes.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And in addition, we should recall that we
19 would expect more detailed summaries of the expected testimony of the
20 witnesses and that it is really based on earlier statements. I don't want
21 to reopen the discussion of the last witness we heard before the recess.
22 We had some problems with this. So we would appreciate if the summary
23 really provides us with more detailed information. I think it was also a
24 point raised by the Prosecution before the Court recess. If necessary, we
25 should discuss this question either in closed session or within the
1 framework of the 65 ter (i) meeting.
2 Related to the three witnesses of this week, I think we can or
3 better said, we have to live with that what we have before us. And in
4 principle, we should be ready to start, and I see the Prosecution nodding.
5 So therefore, there seems to be no impediment to start. Any other issues
6 to be discussed by the Defence before we start?
7 MR. OSTOJIC: There is one issue, Your Honour, if I may, that
8 arose during the last session before the recess. During the -- if I may
9 ask the question now. During the cross-examination of the last witness,
10 the OTP, in our view, went beyond the parameters of the indictment and
11 asked questions of certain allegations or bad conduct of Dr. Milomir
12 Stakic which were not included in the indictment. The answer that was
13 given truthful, and our position is consistent with the testimony of that.
14 However, we believe that it taints and poisons the proceedings if the
15 Prosecution is allowed to ask unsubstantiated and questions which can
16 taint and cloud the issues before us, specifically during our case. The
17 question arose upon an allegation of whether or not Dr. Stakic was
18 involved in any humanitarian aid issues and involved with any criminal
19 activity relating to that. That question in our view is inappropriate
20 because there's no basis for that. There has been no allegation of that
21 within the indictment. There has never been testimony from any of the OTP
22 witnesses relating to that. Our concern is that the OTP will regrettably
23 continue to ask questions far afield from the indictment and questions
24 that the Court when we asked of witnesses and we were confined not to ask
25 those questions without significant proof to be shown prior, we would ask
1 that the same rules apply to the OTP and they be confined and restricted
2 from asking such questions unless they can establish and are willing to
3 amend their complaint to bring those allegations and charges which we
4 believe are not truthful and should not be brought before the Court.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I wasn't here for that obviously, but
6 can I say this: It's open to the Defence to object at any stage to any
7 question that's asked in the course of cross-examination. The OTP can
8 then make clear its basis for asking the question and Your Honour can
9 rule. I think to try and make a generalised ruling like this as it were
10 in theory is not very helpful.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think, yes, please.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may reply, this Court has consistently ruled
13 generally to apply certain -- a certain form and manner in which we should
14 proceed in this case. This Court has generally ruled that we should not
15 ask questions that go beyond certain allegations within the fourth amended
16 complaint, granted several of our oral and written motions in connection
17 with that. We think it's prejudicial to the Defence to have the OTP ask
18 such questions. The Defence does object to those questions, and we're
19 objecting now for any future questions because we think it distracts from
20 what this Court's duties are. It distracts from the job of the Defence.
21 Certainly when the question was asked, it was taken by surprise. The
22 Defence however knows what the answer would be by the witnesses from those
23 questions, but it's certainly unnecessary and irrelevant to ask questions
24 of both purported prior bad acts and subsequent bad acts or criminal
25 conduct if they are not alleged in the indictment. These allegations have
1 not been alleged. If the Court remembers specifically, when there was an
2 exhibit that the OTP wanted to introduce which had some summaries from a
3 certain commission where they discussed certain far-reaching allegations
4 against individuals including Dr. Stakic, the Court rejected that report
5 because it was not consistent and was not confined to the charges brought,
6 the charges which we were discharged to defend upon. We did allow that
7 question to proceed. The prejudice is not that that question was asked,
8 because we heard the answer; the prejudice comes because the OTP in our
9 view will continue to ask these questions and they should be prohibited
10 from asking those questions consistent with the Court's general ruling as
11 it related to the cross-examination by the Defence of the OTP witnesses.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the only appropriate way is indeed to
13 intervene if you deem it necessary. Sometimes the Chamber intervenes ex
14 officio in both directions, and we heard the reaction that this would
15 destroy the flow of questioning the witness and the flow of question and
16 answer. So I think we can only rule on the basis of question by question.
17 Maybe some questions are related to the credibility. And
18 therefore may be admissible. And finally, please take into account this
19 is not a jury. Here are professional Judges, and we know that we can base
20 our judgement only on relevant issues and relevant answers; and even
21 though there might be a misleading question and an answer, not directly
22 related to the fourth amended indictment, then immediately we will regard
23 this as irrelevant and it will never appear in our summaries. And
24 therefore, you can take it that there was no prejudice for Dr. Stakic.
25 But we are aware that the Defence will, in principle, intervene more than
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 they did in the past related to these questions mentioned before.
2 Let me finally draw your attention that we all work on the same
3 basis. Hopefully, you all have got the new amendments to the Rules of
4 Procedure and Evidence of 23 December, 2002, which entered into force the
5 1st of January, or better, the 30th of December already last year. There
6 are a number of amendments, and we should know about the common basis of
7 our work. You are in the possession of these amendments?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Not at this time we're not, Your Honour.
9 MS. KORNER: And I should say nor are we. But I had heard one of
10 the rule changes.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So to make it as easy as possible, I give one
12 copy to Madam Registrar with the kind request that the usher please
13 reproduces the necessary number of copies for the parties during the
14 break. I think it's not appropriate to start the hearing of the first
15 witness before the break. And therefore, we should have this break now,
16 and the trial stays adjourned until 10.45.
17 MS. KORNER: I hope Your Honours will forgive if I leave at this
18 stage but I have to deal with other matters, but Mr. Koumjian is dealing
19 with the witness.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you would be prepared to come back
21 immediately in case we are discussing plea bargaining.
22 MS. KORNER: I'll be watching.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We know.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we start hearing the witness, after
2 deliberations during the break, the Trial Chamber orders the hearing of
3 Ms. Plavsic as soon as possible and as soon as practicable, we'll say
4 immediately after the sentencing in her case as a witness in the case
5 against Dr. Stakic. We will give a detailed order including the concrete
6 day and hour of the hearing as soon as possible, but it should be quite
7 clear that it would be either the same day of the sentencing or the
8 following day in order to avoid that she has to be brought back to The
9 Hague from another country.
10 This means at the same time that the parties and the Trial Chamber
11 have to be prepared for this hearing; and therefore, we kindly ask the
12 Prosecution to disclose the statements in full to the Defence and the
13 Trial Chamber, and as well, the entire plea agreement entered into by the
14 OTP and Ms. Plavsic in the past.
15 Second, as relates to the witnesses of next week, the Trial
16 Chamber needs to re-emphasise that there is no additional discretion for
17 days without witnesses. And whenever we can assist Defence counsel in
18 bringing witnesses to The Hague, please let us know. But there will be no
19 possibility at all to waste one or another day the next week or in the
20 future. In case there should be no witness available, the Trial Chamber
21 would take the opportunity to discuss legal issues emanating from the
22 fourth amended indictment now in the light of not that what you have
23 already seen under Rule 98 bis, but in the light of the view of the Judges
24 having to decide finally on this case. And there are a number of legal
25 questions. We deplore the fact that we are compelled to decide on
1 sometimes even academic questions, but maybe the discussion of these legal
2 questions will help us that the one or other question can be resolved
3 immediately the one or other way. But please, take it that there will be
4 hearings the entire next week.
5 Having said that, we can start with the next witness. May I ask,
6 are there any changes as regards protective measures?
7 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. For this witness we don't have
8 protective measures; only at one point in time, we'll ask to go to a
9 private session.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it's, I start carefully, 54, Ms. Nadja
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's right.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I then ask the usher to escort Ms. Markovska
14 into the courtroom. Thank you.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, Ms. Markovska. Can you hear me in
17 a language you understand?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we then please hear your solemn declaration.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
21 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you very much. You may be seated. And as
23 to the fact that you're a Defence witness, may I ask the Defence to start.
24 WITNESS: NADA MARKOVSKA
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Examined by Mr. Lukic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Markovska.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. Will you just state for the record your first and last name.
5 A. Nada Markovska.
6 Q. We speak the same language. For the benefit of the interpreters,
7 I would like to ask you to please just wait for a bit before the
8 translation is done.
9 When were you born?
10 A. On the 3rd of March, 1950.
11 Q. Where were you born?
12 A. Donja Gradina.
13 Q. Municipality?
14 A. Bosanska Dubica.
15 Q. Where do you live today?
16 A. In Prijedor.
17 Q. Did you ever testify before this Tribunal?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Was that in the Omarska case?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 Q. Were you ever a member of any political party?
22 A. Yes, before the war.
23 Q. A member of which party?
24 A. The Communists League of Yugoslavia.
25 Q. Apart from the Communists League, were you ever a member of any
1 other party?
2 A. No.
3 Q. When you completed your education as typist, where did you first
4 start working and when?
5 A. That was in 1967, the Municipal Assembly of Bosanska Dubica. In
6 1971, I started working for the Ministry of the Interior, Public Security
7 Station Prijedor.
8 Q. You retired at one point, and then you resumed work?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Where do you work today?
11 A. At the public security station in Prijedor.
12 Q. You've worked there since 1971 in fact continually filling the
13 same position?
14 A. Yes, precisely.
15 Q. So in 1992, you also worked at the public security station in
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which department was that?
19 A. Crime police department.
20 Q. At the beginning of June 1992, was the place where you actually
21 worked outside the public security station in Prijedor?
22 A. Yes, that's true.
23 Q. Where were you then transferred to continue with your work?
24 A. I was transferred to Omarska.
25 Q. Were you the only person to be transferred to Omarska, or were
1 other colleagues of yours also transferred?
2 A. The whole of the service I worked for, I was transferred as the
3 typist, and my inspectors were transferred, too.
4 Q. Were other typists also transferred?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did any order you to go to Omarska?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Who issued this order?
9 A. Simo Drljaca.
10 Q. What was Simo Drljaca's position at the time?
11 A. He was chief of the public security station in Prijedor.
12 Q. When did you start work in Omarska approximately? Or if you can
13 remember a particular event that marked the beginning of your work there.
14 A. One or two days following the attack on Prijedor.
15 Q. Was the investigation centre in Omarska already in operation at
16 that time, that's even before your arrival?
17 A. I don't know. When I came, I came there to work with my
18 colleagues from before. What it had been before the time we arrived and
19 how it operated, I really don't know.
20 Q. Did you hear of the incident when the inhabitants of Omarska tried
21 to prevent the setting up of the investigation centre in their own
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Can you tell us how many days prior to your arrival that had been,
25 if you can tell us?
1 A. I think that may have been five or six days prior to my arrival
2 there, or thereabouts.
3 Q. Can you please tell us at what time your working day in Omarska
4 began and when it ended?
5 A. Outside the public security station in Prijedor, we would be
6 picked up by a bus at 8.00 and taken to the investigation centre in
7 Omarska. We finished work around 5.00 in the afternoon, but that depended
8 on what there was to be dealt with, some urgent issues, perhaps. In that
9 case, we would stay longer, and then we would go to the restaurant where
10 we would take a meal. That was lunch for us. And then we would be
11 returned again outside the public security station in Prijedor, sometimes
12 at 6.00, at 7.00, and sometimes even as late as 8.00 in the evening.
13 Q. How many days a week did you work?
14 A. There were no free days. We worked every day.
15 Q. Where inside Omarska was your office located precisely?
16 A. It was in the administrative building. You take a staircase up to
17 the first floor. There was a toilet there, and next to the toilet, there
18 was the office in which I worked as a typist together with a workmate of
20 Q. Did you often leave that office?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What could you actually see from that office? What was your view
23 through the window?
24 A. I could see the area outside the building with fountains. I don't
25 know what I should call it exactly.
1 Q. Did you see any people who were imprisoned inside the
2 investigation centre use these fountains, as you said?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Did you share your room with any of the investigators?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did they have separate offices which were different from the ones
7 where you stayed?
8 A. Yes, they did.
9 Q. What exactly did your work in Omarska entail?
10 A. I copied statements. Investigators would take statements from the
11 inmates, and then we would type them and send the copies back to the
13 Q. Were you personally present at any of the interrogations?
14 A. No, I wasn't.
15 Q. Did the investigators ever dictate the statements -- their notes
16 to you directly?
17 A. No, not to me personally, but one of my colleagues did take their
18 notes occasionally depending on the degree of urgency.
19 Q. Do you know from which different services or departments the
20 inspectors present in Omarska came from?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us from which different services these inspectors
24 A. Public security, state security, and the military.
25 Q. Who headed the public security department? Do you know that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. What's the name of the gentleman who was at the head of the public
3 security service?
4 A. Ranko Mica [As interpreted].
5 Q. Will you please just repeat his name. The name in the record is
6 not correct.
7 A. Ranko Mijic.
8 Q. Was Ranko Mijic also your boss?
9 A. Yes, he was.
10 Q. Who was his superior?
11 A. Simo Drljaca.
12 Q. You say that there were inspectors from the state security sector
13 there, too?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know who their superior was, who they took their orders
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. What was that person's name?
19 A. Mirko Jesic.
20 Q. Who was Mirko Jesic's superior?
21 A. His superiors were in Banja Luka, but they coordinated matters
22 with Simo Drljaca in Prijedor.
23 Q. There were also members of the military security there, weren't
24 there? Who was at the head of that particular unit?
25 A. Mr. Majstorovic.
1 Q. He was a military person himself, wasn't he, a military official?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Aside from the inspectors, were there any police officers in
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Where did those policemen come from, from which units? From where
7 did they come to the investigation centre? Do you know that?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Where did they come from?
10 A. From the Omarska police station and from the reserve police
12 Q. From the Omarska police department. Isn't that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Were there any military present there?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were there any people there who had been employed in the iron ore
18 A. Yes, there were.
19 Q. What were the working conditions for you there at that time?
20 A. The situation was difficult. The room was small, and it was hot.
21 The room was much frequented.
22 Q. In connection with that, did you complain to anyone, and to whom
24 A. We complained to our bosses.
25 Q. Did your complaints after a while bear any fruit?
1 A. No, there was nothing you could change about the situation. There
2 was no electricity. We used an aggregate.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can the usher please show the witness
4 Exhibit Number S15-2.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May it be put on the ELMO immediately. Thank
7 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Excuse me, if usher would be so kind to
8 move the picture a bit away from you, away, in the other direction.
9 Thanks a lot. Thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Markovska, this is only a model, so it
11 doesn't reflect the reality. It may prove a bit difficult for you to get
12 your bearings. Can you recognise any of the buildings in this image?
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. The building to your right is the administrative building and the
15 restaurant. Isn't that right?
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. Can you use the image and point to the exact spot where your
18 office was?
19 A. I think it was around here.
20 Q. That's the side where the restaurant was?
21 A. I don't know. Maybe it's the other way around. This is where the
22 restaurant was. If you can just turn this away for me, please. I really
23 don't know.
24 MR. LUKIC: [In English] We can take another picture, please. It's
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yeah, I think so.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Now you can see a bit clearer which is the smaller and which is
4 the larger building. Can you now try to show us in this photograph where
5 your office was.
6 A. Here.
7 Q. That's the hangar building?
8 A. I thought this was blown up. And then here --
9 Q. What you're pointing at is the restaurant?
10 A. Yes. And we used to go in this way here, we would pass through
11 the restaurant. Yes. So that means that puts me about here somewhere.
12 Q. So in this photograph, the furthest section of the photograph from
13 you in the upper right part of the building?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So your office looked out into the other side opposite the
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Will you please explain now how exactly you got into the building,
19 where exactly you got into the building when the bus brought you there and
20 where was the bus?
21 A. It would come this way, take this route, and this is where it
22 usually pulled over. We got off the bus, and we used a door that's
23 supposed to be here somewhere, the restaurant door. If it was open, we
24 would go through the kitchen and enter the restaurant. But most of the
25 times, the windows were open so we could just get in through the window,
1 enter the restaurant, and then we would take the staircase to the first
3 Q. We'll just leave the photograph there for a moment, please. We
4 can leave it on the ELMO.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And the usher's assistance will not be
6 needed for the time being. Thank you.
7 Q. From your office, could you actually see the restaurant?
8 A. No, I couldn't.
9 Q. Very well. Could you see the section, the area known as pista?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Could you see the white house?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You said you took one of your meals inside the Omarska compound --
14 I mean inside the administrative building. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Can you show us exactly where this room was where you took that
18 A. It was the biggest room. I think hereabouts, yes, here.
19 Q. In the lower left corner, so to speak, of the administrative
20 building on the first floor. Isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In mid-July or maybe in the second half of July, a delegation from
23 Banja Luka arrived in the investigation centre Omarska. Were you aware of
25 A. Yes, I was.
1 Q. Did you know who the members of that delegation were? I mean, did
2 you know or recognise anyone from that delegation?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you please tell us who you recognised.
5 A. The Minister of the Interior, Mr. Zupljanin; Mr. Simo Drljaca; and
6 Mr. Brdjanin.
7 Q. They were accompanied by other people, too, weren't they?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When the delegation came to Omarska, can you show us exactly where
10 you were when they arrived?
11 A. I was here.
12 Q. That means in the room where you took your meal regularly?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. That's the room which is in the lower left corner of the
15 administrative building in this photograph.
16 Were there any persons who arrived with that particular group of
17 people whom you knew particularly well?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us who that was?
20 A. That was Minister Zupljanin's driver, a person I used to work with
21 earlier. His name was Boro Nedimovic.
22 Q. When the delegation reached the administrative building, they
23 entered the administrative building, didn't they?
24 A. Yes, they did.
25 Q. What was your location when the delegation reached the first floor
1 of the administrative building?
2 A. My colleague and I returned to our office.
3 Q. Did the delegation pass by your office?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. From the room where you used to take your meals, could you also
6 see people leaving cars?
7 A. Yes, I could.
8 Q. Can you show us exactly where the cars pulled over when the
9 delegation arrived?
10 A. [Indicates]
11 Q. You have just indicated a spot which is on the opposite side from
12 the so-called pista parallel to the shorter wall of the restaurant.
13 Did you at any moment -- I apologise. I will reiterate my
15 Did you ever prior to that day know Dr. Milomir Stakic?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. When did you first know about Dr. Milomir Stakic?
18 A. After the election when he was appointed the vice-president of the
19 Municipal Assembly of Prijedor.
20 Q. You worked very close to him from the moment when he was appointed
21 the vice-president of the Municipal Assembly?
22 A. I don't understand your question, sir. My building and the
23 building of the Municipal Assembly, yes, that is, my window faced the
24 building of the Municipal Assembly. That is correct.
25 Q. Did you often see Dr. Stakic?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you know him well enough to be able to recognise him, and what
3 was the best-known characteristic of Dr. Stakic?
4 A. Yes, I did know him, and he is bald, and that is what
5 differentiates him from other men, I would say.
6 Q. Had you seen him in Omarska? Would you have recognised him?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On the day when the delegation from Banja Luka arrived, did you
9 amongst other people, either among the people leaving the cars or the
10 people passing by your office, did you see Dr. Stakic there?
11 A. No.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I interrupt, because also from your point of
13 view the transcript may be misleading because you put two questions to the
14 witness at the same time. So therefore, it reads: "Had you seen him in
15 Omarska?" And "Would you have recognised him?" And the answer to both
16 questions would be "yes."
17 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Would you have recognised Dr. Stakic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you see him that day in Omarska?
21 A. No.
22 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour. May I proceed
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Your previous question, did you see him in
25 Omarska? And now you added that day. Just for clarification, did you
1 ever see Dr. Stakic in Omarska?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I should answer your question,
3 sir, then. The answer is no.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please continue.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] How long did the delegation stay in the
7 administrative building in Omarska?
8 A. Very briefly.
9 Q. During the stay of that delegation, what was going on outside the
11 A. The inmates who were in the investigation centre, I could hear
12 them singing. I couldn't see them, but I could hear them singing.
13 Q. Can we now focus on the 30th of April, 1992, when the power was
14 taken over in Prijedor by the SDS. After the taking over of power in
15 Prijedor, did your colleagues in the Ministry of the Interior continue
16 working with you?
17 A. What colleagues do you have in mind?
18 Q. Did everybody continue working regardless of their religious
20 A. Yes, everybody continued coming to work without any restrictions
21 or -- everybody came to work regularly.
22 Q. After some time, did Muslims and Croats stop coming to work?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did they do of their own will, or were they dismissed? I am
25 talking about the period from the takeover of power.
1 A. They were not dismissed. They decided not to come to work of
2 their own will.
3 Q. Were they asked to sign a paper on loyalty or a statement on
5 A. Yes, I believe we were all asked to sign such a paper.
6 Q. Were you asked to sign a similar paper when you first started
7 working for the SUP and later on MUP?
8 A. Not at the beginning, but some year or so later, I was asked to
9 sign a paper like that.
10 Q. During your stay in Omarska, did you bring parcels to some of the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did your other colleagues do the same? Did they also bring
14 parcels to the inmates in Omarska?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was that something that was happening on a large scale?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was anybody punished because of that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Whilst working in Omarska, did you have a choice not to go to work
22 A. No.
23 Q. Was that actually your work obligation during the war?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were your other colleagues also given war assignment or work
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. After a certain period of time, did you ask for a temporary
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who did you go to to ask for that?
7 A. Simo Drljaca.
8 Q. What is the name of the person who would replace you from time to
10 A. Nevenka Sikman.
11 Q. Whilst working in Omarska, did you talk to somebody in Prijedor
12 about what was going on there?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you bound by the rules not to talk to anybody about what was
15 going on during the investigation procedure?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In the Omarska investigation centre, did you hear the moaning or
18 wailing of people that would look like somebody being beaten up by
19 somebody else?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you ever see people on the corridors being taken from the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did they show the marks of injuries?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: [In English] I would just like to correct. I asked
2 "some of them."
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So some of them showed the marks of injuries?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In which period of time of the existence of the investigation
7 centre Omarska were there more of such incidents? And who were the people
8 who were responsible for beating the inmates more than others?
9 A. That was at the beginning. It was done by the inspectors whom I
10 didn't know. I didn't know their names. I only heard their nicknames.
11 They called each other by nicknames, and I didn't know where they came
13 Q. But those were not your colleagues from Prijedor?
14 A. No.
15 Q. At the time, was there a military unit from Banja Luka in the
16 Omarska compound?
17 A. Yes. It was the military police with their vehicles and weapons.
18 Q. Do you know who their commander was?
19 A. They were under the command of the military.
20 Q. Was that group driven away from Omarska after a certain number of
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you remember how long they stayed there?
24 A. 15 to 17 days, approximately.
25 Q. Were they responsible for the beating of the inmates?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were they also responsible for the robbing of the inmates?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Your Honour, I would like to go to private
5 session now.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can see no objections. Private session,
8 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. For a number of years, you have worked for the Ministry of the
7 Interior. Do you know whether the person in the position of the president
8 of the Municipal Assembly before the war, like, for example, Mr. Muhamed
9 Cehajic, could such a person issue orders to the police, that is, to the
10 employees of the Ministry of the Interior?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you ever see Dr. Stakic between April and September 1992
13 entering the MUP building at any time?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did Dr. Milomir Stakic ever give you any orders?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you know if Dr. Milomir Stakic ever issued any orders to
18 anybody from the MUP?
19 A. No, I don't know of any such event, but he was not in the position
20 to issue any orders to anybody in the MUP.
21 Q. After the end of the war, was the president of the Municipal
22 Assembly in the position to issue any orders to any of the members of the
24 A. No.
25 Q. So this did not change, the situation was the same before the war,
1 during the war, and after the war?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. During the first ten days or so, were people released from the
4 investigation centre after they were questioned?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let's go back to the period prior to the 30th of April, 1992. And
7 let me ask you this: Are you aware of the fact that people from Prijedor
8 and Prijedor municipality abandoned the area of Prijedor and left for
9 Croatia and to the west?
10 A. Yes, I'm aware of that fact. It was happening on a large scale.
11 Q. Do you know where they were picked up by buses who took them in
12 that direction?
13 A. The collection point was in front of the Balkan Hotel.
14 Q. Which is in the centre of town?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you ever hear Dr. Milomir Stakic either on television or on
17 radio delivering a speech?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you say yes or no?
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, as far as I can understand B/C/S, you
22 indeed answered yes the first time.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Immediately prior to the takeover of power, did a dispatch come to
1 the Prijedor MUP and was there a meeting in connection with such a
2 dispatch in the Prijedor MUP?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know who it was who brought that dispatch to the meeting?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What was the name of that person or persons?
7 A. Do you want me to repeat the question? Can you please repeat the
9 Q. What was the name of that person, the person who brought the
10 dispatch or who received the dispatch?
11 A. His name was Milos Jankovic.
12 Q. Was the dispatch read out at the meeting?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You don't have to remember, but maybe you do remember who the
15 dispatch was from?
16 A. The dispatch was from the Minister of the Interior from Sarajevo,
17 and his name was Alija Delimustafic.
18 Q. What happened after the dispatch was read?
19 A. The employees were outraged by the content of that dispatch, and
20 they left the meeting.
21 Q. In rough outlines, do you remember the content of the dispatch, if
22 you remember?
23 A. I remember roughly that it was an order to set up checkpoints to
24 prevent the military from passing through or something like that.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 Did you ever receive any order or request from the Crisis Staff of
3 A. No, never.
4 Q. Did you ever send any reports to the Crisis Staff in Prijedor?
5 A. No, never.
6 Q. Did you know of anyone from the Ministry of the Interior in
7 Prijedor submitting sporadically or continually reports to the Crisis
9 A. No.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the name Vahid Rizvanovic?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who was this gentleman?
13 A. He worked in the warehouse where the weapons and equipment of the
14 Public Security Station Prijedor were kept.
15 Q. What was going on in 1991 and 1992? What was the reason why you
16 mentioned this gentleman's name to me?
17 A. In addition to active-duty, regular police officers, we also had
18 reserve forces, police stations. And in early 1992, the members of those
19 forces would be summoned to the station, and they were given weapons.
20 When Mr. Talundzic became chief, I think the number of reserve police
21 forces increased, both Muslims and others. And then for a while, you
22 could see large groups of such people coming there to get their weapons.
23 Q. By and large, what ethnicity were the members of the reserve
24 police forces?
25 A. All ethnic groups were represented.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. But who did you notice was given the most weapons, which group?
2 A. To Muslims.
3 Q. Thank you very much, Ms. Markovska. This concludes our direct
4 examination, our examination-in-chief. Now you will be examined by our
5 colleagues from the Prosecution, and also the Honourable Judges may have a
6 question or two at the end of your testimony. So please, remain seated.
7 Yes, say it.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I just leave to use the
9 facilities, please? Is that allowed?
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, indeed, we want to take a break now. And
11 the trial stays adjourned until 12.35.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Just for the record, we
15 forgot before entering the courtroom the last time that we have to add to
16 the transcript that Ms. Sutherland is also representing now the
17 Prosecution once again. Welcome, and also a good New Year on behalf of
18 the Chamber for you, Ms. Sutherland.
19 Then may I give the floor for the cross-examination when the
20 witness is in the courtroom to the OTP. But at the same time, tell you
21 that we decided not, ex officio, or propo moto as it reads, to issue a
22 warning under Rule 91, but whenever the Prosecution feels that it would be
23 necessary, please do so. We don't want to interrupt your
24 cross-examination. May the usher please bring in the witness once again.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Koumjian:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Markovska.
2 A. Good afternoon to you, too.
3 Q. Ms. Markovska, where were you on the 30th of April, 1992, the day
4 of the takeover of Prijedor?
5 A. I was at home in my flat.
6 Q. Did you go to work that day?
7 A. Yes, in the morning, as usual, I did go.
8 Q. And can you describe to us exactly what your position was prior to
9 that day? What was your job?
10 A. I worked as a typist.
11 Q. In the SJB building in Prijedor. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct. Yes, yes.
13 Q. And who was your supervisor?
14 A. It was the crime police department where I worked, and Ranko Mijic
15 was my boss.
16 Q. On that day, can you describe what you saw when you arrived at
18 A. In the centre on my way to work, I saw a number of police
19 officers. That's around the town.
20 Q. When you arrived at the building where you worked, did things
21 appear as they normally did in the centre of town in front of the SJB
22 building in front of the Municipal Assembly?
23 A. No, I think there were flags there, flags had been put up. I
24 think so, at least. And there were more police officers there as usual,
25 as compared to any other ordinary day.
1 Q. And were those police officers of mixed ethnicity typical of how
2 the police department had been prior to the takeover?
3 A. I didn't really pay attention. I didn't look. I was just on my
4 way to work. That's until I reached the building. I didn't really think
5 it very important.
6 Q. And once you got to the building and worked that day, did you
7 notice whether the people that you were working with were the same people
8 that you had been working with the day before, that all the police
9 officers maintained their positions?
10 A. Yes, they all came to work.
11 Q. Were the Muslim police officers disarmed that day?
12 A. I don't know. I just went straight to where I worked. What
13 happened to them, I really don't know.
14 Q. So you didn't notice any changes within the police department
15 following the takeover?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You mentioned Hasan Talundzic. He was the chief of police of
18 Prijedor. Correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. He wasn't a professional policeman. Isn't that correct?
21 A. No, he was the chief of the station.
22 Q. In other words, what I meant by my question was he hadn't been a
23 police officer prior to being named the chief. Correct?
24 A. No, no, no.
25 Q. And it was your understanding that he was proposed by the SDA
1 party to be the chief of police of Prijedor. Correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. He wasn't someone well-known in Bosnia, but he was proposed by the
4 local SDA to take over the position of chief of police in Prijedor.
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Now, when you say that everyone continued to come to work
8 regularly, I presume do you mean that the chief of police, Mr. Talundzic,
9 the boss, continued to come to work regularly and maintained his position
10 after the takeover?
11 A. Well, I don't know exactly. I don't know about that particular
12 day, but I think the next day he did not show up. The next day,
13 Mr. Drljaca came. But I really can't remember whether he came to work on
14 that particular day or not because I did not work with him directly. I
15 worked in my own section.
16 Q. Can you describe what professional contacts you had, and
17 professional relationship you had, with Mr. Drljaca. And I'm not limiting
18 myself to before the takeover; I mean throughout his career in Prijedor,
19 what contacts did you have with him?
20 A. Official contacts.
21 Q. Well, at least let us start with official contacts, yes.
22 A. Yes. Well, the first contact was when I worked in Omarska, when I
23 asked to be replaced. We didn't have the weekends off, we had no time to
24 rest. So of course, if anything needed typing, he would write it up and
25 give it to me to type it. That's the sort of contact we had.
1 Q. So would it be correct that you were more or less the personal
2 secretary of Mr. Drljaca?
3 A. No, you couldn't say that. He had a secretary. I was only the
4 typist. But as I had been in service for a long time as a professional,
5 and I was one of the best typists around, whenever there was something to
6 be typed up quickly, and a good quality work to be done in terms of
7 typing, those things would usually be given to me.
8 Q. Did you know Mr. Drljaca prior to him becoming the chief of
10 A. No, no, that's when I first met him.
11 Q. And Mr. Drljaca, like Mr. Talundzic, had not been a professional
12 policeman before taking that position; he was a lawyer who worked for the
13 schools. Isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Who was it that put Mr. Drljaca in that position?
16 A. I think the SDS.
17 Q. Who took power on the 30th of April, 1992? Who was in control of
18 Prijedor following the takeover?
19 A. The SDS.
20 Q. When you say the SDS chose Mr. Drljaca, you mean the local party?
21 Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, yes, precisely.
23 Q. Who became the president of the municipality?
24 A. Mr. Stakic did.
25 Q. Who was the person who was the highest civilian authority in the
1 municipality after the takeover?
2 A. I really don't know.
3 Q. You said you were not Mr. Drljaca's secretary. So would it be
4 correct that you don't know, you were not present when he was given
5 instructions and you were not present at his meetings? Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. You mentioned the Crisis Staff. Do you know if Mr. Drljaca was on
8 the Crisis Staff?
9 A. I referred to the Crisis Staff in the context of Omarska because
10 there you had the public security, the state security, and the military
11 security. I don't know about the existence of any other staffs.
12 Q. Isn't it correct, and don't you know, that Mr. Stakic headed the
13 Crisis Staff that took over power in Prijedor following the takeover?
14 A. No, I didn't know that.
15 Q. Isn't it correct and don't you know that Mr. Drljaca and Mr. Arsic
16 from the military were members of that Crisis Staff?
17 A. No, I don't know really.
18 Q. And do you think that could be because as a typist, you were not
19 informed of who was giving -- who was giving orders and controlling things
20 in Prijedor?
21 A. Well, they didn't really keep me informed. And that wasn't part
22 of my job.
23 Q. You still work with the police in Prijedor. Can you tell us
24 regarding Mr. Drljaca when he stopped being the chief of police and when
25 he came back again as the chief of police in Prijedor?
1 A. I can't give you the exact time, but I know that he was in that
2 position for a while and then he was replaced, and then he was back again
3 but I can't give you the exact time frame.
4 Q. Would it be correct that he left at the same time that Dr. Stakic
5 stepped down as the president of the municipality, and he came back when
6 Dr. Stakic came back as the president of the municipality at the end of
7 the war?
8 A. I am not familiar with that information at all. First time I hear
9 of it, really.
10 Q. Okay. In 1997, Mr. Drljaca was the chief of police in Prijedor.
11 Correct? In 1996, is that correct?
12 A. I can't claim anything like that.
13 Q. You talked about working at Omarska for three months. Can you
14 tell us if you saw any persons you recognised among the prisoners in
16 A. I believe about -- at least 50 per cent of them knew me, but I
17 explained to you the way we would go in. So I tried -- well, it wasn't
18 very pleasant meeting those people over there. There was nothing you
19 could do to help them but you had to be there and do what you were
20 supposed to be doing. I did recognise a number of faces, and there were
21 persons I failed to recognise.
22 Q. And you also as part of your responsibilities, you had to type
23 reports regarding interrogations of these prisoners, and you had to type
24 lists of these prisoners. Is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. The work that you did at Omarska was organised. You were given
2 transportation from the centre of town to Omarska. You kept regular
3 hours. And you were paid by the police, according to your work. And you
4 reported according to a chain of command. Is that correct?
5 A. They didn't really pay us. I think for two years, we -- none of
6 us were paid. My responsibility was to go to work, do my job, and answer
7 to my boss. That was it.
8 Q. And you said that at Omarska, you saw that there was a
9 coordination of military police from Banja Luka, the state security
10 department, and the crime suppression department. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. And just so we're clear, both the state security department and
13 crime suppression department in Prijedor both came under the command of
14 the chief of police Simo Drljaca. Correct?
15 A. Their task was to go -- well, actually, I think there was an
16 investigator from the public security, my own service, in one room; and in
17 the other, there was an investigator from the state security. And that
18 was how they worked. So probably Jesic was the person they talked to in
19 order to coordinate and organise matters, but I really can't be sure of
21 Q. Among the names of the prisoners that you saw, among the prisoners
22 that you saw or the names that you saw on the reports or lists that you
23 typed, did you recognise the names of prominent persons from Prijedor?
24 A. How should I explain this? During the years I spent working, I've
25 typed up a whole lot of things. And the next day I would never remember
1 all the things I typed the day before. There isn't a chance in hell
2 really of me remembering. I was just trying to do my work as
3 conscientiously as possible. I couldn't really remember such things.
4 There wasn't really -- sorry. What I was about to say was that I didn't
5 really go to the centre of town very much. I was more of a family person.
6 I just went to work. And the nature of my work was such that they could
7 call me even after working hours and during holidays to go back to my work
8 and do something. So I didn't have many opportunities to socialise. But
9 many people knew me as the person who worked in that particular position.
10 So I knew some of the faces, but sometimes I didn't know the names. And I
11 wasn't really in touch with any of the public figures or anything of that
13 Q. Well, you knew who Muhamed Cehajic was. Correct?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Did you see the president of the municipality of Prijedor prior to
16 the takeover, Mr. Cehajic, in the Omarska camp?
17 A. I didn't see him, but I believe he was there, but I really don't
19 Q. You know he was there because that was common knowledge in the
20 camp, isn't it, that the president of the municipality was a prisoner in
22 A. Well, it's impossible for me to tell you now. I really can't
23 remember, but I suppose that yes, he was there. I didn't personally see
25 Q. You knew that Becir Medunjanin and his wife were in the camp.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you see any doctors that you knew in the camp?
4 A. I saw Dr. Ivic, and there was another technician. I can't
5 remember his name. And there was yet another doctor, but I can't remember
6 his name.
7 Q. Did you know Dr. Sadikovic, Eso Sadikovic?
8 A. No, I didn't know him.
9 Q. Can you tell the Court, did you see dead bodies in and around the
10 Omarska camp?
11 A. No, I didn't see any dead bodies, not during the time that we were
12 there. I explained to you exactly how we went into the building, and on
13 my way back home from work, I just didn't notice anything. So maybe, if
14 there was anything, it occurred after we had already left work.
15 Personally, I really didn't see anything, honestly.
16 Q. Weren't you aware that people were being killed in the Omarska
17 camp during those precise months that you were working at the camp, June,
18 July, and August?
19 A. I don't have that information. I heard stories later that such
20 things had indeed taken place.
21 Q. This was the summertime. Did you smell bodies decomposing when
22 you were at the camp?
23 A. No, no. The only smell I could feel was the chloride that the
24 cleaning ladies used to clean the premises to keep infections from
25 spreading because it was very hot and you could feel the stench of sweat.
1 So that's what you could notice.
2 Q. As a person who typed up things for Mr. Drljaca, did you become
3 familiar with his signature? Did he sign these letters and documents?
4 A. Once I believe I did type something up for him, but whether he
5 signed it later or not, I really don't know. For example, since I worked
6 in the department where I worked, if it was a criminal report I was
7 supposed to type up, then usually there would be the title "Chief of the
8 Public Security Station" so he may have signed something like that.
9 Q. Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but I thought when you were
10 discussing your relationship with Mr. Drljaca, you said that he would
11 bring you things to type for him.
12 A. Yes, once I think, on one occasion.
13 Q. I'd like to show you now a document marked S107.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Please show the witness 107B.
15 Q. While that's being prepared, ma'am, if I could just ask you, who
16 do you think had better knowledge of who set up the Omarska camp, you or
17 Mr. Drljaca? Who would have been in a better position to know?
18 A. Well, certainly Mr. Drljaca.
19 Q. Ma'am, if you could please take a look at this document, S107,
20 take your time, and you may read all of it, but I would ask you in
21 particular to look at the introduction and first paragraph, and then --
22 A. No, no, I'm not going to read this. No. I mean, I know how I
23 type, and I don't use this method. I leave a wide margin at the end, so
24 there's no need for me to go through this. I can tell you right now for
25 certain that I was not the one who typed this.
1 Q. I haven't asked you that question, at least not yet. Please look
2 at the document, read the introduction and the first paragraph. And
3 ma'am, if you could look at the last page also.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay, I understand from your earlier remark that you did not type
6 this document. Do you recognise this, though, as a copy of a document
7 from the Prijedor police?
8 A. This is Simo's signature. Now, who typed this up, I really don't
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps if the ELMO could be -- never mind. Sorry,
13 Q. And ma'am, then if you -- having read the first paragraph where
14 this document indicates that "the Omarska strip mine shall serve as a
15 provisional collection centre for persons captured in combat or detained
16 on the grounds of the security services operational information, together
17 with the introduction which indicates that with a view to the speedy and
18 effective establishment of peace on the territory of Prijedor
19 municipality, and in accordance with the decision of the Crisis Staff, I
20 hereby order the following," would you now change your opinion as to who
21 it was that ordered the establishment of the Omarska camp?
22 A. No, no, I would not change my opinion. Simo Drljaca was the chief
23 of the Prijedor Public Security Station, and the public security station
24 had a security station -- a public security headquarters in Banja Luka.
25 And then their superiors were in the Ministry of the Interior in Banja
1 Luka. I think that was the hierarchy. So even if this was done, it
2 couldn't have been done without their orders.
3 Q. Okay. So is it your opinion that when Mr. Drljaca wrote that this
4 was done in accordance with the decision of the Crisis Staff, that he was
5 wrong, that he was lying? What is your opinion about that?
6 A. I can't think anything. I just gave you my opinion.
7 Q. And that's based upon your professional experience as a typist for
8 the police station. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. When you -- when you went to the Omarska camp to work every day,
11 did you travel on a paved road to get to the camp?
12 A. There were two roads. I am not a driver, so I can't tell you
13 exactly. But there were occasions when we would take the so-called scenic
14 route through some villages, and there were times when we would go from
15 Prijedor towards Banja Luka and on that way we would reach Omarska.
16 Q. You testified that you never saw anyone, any dead bodies, any
17 corpses, at the camp. Did you ever hear any shots at the camp?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And can you tell us the context, what happened when you heard
21 A. I would hear a noise, and that would happen during the time when
22 the military police from Banja Luka were there. That's what I already
23 told you. They were armed. I don't understand weapons, so I can't tell
24 you exactly what they had. But they had tanks and other tools and
25 vehicles, and they surrounded the entire building, and we were scared.
1 And sometimes, they would fire. They would create a lot of disrest, and
2 they would instill nervousness.
3 Q. Would people inside the building simply ignore the shooting, just
4 go on with their work?
5 A. I was in my office, and what others did, I really don't know,
6 Whether somebody else intervened or not. I only know that people from the
7 public and state security complained to the representative of the
8 military, and they asked them to do something so as to stop these things
9 because people were afraid.
10 Q. Okay. But in your office, people -- the office you were in,
11 people ignored the shooting?
12 A. How could you ignore that?
13 Q. You never had the impression that the shooting was directed at you
14 or people in the building; correct? This was something you thought was
15 going on among the police and the prisoners. Is that correct?
16 A. At one point, it was directed at us. But that's the kind of
17 military they were. I don't know who they were. I only suppose that they
18 came from Banja Luka.
19 Q. Were you ever evacuated from the building? You said you worked
20 every day, so I presume that they never took you away from the building.
21 You came to work every day there. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I don't know why they would evacuate us. I don't know what
23 you meant by that.
24 Q. You never felt that the mine was being -- the camp was being
25 attacked by an outside group. Correct?
1 A. No, I didn't. I didn't think too much.
2 Q. When you came in by bus every day and went out every day, they
3 didn't tell you to duck, look for cover, be careful of snipers; you just
4 would walk to the bus, get on the bus, and go home or come in, get off the
5 bus, and go to work. Correct?
6 A. I've already told you that we would take two roads. When the
7 situation was still dangerous, for 15 or 20 days, we would take a detour
8 through villages. I suppose this was for security reasons.
9 Q. What days were those? You said for 15 days or so. Was that in
10 June when you first arrived?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you recall the visit of the foreign journalists to the Omarska
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What happened when they visited? What do you recall about that?
16 A. I didn't leave my office at all.
17 Q. From your perspective, was it a typical day?
18 A. A typical day, just like any other.
19 Q. Do you know who was escorting the journalists?
20 A. I really wouldn't know. I only heard that they came. I didn't
21 leave my office. I was very busy.
22 Q. Was that true pretty much of every day, you had a lot of work to
23 do? Is that correct?
24 A. Yes. Slavica Lakija [phoen] and I worked together, and I spent
25 more time in that office whereas she would leave more often. She had more
1 time, and I had to work. That's the kind of a person I am. I'm diligent,
2 responsible. And when I am given a task to do, I do it quickly. If I am
3 given something to type I do it. And I was given a lot of work to do.
4 There was no electricity. There was no gas. Things would go wrong. And
5 tasks had to be performed, so I thought I should perform them as quickly
6 as possible.
7 Q. Now, you talked about the visit in July of Mr. Brdjanin to the
8 camp, and Mr. Zupljanin. Mr. --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Brdjanin was the president of the regional Crisis Staff. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. I don't know. I don't know.
13 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Brdjanin was an important politician from
14 Banja Luka at that time?
15 A. I only knew my minister, and I recognised him. Him and Simo
17 Q. Well, you told us that Mr. Brdjanin was in this delegation. Did
18 you recognise Mr. Brdjanin from television?
19 A. Yes, later on, I saw him on TV. I hadn't seen him on TV by then.
20 But later on. At that time, I didn't watch television. I didn't listen
21 to the radio. There was no electricity, you know.
22 Q. You said that you didn't -- how long did you look at the
23 delegation? You were looking from the first floor window. And can you
24 tell us how long you saw them?
25 A. While they were standing there, we saw a colleague of ours, the
1 driver. Then we went back to our office. We knew that they would be
2 passing by our office, so we came back into our office. The door was
3 open. Then they passed by, and the colleague, the driver, entered our
4 office. And he was a bit embarrassed to see the inmates and to hear them
5 sing. Our window was open, and you couldn't see them easily. You had to
6 lean over to see them.
7 The driver had a few boxes of cigarettes on him, and he threw them
8 out of the window. That's a detail that still lingers in my mind, and he
9 stayed in our office for a brief period of time after that.
10 Q. So you saw the delegation, or at least part of it, walking down
11 the hallway. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you also saw them for a brief period of time from your window,
14 would that be correct, getting out of the cars?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. How many cars and how many people do you think arrived in that
17 delegation in total?
18 A. I can't tell you actually.
19 Q. That's because it wasn't a detail at the time that was
20 particularly important to you, and it has been ten years since then. Is
21 that correct?
22 A. It wasn't important. I think that there wasn't just one car or
23 two cars. There must have been three or maybe more. But I can't tell you
24 exactly how many there were. But I'm sure that there wasn't just one car.
25 Q. It is possible that there were people in that delegation that you
1 didn't see. Isn't that correct, didn't notice?
2 A. All who were in the delegation, they came out of the cars, and
3 they climbed the stairs, and they came upstairs.
4 Q. When was it that you were first asked whether Mr. Stakic was a
5 member of that delegation?
6 A. What do you mean "when"?
7 Q. Well, I understand from your testimony today that it's your -- at
8 the present time, you're saying that you don't remember seeing Mr. Stakic
9 in that delegation. When was it that you first were asked to remember who
10 was in the delegation? Was it -- please allow me to finish. Was it last
11 month, was it last year when someone first asked you "Was Mr. Stakic in
12 the delegation"?
13 A. I can't remember when it was that somebody asked me for the first
14 time about that.
15 Q. Is there any particular reason why you would remember Mr. Stakic
16 being in the delegation? Would you expect him as the president of the
17 municipality to have been there and you were surprised not to see him? Is
18 that the case?
19 A. No, no. Actually, I didn't know him before the war. I've already
20 told you. When he became the vice-president, then I learned that his name
21 was Dr. Stakic. I didn't have any contacts with him. Now you're asking
22 me how I know that he went there. What I can say to that is that he is
23 somebody that I would remember had he been there. But I'm sure that he
25 Q. Why is it that you would remember Dr. Stakic if he had been in
1 that delegation that visited the camp during one day of the three months
2 that you were at the camp?
3 A. Because that was a specific delegation with Mr. Minister as a
4 member of that delegation. So that was a very important delegation.
5 Q. When you say "Mr. Minister," you mean Mr. Zupljanin who was the
6 head of the CSB in Banja Luka. Is that correct?
7 A. Zupljanin.
8 Q. Is it correct that Mr. Zupljanin, and you said you didn't know him
9 at the time but you later learned of Mr. Brdjanin, that you would expect
10 important persons from Banja Luka like that that when they visited, it was
11 a matter of importance in Prijedor to have a visit from someone like
12 Mr. Zupljanin? Is that correct?
13 A. Well, I suppose that they came to see -- and I've already told you
14 when I first went there, we were told that we would stay there only for a
15 short period of time, the time went on. And I suppose that the delegation
16 came to inspect the conditions of work. I don't know what they talked
18 Q. My question is, would you expect someone from the Prijedor
19 government to meet and greet Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Brdjanin when they came
20 to Prijedor because of their importance?
21 A. Well, Simo Drljaca was there, the chief of the police. And I
22 don't know about any others.
23 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'd like the witness to be shown another document,
24 and that is S353.
25 Q. Ma'am, just take your time, please. I'd like you to just look
1 that over, and I'm going to ask you two questions when you've had a chance
2 to review it. First, whether you recall seeing this before or typing it,
3 and second, whether it appears to be a document from the Prijedor police,
4 according to the formatting that you're familiar with.
5 A. I didn't type this. The heading is "The Public Security Station
6 in Prijedor."
7 Q. Looking at the last page, do you recognise the signature of
8 Mr. Drljaca?
9 A. Yes, but this is not something that I typed, and I am a hundred
10 per cent sure of that.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you very much for that.
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: And if the witness could then be shown S130.
13 Q. Excuse me, before we leave that document, I may have a few
14 questions for her. Madam, do you recall the attack -- do you recall the
15 22nd of May there being an incident at Hambarine, and the next day an
16 attack on the village of Hambarine taking place?
17 A. Yes, I remember.
18 Q. Did you hear in the media, on the radio or in the newspaper, any
19 demands of the villages of Hambarine prior to the attack? In other words,
20 did someone order them to surrender weapons or surrender individuals?
21 A. I believe that an order had been issued for them to surrender
22 something to the checkpoints. They were asked to surrender the
23 perpetrators of some crimes that had been committed, and I believe that
24 the crimes involved some dead and injured people. So the army asked them
25 to surrender the perpetrators of those crimes.
1 Q. Did you actually hear the announcement on the radio demanding the
3 A. No, I didn't. I didn't have a radio. I just heard it from other
4 fellow employees, because it was in the vicinity. We could hear shots.
5 And I heard from my colleagues what had happened and what was going on.
6 Q. And you said it was a crime that was committed. Is it correct
7 that the police were also involved in investigating what happened? Were
8 they involved at all in the incidents in Hambarine to your knowledge? I'm
9 not asking you to guess. If you don't know, say so.
10 A. I really can't remember, and it wouldn't be fair for me to guess
11 or speculate.
12 Q. Okay. If you could look at page 2 of that document that you have
13 in front of you, it's the page marked on the right with the number, top
14 right B0032579, and you look at the last paragraph beginning with
15 "Obzirom". It indicates, isn't that correct, that it indicates that
16 "since the citizens of the village of Hambarine did not respect the
17 decision of the Ministry of National Defence of the Serbian Republic, did
18 not surrender their arms, refused to cooperate with the legal organs of
19 government over the attack on the soldiers, and rejected demands the army
20 made to them, the Crisis Staff of the municipality of Prijedor decided on
21 military intervention in this village, to disarm and capture the known
22 perpetrators of the crimes against the soldiers."
23 A. This is what it says here.
24 Q. Were you familiar as an employee of the police station headed by
25 Mr. Drljaca who wrote this report that the Crisis Staff had ordered the
1 attack on Hambarine? Or had asked the military to attack Hambarine?
2 A. I was not familiar with all this. I don't know who had issued
3 that order. This is not within my scope of knowledge.
4 Q. Thank you for that precise answer.
5 If you could now look at Exhibit S130 -- excuse me, I gave you the
6 wrong number. S114. Sorry.
7 While that's being done, ma'am, were you aware of anyone trying to
8 get prisoners released from the Omarska camp?
9 A. No, I really wouldn't know anything about that.
10 Q. Were you aware of an order that no one could be released without
11 the permission of the Crisis Staff?
12 A. No, I was not aware of that.
13 Q. Now, you had testified that Mr. Drljaca did not report to the
14 civilian authorities. Can you please take a look at this document S114
15 and, first, again please tell us, does this appear to be a document from
16 the police of Prijedor signed by Mr. Drljaca, and second if you've seen it
17 or typed this document yourself, if you've seen it previously or typed the
18 document yourself?
19 A. No, I didn't type it myself. I see this document for the first
21 Q. And do you recognise the signature of Mr. Drljaca?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So would it be correct that you were not aware, if you look at
24 this document now, that Mr. Drljaca wrote a report to the Crisis Staff
25 reporting on the implementation of decisions of the Crisis Staff by the
2 A. No, I was not aware of that.
3 Q. Was it your impression working at the Omarska camp that the names
4 of each of the prisoners were recorded in documents?
5 A. This is not what I was concerned with. I typed what I was told to
6 type. There were some lists of inmates, but whether those were full lists
7 containing all of their names, I really wouldn't be able to tell you.
8 Q. Who gave you the lists that you had to type?
9 A. In that building where we worked, there was Mijic, there was
10 Jesic, and one of them would put together a list and bring it to us to
12 Q. How long were the lists that you saw? I understand there were
13 various lists, but would they be lists of ten names? Did it sometimes be
14 more than a hundred names? Was it as much as several thousand names?
15 A. I can't remember exactly, but obviously some lists were short,
16 some were longer and were typed on several pages. But there were lists,
17 and that's what I can remember, that we did type these lists of prisoners.
18 Q. And was there a filing system? Were the documents kept at the
19 camp? Were they sent to the public security station in Omarska or
20 Prijedor? Were copies made? What do you recall about how the records
21 were kept?
22 A. All those things remained in the office where they worked. I
23 didn't have to write any reports to anybody.
24 Q. You talked about arriving at the camp about a day after the attack
25 on Prijedor approximately, one or two days I believe you said, after the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 attack on Prijedor. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. And you said that you had heard that the people who lived around
4 the mine or in Omarska had objected to setting up the camp there five or
5 six days before you arrived.
6 A. Yes. And there was even an attack on the police station in
7 Omarska. There were even some people injured in that attack.
8 Q. So this objection to setting up the camp happened several days
9 before the attack on Prijedor by the Muslim and Croat force. Is that
11 A. No. Actually, I don't know. This happened -- on the 22nd, there
12 was this incident in Hambarine. On the 24th, it was in Kozarac. And
13 after these events in Kozarac, I suppose that the first prisoners were
14 supposed to be placed somewhere. And that all those things happened
15 around that time, and that it was already at that time that somebody had
16 decided that the place would be Omarska and that at the time, the
17 villagers objected to that decision.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. I think you've answered my question.
19 Can you tell us, how many people were working in Omarska during
20 the daytime when you were there? Can you give us an estimate? How many
21 guards, how many personnel were at the camp including the secretaries, the
22 typists, like yourself?
23 A. It is rather difficult for me to say that. I remember that there
24 were two of us who worked together. There were seven to eight officers
25 for investigators, and each of them served as an office to two people.
1 Then there were people in the headquarters. There were the police who
2 provided security. I can't really tell you precisely how many people
3 there were. It would be a pure guesswork if I attempted to give you an
4 exact number.
5 Q. I don't need an exact number, but would it be correct that there
6 were dozens of people working, that there was military, police, that there
7 were persons like yourself, typists?
8 A. Yes, yes, I think -- yes, what you say is right.
9 Q. You said that you never talked to people in Prijedor about what
10 was going on in the investigation procedure, that you were told not to
11 talk. Who told you not to talk to the people in Prijedor about what was
12 going on in Omarska?
13 A. Nobody told me anything. I just simply worked for that service,
14 and I knew what the service was all about. And secondly, there was nobody
15 to talk to. I would leave my apartment early in the morning, I would come
16 back late in the evening. There was no electricity. There was no water.
17 I would just spend the night there, then I would go back to work the
18 following morning, and there was nobody to talk to actually.
19 Q. Well, was it a matter of common knowledge that you felt you didn't
20 need to tell people that there were two or three thousand people, citizens
21 of Prijedor, who were being held in a camp at the mine?
22 A. No, I wouldn't tell that to anybody because working for that
23 service implied you didn't talk about things. That was considered normal.
24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I believe I'm almost done. But if we
25 take the break, I may have just one or two questions tomorrow.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think there will be a number of questions
2 remaining tomorrow. Therefore, I have to ask you to be so kind and to
3 come once again tomorrow. Tomorrow, as you may know, we start not as
4 scheduled at 9.00, but 9.30, that we can sit until 4.30 in the afternoon.
5 Any other issues to be raised in the moment?
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I just want to warn the witness
7 that she can not share with anybody what she told us today, that she is
8 still under oath. There is another lady. She can not speak with her
9 about the case. And I have to tell her, because she doesn't know, but we
10 cannot contact her as well.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you please be so kind not to contact any
12 representative of the parties, not the Judges, not any other persons you
13 by chance meet here in The Hague, and please don't discuss issues related
14 to this case with anybody until tomorrow. Thank you for your
16 The trial stays adjourned until tomorrow, 9.30.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of
20 January, 2003, at 9.30 a.m.