1 Tuesday, 19 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T. The
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It's Matthew
11 Olmsted, Tolimir Hans, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for the Stanisic
14 Defence this afternoon.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon Your Honours, for Zupljanin
16 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 preliminary matter with which we must deal before the witness comes in?
19 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, there is a protective measures
20 issue if we could go into closed session.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 session, I keep getting it --
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 5089-5094 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 for the record, sir.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Muharem Krzic.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had several professions. The
2 last job I did was that of a diplomat.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 19th of December, 1940
5 JUDGE HALL
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Bosniak.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 this Tribunal, you would be aware of the procedure whereby the side
9 calling you, in this case the Prosecution, would have questions of you,
10 and then counsel for each of the accused would have a right to
11 cross-examine you, and after any questions arising out of that, that the
12 Prosecution may have, the Chamber may have questions of you. So I would
13 now invite Mr. Olmsted to begin his examination-in-chief.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: MUHAREM KRZIC
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
18 Q. Mr. Krzic, have you testified previously before this Tribunal?
19 A. Yes, on several occasions.
20 Q. In which case in particular did you testify before this Tribunal?
21 A. In the Talic case and the Brdjanin case.
22 Q. Have you recently had the opportunity to listen to your testimony
23 in the Brdjanin and Talic case?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. And was this audio recording that you listened to an accurate
1 reflection of your testimony in that case?
2 A. Well, I think that it was very accurate. I didn't have the
3 opportunity to compare documents because some statements were based on
4 documents, but I think it was accurate.
5 Q. And, sir, if you were asked the same questions today that you
6 were asked in the Brdjanin case, would your answers be the same?
7 A. Basically, yes. I may -- I may add some details if I were asked
8 these questions now.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would
10 move to admit this witness's 92 ter package, the testimony is 65 ter
11 Exhibits 9070 through 9074, and there's also 16 associated exhibits.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, the Defence
13 objects. I'm not trying to split the hairs in two, but the rule is very
14 explicit when and how the 92 ter evidence can be offered as exhibits, and
15 I don't think that the witness gave the answers which allowed the -- my
16 learned friend from the opposing side to offer this as evidence. Thank
17 you very much.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 perhaps you may be reluctant to answer my question because then you would
20 be doing the Prosecution's job, but on the face of it I'm not sure that I
21 fully appreciate the basis of your objection to the application for the
22 admission of this witness who is called in the provisions of 92 ter.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, it must be my mistake.
24 Namely, the 92 ter rule provides a certain -- provides certain conditions
25 that have to be met in order that the witness statement and accompanying
1 exhibits can be offered as evidence under the Rule 92 ter. One of these
2 conditions is that the witness confirms that he will give the very same
3 answers on the very same question today as he did in his previous
5 Now, hearing the witness here, I don't think he confirmed that in
6 the full length of -- or the full understanding of 92 ter because he
7 said, I would confirm but I would add some other -- at least that was my
8 understanding, that he would like to add some other information or sort
9 of expand on his answers. Therefore, therefore, I don't think that --
10 that is why I say it is not my wish to split the hair in two.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 splitting hairs.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but I'm concerned that if the witness wanted
14 to give more answers than he previously gave in the previous trial, then
15 I don't think that this package is legible for 92 ter.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 before about November or thereabouts, and isn't the practical reality
18 that although a witness is importing what he would have said on a
19 previous occasion, it is unlikely that because no two trials are
20 identical, that the details given in March of 2003 would necessarily be
21 the same as given in January of 2010? Hadn't we had lengthy discussions
22 on this previously?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour, but I think -- I
24 think this discussion that we had was aimed at the different points which
25 we were discussing at the moment. I'm now strictly talking about the
1 application of Rule 92 ter. It says which are the conditions, and I
2 don't think -- I don't think that the condition has been met with the
3 answer that the witness has given. Therefore, either my learned friend
4 can, I don't know, explore that with the witness and then offer it on the
5 92 ter, because I think at this point he was premature and that's why I
6 objected, with all due respect. I'm sorry to use --
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. The Prosecution respectfully
10 disagrees with the Defence on this issue. The witness said that he
11 listened to his recording, it was very accurate, not just accurate, very
12 accurate. And then he says that, yes, he would answer the questions the
13 same but he'd probably provide additional details. Not different
14 details, additional details. The issue here is, of course, truthfulness,
15 to answer the question truthfully, whether he could provide even more
16 information than he provided on the witness stand, I think probably every
17 witness would probably say that they could have provided more details,
18 sometimes they are not asked for more details, so. But I could certainly
19 ask this witness whether he answered his questions truthfully.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I note that the witness's answer as it was
21 recorded in the transcript was that the witness offered to add some
22 details to his previous testimony, and maybe what you should do now is
23 then to explore what these details are because otherwise we will be
24 unable to ascertain whether they amount to more than just details. Hold
25 on a minute.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, what we will do in order to save
3 time is simply just to start out with the remarks that you have. We are
4 very aware of the objection made by Mr. Zecevic, and we understand
5 Mr. Zecevic's objection to be that the witness raised the possibility
6 that his testimony today might actually differ substantially from what he
7 said in his previous testimony. However, the Chamber notes that what the
8 witness actually said was just that he might add some details and nothing
9 more than that, and we interpret this to be nothing more than exactly
10 what the witness said, namely that he will stick to his testimony in
11 Brdjanin, but maybe a few details may be added that he, you know, failed
12 to present during his testimony in Brdjanin, but certainly those details
13 would not make his testimony today any different in substance from what
14 it was in Brdjanin.
15 Now, of course, there's always a margin of appreciation here and
16 so rather than trying to find out what these details may be, I think we
17 should just get on with it and then if you find at any point in time that
18 what the witness is now testifying differs substantially from what was in
19 his testimony in Brdjanin, I think then you should raise it, and that's
20 the way we will proceed.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. Thank you.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, does this mean we are not going to be
23 admitting his 92 ter statement at this time?
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, we will be.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit numbers to be signed are
1 P459.1 through P459.21.
2 MR. OLMSTED:
3 Q. Mr. Krzic, I have one more additional question with regard to
4 your background. From 1991 through 1994, did you hold a political
5 position in Banja Luka municipality?
6 A. Legally and formally, yes, but not in the municipality. But on
7 the political level when you say municipality, that could be understood
8 as if I had been a municipal representative. No, I was just the
9 political leader of the party.
10 Q. Thank you for that clarification. What position -- what
11 political leadership position did you hold during this time-period?
12 A. First I was the secretary of the democratic action party in Banja
13 Luka when it was founded first. Then I became a member of the Executive
14 Board. And later at one point I was elected vice-president of the party,
15 but that was an ad hoc election within the Main Board when the president
16 left us and that president had been elected by acclamation at one
17 meeting, and then in September/October 1991 I was elected officially at
18 the Assembly meeting which included all the representatives of the SDA, I
19 was elected president.
20 Q. How long were you president of the SDA for?
21 A. For practical purposes, I was president as long as I lived in
22 Banja Luka, and formerly I remained president until I turned over that
23 duty in 1994 to another member of the Executive Board when we had a
24 meeting in Sarajevo
25 Q. I'm now going to show you a map of Banja Luka town and ask you to
1 identify a number of locations on it.
2 MR. OLMSTED: It's 65 ter Exhibit 10213. And the witness will
3 need a digital pen for this.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Excuse me, if I may interrupt. Sir, if I
5 understand you well, there is a difference between what you call the
6 practical purposes of your Presidency until as long as you lived in Banja
7 Luka and your formal being a president in 1994. Is there a difference in
8 time? When did you leave Banja Luka?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I left Banja Luka in end October
10 1993. I left for Zagreb
11 that role any more, and I didn't wish to. However, formally and legally,
12 I could be replaced only at an official Assembly meeting of
13 representatives of the SDA. Banja Luka was then under military
14 occupation and it was not possible to organise such a meeting at that
15 time so I used the first opportunity to turn over my responsibilities to
16 another man to give him legitimacy.
17 There was a meeting of representatives who came from free
18 territories and some other representatives who lived abroad and at
19 meeting I turned over my duty.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Can we see the exhibit on the screen, please.
22 Perhaps if we could zoom out just first of all. Very good.
23 Q. Mr. Krzic, is this an accurate map of the centre of Banja Luka
24 town as it existed in 1992?
25 A. I think so because I've seen the map before and especially when I
1 see the images on the side in the legend. Of course like any map of a
2 large city it can be confusing at first, and I don't know how long it's
3 been since I've seen its image in this form, but I do recognise certain
4 localities that make things clearer.
5 Q. Now, along the margins of this map are photographs numbered 1
6 through 5. Please take a look at the first photograph labelled number 1
7 and tell us what that building was in 1992.
8 A. Number 1 is, I think, the former, or perhaps even the current
9 staff of the Krajina Corps. Before that it was the staff of the Yugoslav
10 People's Army.
11 Q. Could you mark on the map with a number 1 where that building is
12 approximately located.
13 A. [In English] Just a moment. Somewhere here. Somewhere. I
14 can't -- [Interpretation] I can't recognise the building itself.
15 Q. Fair enough. And this is not the most beautiful map, so just do
16 your best that you can to give the Trial Chamber an idea of generally
17 where they are located.
18 If you could look at the second photograph, could you tell us
19 what that building was back in 1992?
20 A. Building number 2 is partially hidden by the trees, and it looks
21 to me like the annex building to the first one, the staff, but it's a
22 separate building where meetings were held, and it housed all sorts of
23 social events, celebrations, and inside there was a restaurant catering
24 to military officials, but sometimes also civilians. It's just next to
25 this building number 2 very close. Although it's really hidden by the
1 trees. It's hard to recognise it.
2 Q. Would this annex building also be known as the Dom JNA building?
3 A. Yes, it was previously called the Dom JNA, that is the hall of
4 the JNA.
5 Q. Could you place a number 2 on the map as to approximately where
6 that building was located?
7 A. It looks the same. These are buildings of similar size. I
8 really cannot be precise, I'm sorry. It could be a little to the left or
9 a little to the right.
10 Q. But I think you said it was right next to the 1st Krajina Corps
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I am sorry, Mr. Krzic, before you answer that next question.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, it appears that there was a mismark
15 on the map. He was pointing to basically the same location as the 1st
16 Krajina Corps headquarters when he was trying to indicate where number 2
17 was, and then I think somehow it got mismarked down by the river there.
18 So I think if we could erase that mark. Very good.
19 Q. If you can look at photograph number 3. Could you identify for
20 the Trial Chamber what that is a photograph of?
21 A. This is obviously the Bosna Hotel, and I'll try to place it on
22 the map.
23 Q. Yes, if you could put a number 3 on the map.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krzic. What sorts of events took place at the
1 hotel Bosna back in 1992?
2 A. Well, in my opinion the most important event was the arrival and
3 the presence in that building of the chairman of the Security Council --
4 chairmen of the Security Council, Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, and the
5 following developments. There were many numerous -- there were numerous
6 events and meetings of other nature, but from the viewpoint of the
7 Democratic Action Party, it was the most important event.
8 Q. Please take a look at photograph number 4 and tell us what this
9 building was back in 1992.
10 A. This is the municipality building of Banja Luka.
11 Q. And could you put a number 4 where that building is located in
12 Banja Luka.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. In relation to this building, where were the offices of the SDS
16 A. The SDS
17 the monument to the fallen in the Second World War. Nowadays, there's an
18 Orthodox church in its place, and the distance between two buildings was
19 about 100 metres. This building housed the SDS offices, but very soon
20 afterwards they were joined by the HDZ offices and the SDA offices.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krzic. And let me remind you, try to answer just
22 my particular question. I know you are trying to provide as much
23 information as possible for the Trial Chamber but since we have limited
25 If you could take a look at photograph number 5, could you tell
1 us what this building was back in 1992?
2 A. I recognise the former SUP
3 later renamed CSB
5 Q. And could you place a number 5 on the map approximately where
6 that building was located.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Finally, we don't have a picture of this, but could you place a
9 number 6 on the map where the Mali Logor prison was located in Banja
11 A. Sorry, you said which number? 6?
12 Q. Number 6, that's correct.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. OLMSTED: May this 65 ter exhibit 10213 be marked and
16 admitted into evidence.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. Now, in your prior testimony you provided --
20 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise to the counsel. The number will be
22 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry.
23 Q. Mr. Krzic, in your prior testimony, you provided evidence
24 regarding the Serb plebiscite that was held in November 1991. Prior to
25 that plebiscite, do you recall there being an SDS rally in Banja Luka
1 or about the 26th of October 1991?
2 A. Yes, I remember.
3 Q. Did you attend that rally?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Was that rally covered by the media in Banja Luka?
6 A. Yes, the media reported widely, but we also held a press
7 conference on that rally.
8 Q. Now, I'd like you to watch a short news clip. This is 65 ter
9 Exhibit 2303 for which there is also an English and B/C/S transcript. I
10 believe it begins at 12 minutes and 36 seconds. If we could watch the
11 whole video and then, Mr. Krzic, I'll have some questions after we've
12 reviewed it.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 Anchor: ... while in Banja Luka the rally was freely held about
15 joint leaving all Serbs in one state. There were plenty ethnic slurs.
16 In the meantime, there are attempts at disputing the national rights of
17 Muslims in Serbia
18 Today's meeting in the centre of Banja Luka decorated by
19 Yugoslav, Serbian and SDS
20 people's plebiscite set for 9 and 10 November, their wishes regarding the
21 organisation of the country, the position of the Serbian people in it,
22 and the aims and jurisdictions of the Assembly of the Serbian people in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina that was founded two nights ago. The meeting was
24 opened by Predrag Radic, Banja Luka Municipal Assembly President with the
25 following message:
1 "Twice they slaughtered us. We have forgiven but not forgotten.
2 If they try to do the same for the third time, we shall neither forgive
3 nor forget, regardless of how non-Christian it may be."
4 Judging by the placards recorded on video by Ljubomir Paljevic
5 and the reactions of the people present, Europe and its decisions have
6 faired poorly in Banja Luka. Perhaps the strongest approval went to
7 those who supported Slobodan Milosevic's refusal to sign The Hague
8 documents. Limited time allows us to play only some of the audio clips.
9 Speaker, Nikola Koljevic, BH Presidency member: We founded the
10 Serbian Assembly in order to respond in a democratic, human, and
11 civilised way - of which others proud themselves more than we do - that
12 we will defend the rights of our people but we won't deprive others of
13 their rights.
14 Reporter: "Our legal system has been destroyed, we are
15 economically exhausted thanks to Ante Markovic, but we will not give up
16 the army," says Doctor Koljevic.
17 Momcilo Krajisnik, BH Assembly President: "All the dark forces
18 have for various reasons been harnessed to destroy our common fatherland,
19 to tear us into pieces. And I hope we won't allow that."
20 Reporter: Why will the Krajina TV be formed?
21 Velibor Ostojic, Minister for Information in the BH Government:
22 "We want to tell Europe
23 going on in these territories."
24 Radovan Karadzic, SDS
25 by voting to remain in a joint, federal state with all the Serbian lands
1 and all those who wish to stay with us, we hope to, once and for all, put
2 a circle by state where there will be no traitors, a state that will not
3 fall apart every 20 years or so."
4 Reporter: We said that Europe
5 most poorly perhaps in the part we cannot pass over in silence. One of
6 those who spoke said that Vienna
7 put that down to careless formulation. We will finish our report by
8 quoting Nikola Koljevic's words, "It's better for us to vote and vote
9 down than shoot at each other."
10 MR. OLMSTED:
11 Q. Mr. Krzic, the video you just watched, what is that a video of?
12 A. This is a rally, a mass meeting at which the then leaders of the
13 Serb political block spoke in favour of the refusal of international
14 political proposals with regard to the internal structure of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was preparation for -- for the Serb people to
16 state their position to that effect, but here what we can see here apart
17 from the different tone chosen by Dr. Koljevic, those are all flamboyant
18 speeches which insighted uprising, destruction with clear indications of
19 creating ethnically clean territories only for the Serb people.
20 Maybe I should add that one of the participants went as far as to
21 threaten -- to utter a threat which went beyond Bosnia-Herzegovina, which
22 was aimed at neighbouring countries in Europe. And if I may refer to the
23 newspaper "Glas" of Banja Luka which is controlled by Banja Luka, and we
24 can see that it has a greater dimension because it's a call for the
25 destruction of large European cities and not with the conventional
1 weapons but nuclear weapons --
2 Q. Excuse me --
3 A. This is a statement that the Serbs are ready to do that.
4 Q. Mr. Krzic, again, let me remind you to try to keep your answers
5 short, and I'll try to keep my questions more directed so that we can
6 proceed in a very orderly fashion here.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: I mean, Your Honour, why is it relevant? It's
8 1991, out of scope with the indictment. The witness wasn't present at
9 that meeting. His comment is out of the scope of the video-clip. Why is
10 relevant for this trial? We are wasting time for this.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this video is relevant. It's all
12 events leading up to April -- the beginning of April of 1992, and it
13 gives -- it proceeded the plebiscite, so there's a number of issue that
14 are important to our case and so we would submit that it is quite
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL
18 what you are attempting to do. The reality is, this is a 92 ter witness,
19 and Mr. Krgovic's observation about this being outside the scope of this
20 evidence appears to have merit, so let's move on to something else.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, this piece of evidence does go to the
22 creation, the formation of the joint criminal enterprise, so it is a
23 piece of evidence that we do want to admit. The purpose of this
24 additional questioning of this witness is to bring in information that he
25 is aware of. He did say that he was watching the media, it was well
1 publicised. He appears to be familiar with what is being said at this
2 rally, so I think this is a relevant topic for this witness.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 Mr. Olmsted, but in order to make this trial manageable, let's keep it
5 within the limits of what the -- within the scope of what this witness
6 was tendered -- was called to testify to, having regard to the fact that
7 he is a 92 ter witness. It seems to be we are wasting time wandering too
8 far afield.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Very well, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Krzic, in several places in your prior testimony you
11 described Banja Luka during the April through December 1992 time-period
12 as a concentration camp. You also described in various -- the various
13 measures that were imposed by the Serb authorities on the non-Serb
14 population that forced the non-Serb population to leave the Republika
15 Srpska. I'm not going to ask you to repeat what you previously told the
16 Tribunal, but I did want to ask some clarifying questions and show you
17 some documents that are on our exhibit list.
18 First of all, with regard to the dismissal of non-Serbs from
19 their employment, I would like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 159.
20 This document is headed the Krajina Autonomous Region Crisis
21 Staff, or the ARK
22 the existence of an ARK Crisis Staff, at least in Banja Luka?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And who were the members of this Crisis Staff?
25 A. The president of the ARK
1 members were the chief of the CSB
2 had to be the representative of the army, and possibly not all the
3 municipal parties but certainly for the Banja Luka municipality there was
4 the mayor and others.
5 Q. In 1992, what kinds of decisions, just generally, was the ARK
6 Crisis Staff issuing?
7 A. Some decisions were accessible to us, and I suppose that they are
8 mentioned in some documents, but the consequences of the decisions could
9 be seen on the ground. We also have documentation about the laying off
10 of non-Serbs which started with executive positions. The representatives
11 of the staff even personally spoke about these decisions in the media,
12 the printed media and the television. They mostly did so in person.
13 Furthermore, the Crisis Staff called mobilisations. And the Crisis Staff
14 also ordered some activities with regard to the property of non-Serbs.
15 So the range of their decisions was from purely military issues to issues
16 affecting the security of any non-Serb not only in Banja Luka but in the
17 entire territory.
18 I must say that there have been some decisions of a purely
19 psychological nature. When I say that, I mean to make clear to the
20 Judges that such a rally at which extermination is mentioned certainly
21 isn't a folklore performance.
22 Q. Now, would you hear about these ARK Crisis Staff decisions
23 through public statements or the media as well?
24 A. Most often through the statements made by some members of the ARK
25 Crisis Staff, Mr. Brdjanin, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Radic, Mr. Kupresanin. It
1 was difficult to get information directly because some information was
2 published and other was not. But in practice, it was all implemented and
3 acted upon without opposition.
4 Q. Taking a look at the 65 ter Exhibit 159, do you recall hearing
5 about this decision about personnel of non-Serb ethnicity back in 1992?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the effect of this decision on the non-Serb population,
8 very briefly?
9 A. Initially, we assumed that this would only apply to managers of
10 companies. It was understood as a very serious warning. However, later
11 on it became clear that the decision applied to all non-Serbs in
12 positions where they could be replaced or where the others could do
13 without them, so the first ones to be affected were medical staff and,
14 you know, that medical staff is more important than any other. Well, to
15 be brief I'll stop here.
16 Q. Let's take a look at the second paragraph of the section one and
17 it states that the decision applies to all socially owned enterprises.
18 Mr. Krzic, in 1992 were companies in Banja Luka generally privately owned
19 or state owned?
20 A. 99 per cent were state owned or socially owned, and 1 or maybe 2
21 per cent may have been privately owned but they were mostly small shops
22 such as florist shops, bakeries, candy shops and the like.
23 JUDGE HALL
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, just to ease my mind and to be sure
2 that I'm on the right list of documents for use with this witness, the
3 video-clip you mentioned, 65 ter 2303, is it on your list of documents?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. It is on our list. It's on our
5 65 ter list and also the list for this witness. And --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: I have to check something, thank you.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, just because you reminded me, perhaps
8 we he could have that marked for identification just for future
10 JUDGE HALL
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P461 marked for identification, Your
14 JUDGE HALL
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 MR. OLMSTED:
20 Q. Mr. Krzic, before the break you testified that 99 per cent of the
21 companies in Banja Luka were socially owned back in 1992. Could you tell
22 us if a Bosniak or a Croat working for a socially-owned company lost his
23 or her job, what happened to his or her --
24 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry, we may have a sound problem here.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have problems hearing. I don't
1 know why. Can you please say something now.
2 MR. OLMSTED:
3 Q. Mr. Krzic, can you hear us?
4 A. Now it's all right. Yes, I can.
5 Q. I'll start again, Mr. Krzic. Prior to the break, you testified
6 that approximately 99 per cent of the companies in Banja Luka in 1992
7 were socially owned. Could you tell us if a non-Serb working for a
8 socially-owned company lost his or her job, what would happen to his or
9 her right to accommodation?
10 A. In most of the cases the enterprise they worked in would
11 immediately raise the issue of accommodation. But I wouldn't say that
12 this was done at a massive scale. Later on, though, when the security
13 situation had worsened drastically, this was considered an important
14 element in taking back the apartment from that person.
15 Q. And just so we are clear on this, later on when the security
16 situation worsened, what would happen if a person lost their job in one
17 of these companies? What would happen to their accommodation?
18 A. The argument was immediately raised that that person was no
19 longer entitled to accommodation and that person would first be suggested
20 to leave the apartment peacefully. So it would be suggested to them to
21 apply to move out, and such agencies had already been established.
22 If they failed to do that, there would be drastic threats,
23 security threats, and they were sometimes realised.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, I suppose - or maybe I should ask
25 the witness directly - I suppose this only goes for the flats that were
1 owned by the companies and not for every flat; is that correct? I mean,
2 I understand your testimony to be that if a person was fired from the
3 socially-owned company in which he worked or she worked, then the flat
4 that went with the job also was lost, but it could be that some of the
5 workers --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers] ... in their own flats and
8 my question was then if they would also lose the right to live in such
9 non-company-owned flats?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Now, taking a look at this decision that's currently on the
14 screen, to what extent was this ARK Crisis Staff decision implemented
15 against non-Serbs in Banja Luka in 1992?
16 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question correctly. Could
17 you please repeat.
18 Q. Yes. We have this decision here that states that only personnel
19 of Serbian ethnicity may hold certain positions, and my question to you
20 is to what extent this decision was, in fact, implemented in Banja Luka
21 in 1992?
22 A. That measure was implemented gradually or successively. If I
23 may, I'll mention a very telling example. It was mostly implemented
24 successfully through a longer period of time. When somebody was replaced
25 from a position, or not merely from a position, but possibly was laid off
1 as a couple of hundred doctors were laid off in five or six months, the
2 apartments were not taken away from them immediately, but once the
3 situation had worsened and a Serb population was withdrawing from Croatia
4 or other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the measure of taking away the
5 apartment would follow.
6 If a doctor, the head of a hospital in Banja Luka was replaced
7 and he would be placed in a position of head of an infirmary, he would
8 have had to leave his older, big apartment and move into a smaller one
9 that went with his new position. And over 400 people, I believe, doctors
10 and medical staff, were laid off, and once they lost their jobs for good,
11 they would have to leave their apartments and Banja Luka, and I can
12 mention the names of the heads of the hospitals.
13 Q. Mr. Krzic, I want to refocus you on my question. The decision in
14 front of you simply relates to personnel of non-Serb ethnicity being
15 removed from their post. And perhaps you could tell us, if you could
16 provide us with an estimate, by the end of 1992 approximately what
17 percentage of the non-Serbs in Banja Luka municipality had lost their
18 jobs as a result of this kind of decision?
19 A. I don't have any accurate estimates. The closest most accurate
20 estimates I have are those about doctors and professionals in hospitals
21 and public health. You know that medical staff is the most important
22 service for human life and a -- and at least 50 per cent of non-Serb
23 doctors and medical staff were laid off. And the percentage that applies
24 to schools was roughly the same, and it would reach 100 per cent very
25 soon in the following year.
1 Q. How would you learn about these various dismissals of non-Serbs
2 from their posts in companies or in the government?
3 A. It was sometimes made public because not only executive personnel
4 but all work-places where non-Serbs worked were soon affected. I don't
5 know whether there was a special decision of the Crisis Staff of the
6 autonomous region, but in practice it was called technological surplus
7 which was possible because the country was at war. But the measure that
8 ensued was mass layoffs of non-Serbs, and you could read in the papers
9 about it in "Glas." And then these dismissals started at schools,
10 teachers were laid off under various pretext, whoever refused to write in
11 Cyrillic script was fired within 24 hours, and nobody ever complained,
12 it's clear why. And I believe it was also the Crisis Staff that decided
13 that all those must be laid off who don't respond the call for
14 mobilisation. And that decision and practice was applied also to the
15 entire family of that individual.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we'd like to admit 65 ter Exhibit 159
17 into evidence at this time.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P462, Your Honours.
20 MR. OLMSTED:
21 Q. I'd like to show you a few "Glas" newspaper articles from between
22 April and July 1992. And you've had a chance to look at these and review
23 them prior to testifying here today. So we'll go through them -- we'll
24 view them quite quickly.
25 MR. OLMSTED: The first one is 65 ter Exhibit 2800.
1 Q. And, Mr. Krzic, since you've reviewed these recently, I don't
2 expect you to have to read through them all again, but just take a quick
3 look to verify that you did in fact see them earlier.
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. OLMSTED: And let's now take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 2801.
6 Q. Mr. Krzic, if you could just verify that you took a look at this
7 article before testifying here today?
8 A. Yes, I have.
9 MR. OLMSTED: And, finally, if we could have on the screen 65 ter
10 Exhibit 2803.
11 Q. Now, during the April to December 1992 time-period, could you
12 tell us how objective did you consider the "Glas" newspaper to be as far
13 as fairly reporting the views of all ethnicities in Banja Luka?
14 A. Of course, at that time you could not look for objectivity in the
15 way you would in a democratic society, but we were happy when what we
16 were saying was reflected even approximately, and we continued to be
17 quite satisfied until about the middle, that is the end of 1991, and
18 beginning of 1992, and I'm talking especially about "Glas" which is a
19 regional newspaper, a daily. And, of course, we could place our
20 interviews there, if necessary, in every issue, and this regular
21 reporting, I would say, continued until they started dismissing both
22 Croats and Serbs from the newspaper. I think they even dismissed Serbs
23 who were in mixed marriages so that after that time we stopped giving
24 them interviews because each time we tried, we would end up reading a
25 completely different story.
1 Q. Just to be clear, towards whom did you believe the "Glas"
2 newspaper to be biased after the beginning of 1992?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I believe the witness
4 added a last sentence at the very end of 32, 18, and if it can be
5 recorded because the transcript doesn't show that sentence which he said.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Mr. Krzic, did you hear my question? I'll repeat it. In your
9 view, towards whom was the "Glas" newspaper biased after the beginning of
11 A. Already towards the end of 1991 some bias could be felt,
12 especially towards the Croat population for understandable reasons. And
13 then generally it spread to all non-Serbs, including the Romas and
15 Q. And just to be clear, was the "Glas" newspaper biased towards
16 non-Serbs, or was it biased against non-Serbs?
17 A. Against, against. I believe I'm speaking quite clearly. I don't
18 understand why you were misled.
19 Q. That's fine, Mr. Krzic, I just wanted to make sure it was clear
20 for the record.
21 Did this bias appear only to the "Glas" newspaper, or would it
22 apply to other forms of media in Banja Luka during this 1992 time-period?
23 A. It applied to all the media. For instance, in Radio Banja Luka
24 all non-Serbs were laid off, and they were not only laid off, but before
25 they were laid off, they were ordered to apply in a compulsory fashion a
1 new type of organisation and editing both in the press and on the radio,
2 and thus all the folk songs which were common to all of us had to be
3 destroyed on videotape and in records, to be burnt in our yards. Nobody
4 dared risk put on a folk song with a Bosniak or a Croat background.
5 Q. Returning to the three articles I just showed you, and in
6 particular the one in front of you right now, were these the kinds of
7 articles that were appearing in the "Glas" newspaper concerning the
8 dismissals of non-Serbs from their jobs?
9 A. Yes, that's true. Except there's one idiosyncrasy you forgot to
10 mention. When I speak of non-Serb population, I include mixed marriages.
11 For instance, in this particular article, the board of managers is an
12 Assembly of dervishes. We see a reference to one of their leading
13 experts, Slobodan Cvijetic, an electrical engineer, who was leading a
14 company producing very sophisticated electronic products, but his
15 particular weakness is that he had a Croat wife, and this Cvijetic did
16 not immediately proceed with dismissing Croats from his institute, from
17 his company, and this is a typical example of, how shall I call it,
18 racist action.
19 Q. Since you brought up this topic of Mr. Cvijetic, generally what
20 happened to Serb managers of companies who refused to implement dismissal
21 decisions against non-Serbs?
22 A. They could not remain in their positions. It was clear to
24 Q. In the third paragraph of this article in front of you, Exhibit
25 2803, Mr. Brdjanin is quoted as saying that:
1 "Muslim and Croat executives have been replaced in almost 95 per
2 cent of companies ..."
3 Was that an accurate statement by Brdjanin at this time when this
4 article was written?
5 A. It probably was. I can see the names here of the people who were
6 replaced, people with an international reputation as scientists and
7 researchers, and I thought it was the end of 1992 here, but we see that
8 he is giving this statement in July. It's possible that he did not
9 include by that time lower-level executives, such as heads of workshops,
10 et cetera.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, we would ask that 65 ter Exhibits
12 2800, 2801 and 2803 be admitted into evidence.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: We strongly object, Your Honours. I believe my
14 learned friend thinks about -- is referring to the previous three
15 articles which he showed to the witness, the "Glas" articles. Are these
16 the documents that you are offering for evidence?
17 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. We are -- the one that's
18 currently on the screen which is 2803 as well as our two that the witness
19 had previously looked at that are essentially dealing with the same
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, you know that the Stanisic
22 Defence has many times already explained why we feel that all these
23 articles from that period are -- cannot be relied upon. This witness, in
24 fact, confirms that, he says they were biased articles. These three
25 articles are nothing else but the press conferences or the interviews of
1 Radoslav Brdjanin. The Prosecution, thanks to the rules of this
2 Tribunal, has the opportunity to offer adjudicated fact from the Brdjanin
3 trial. These documents are relevant for Brdjanin trial, and they have
4 been presented there as evidence.
5 The Trial Chamber came up to a certain conclusion concerning
6 these particular documents. I don't really see any need for us to get --
7 to admit these documents. First of all, they are not reliable, they are
8 not relevant for the accused, and the third, the witness himself confirms
9 that the "Glas" in 1992 was highly biased against non-Serbs. Therefore,
10 the connection between this witness and these documents is non-existent.
11 Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 remind me, I recall that this issue of the newspaper articles has arisen
14 before, and my recollection is that the previous practice of the
15 Tribunal, the jurisprudence, does not hold them inadmissible per se, but
16 my reservation is that the -- when we would have visited this before, the
17 question the nexus with the particular witness, could you remind me as to
18 how we may have dealt with it previously in these proceedings.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, as far as I know in majority of
20 the cases, these articles when offered were admitted. We did -- we did
21 raise our objection, and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal stands on the
22 point, as far as I know, that it goes to the weight of the particular
23 document or evidence. But just the same, I believe it is my duty to
24 raise the attention of the Trial Chamber to this because, Your Honours,
25 you have to keep in mind that all these articles which are offered are
1 written within the relevant period of time in 1992, there's a war going
2 on, and there's a special warfare which is done through media, which is,
3 I believe, very clear from these articles from all sides. Thank you very
5 JUDGE HALL
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL
8 indicated to Mr. Zecevic, we are quite aware that the jurisprudence is
9 that newspaper articles are not, per se, inadmissible, that in this
10 particular case, we don't see how they assist the Chamber or add to what
11 the witness has testified to in terms of his own knowledge of these
12 matters, and we don't see that on balance that the articles themselves
13 have much of any probative value. So that is why we are reluctant to
14 accede to the application that they be admitted.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, certainly you'll be able to take
16 whatever -- decide whatever weight you want to give these articles based
17 upon the testimony of the various witnesses. However, these articles
18 certainly corroborate this witness's testimony. They are written, as
19 Defence counsel mentioned, during the relevant time-period, they cover a
20 very relevant issue relating to persecution in Banja Luka which we do
21 charge in the indictment, and just for us to assume that you are going to
22 completely accept this witness's testimony without potential
23 corroborating testimony or evidence such as exhibits, articles, and
24 newspapers, which albeit may be biased towards the Serbs certainly
25 provide information as it to what information is going out to the
1 community during this time period, and certainly this witness has
2 testified that some of the information that Brdjanin was providing was
3 most likely accurate, for instance the extent of the dismissals.
4 And also let me just mention that Brdjanin is a member of the
5 joint criminal enterprise in this matter, a member of the ARK Crisis
6 Staff, so it is quite relevant to this case.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 Mr. Olmsted, that even if they were -- even if we were to admit them, it
9 is something that the Chamber would have to consider very very carefully,
10 because as Mr. Zecevic succinctly pointed out, the newspaper articles
11 themselves were an instrument of warfare in this exercise, so at the end
12 of the day, the point of admitting them is something which isn't
13 immediately apparent.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HALL
16 would be admitted. So they may, accordingly, be marked as exhibits.
17 Judge Delvoie dissenting.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P463, P464,
19 and P465.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'm a little bit reluctant to show the next
21 exhibit, but talk about taking the steam out of my drive here. 65 ter
22 Exhibit 2802. If we could have that on the screen.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Krzic, this is another article that you had a chance to
24 look at prior to testifying here today. And it's not from the "Glas"
25 newspaper. It's dated 18 June 1992
1 non-Serb employees from the hospital in Banja Luka. And I believe
2 earlier in your testimony you were talking about extensive dismissals of
3 non-Serbs from the hospitals, and I ask you, does this generally -- is
4 this generally consistent with your recollection as to what was happening
5 during this time-period?
6 A. In principle, yes.
7 Q. What effect did these health care dismissals have on the rest of
8 the non-Serb population?
10 without health care. There were no private physicians at the time. Why
11 did they believe they were deprived of health care? Because they did not
12 dare to go and see an exclusively Serbian medical staff. They did not
13 dare because by that time there had been many cases when they were simply
14 refused admittance. There were some serious patients with kidney
15 conditions who simply disappeared. The treatment of such patients was
17 Perhaps the best proof are non-Serbs with cancer who did not dare
18 go to the medical centre. One doctor, Vesna Krmatic [phoen] a Croat,
19 distributed to them some sort of powder because she could not give them
20 real medicine for their condition. That was the catastrophe that reigned
21 at the time.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, with all the caveats that were
23 expressed by the Trial Chamber and everyone else, may this 65 ter Exhibit
24 2802 be admitted into evidence.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't need to explain again why I object, thank
1 you very much, Your Honours, but I do object.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. OLMSTED:
5 Q. Let's move on to another topic --
6 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Exhibit P466, Your Honours.
7 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise. I'm off my rhythm right now.
8 Q. In your prior testimony, you described how between April and
9 December 1992 there were explosions practically every night in Banja Luka
10 resulting in the destruction of non-Serb businesses and homes. Can you
11 tell us based on what you could see and what you knew and heard, what
12 were the police doing to prevent the destruction of non-Serb property?
13 A. I know that non-Serbs in some very rare cases tried to get the
14 protection of the police, but I'm not aware that any perpetrators were
15 ever arrested except perhaps in some exceptions. If a Croat or Bosniak,
16 for instance, knew somebody on the police force and bribed them, I'm not
17 aware of such cases, but I know that down-town let alone in the suburbs,
18 in all cases involving explosions, the perpetrators were neither
19 prevented from this action or arrested afterwards.
20 In the middle of the market, soldiers would come, supposedly
21 drunk, to beat up the owner of a flower shop, and if he did not sign over
22 his shop to them, he would be targeted by a bombing the same night. I
23 know specific names for all these cases. The police, to the best of my
24 knowledge, never did anything to prevent this.
25 Q. In your prior testimony, you mentioned that the Serb authorities
1 imposed a curfew in Banja Luka.
2 MR. OLMSTED: I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 107.
3 Q. Now, this document has in its heading the Autonomous Region of
4 Bosanska Krajina Republic Secretariat for National Defence, and it's
5 dated 4 May 1992
6 Secretariat of National Defence around this time-period in 1992?
7 A. You can see from this order that they passed, among other things,
8 security-related decisions for the entire municipality and beyond. That
9 is, they had unlimited rights of issuing orders and probably also of
10 holding people responsible. It was their task to order mobilisation and
11 everything that follows from that.
12 So they were a body, I don't know what to call it, but obviously
13 in charge of the overall security situation among others in this area.
14 Q. In May 1992, what was the ethnicity of the members of the
15 secretariat, if you know?
16 A. As far as I know, they were exclusively of Serb ethnicity.
17 Mr. Kupresanin, Mr. Brdjanin, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Radic, General Talic,
18 before him it was Uzelac. For awhile there was also the Prime Minister
19 Kasagic. I don't know whether he stayed on later.
20 Q. Thank you. Let's look at number 4 of this decision, and
21 according to this document it imposes a curfew between 2200 hours and
22 0500 hours. Who enforced this curfew in Banja Luka?
23 A. Obviously the police. Well, I don't want to say any more, the
25 Q. And from what you could see, was this curfew equally enforced
1 against all the ethnicities?
2 A. Most certainly not. For non-Serbs a violation of the curfew
3 meant not only -- or constituted not only an offence to be sanctioned
4 administratively, it was also a deadly threat because a non-Serb found on
5 the street during the curfew would not only immediately be beaten up and
6 robbed, but he also risked losing their life because such things happened
7 also in plain daylight, not only during the curfew. But this was also a
8 warning for the entire population, including Serbs, I mean civilians, not
9 to move about town. I had -- personally had the chance to convince
10 myself that the town was completely empty. This place, Copenhagen, is
11 also a quiet town, but there and then, you could hardly see anybody
12 because the times were unsafe and they could -- whoever moved about could
13 easily become evicted. But it was also well known that this curfew was a
14 sort of indirect protection for those who went about robbing at the time,
15 entering houses, threatening with weapons, et cetera, so this was a kind
16 of protection for them.
17 Q. And that leads to my next question, which is this curfew, what
18 effect did it have on non-Serb businesses?
19 A. I have just told you that this was a total restriction, but
20 explosive devices against private property mostly went off during the
21 night. Cultural facilities of non-Serbs were also mostly attacked at
22 night. There are witnesses to confirm that it was the police who first
23 set fire to the mosques and when that didn't work out, they would return.
24 All that went on during the curfew. There are witnesses to confirm that.
25 As for the property of non-Serbs in town, that was a town -- a
1 time when they couldn't expect their property to be protected.
2 Q. Under number 5 of this decision, it requires the surrender of
3 illegal weapons by 11 May 1992
4 A. The police.
5 Q. And against whom was this particular decision enforced against?
6 A. Against non-Serbs, of course, for the simple reason that if it
7 had been enforced against the Serbs, you would have had to deploy massive
8 forces of the police to take away the weapons that were distributed at a
9 massive scale to Serbs. In the centre of town, there were deliveries of
10 huge quantities of weapons that were distributed to Serb families, so
11 this obviously didn't refer to these weapons, but such weapons for which
12 there were permits such as hunting weapons, et cetera, but those who did
13 have other weapons didn't bring the weapons to the police, but mostly
14 discarded them by the river or so because going to the police and openly
15 state that you belong to another ethnicity and have weapons, well, you
16 can imagine what that meant.
17 Q. You mentioned the distribution of weapons around Banja Luka on a
18 massive scale. Were you able to observe this happening, and if so, who
19 was distributing these weapons?
20 A. I personally saw that in the local community of Hiseta there was
21 a restaurant called Baraka, and I was invited by some people I knew to
22 witness the distribution of weapons. There were trucks there and with
23 boxes on it full of weapons and ammunition. And in the evening it was
24 distributed. And I received other information, similar information of
25 such weapons distribution also in the neighbourhood where I lived.
1 Q. Were the person --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, I believe the witness explained which
3 trucks, whom the trucks belonged to, so if you can please clarify this
4 with the witness.
5 MR. OLMSTED: That was going to be my next question.
6 Q. If you could be a little more specific as to the actual persons
7 who were distributing these weapons that you observed. Were they wearing
8 any uniforms, did you recognise any of the individuals as being a member
9 of any kind of organisation whether it be the military or the police or
10 another organisation?
11 A. On this concrete case they were wearing plain uniforms, so they
12 were regular soldiers, not special units. Olive green uniforms. And I
13 looked at that from a distance, but I can't say that I saw the police on
14 that occasion.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness said I couldn't. I can't
16 say. Thank you.
17 MR. OLMSTED:
18 Q. And what about weapons that were lawfully owned by non-Serbs,
19 were they allowed to keep their lawfully-owned weapons?
20 A. No. They were ordered to return their weapons, and I was
21 rather -- when they came to my house on one occasion, they took the
22 weapon I had without any questions. It was a small calibre pistol that I
23 really needed to defend myself because there had been shots fired at my
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would move for 65 ter Exhibit 107
1 to be admitted into evidence.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P467, Your Honours.
4 MR. OLMSTED:
5 Q. In your prior testimony, you state that Serb authorities
6 established a number of check-points throughout the Banja Luka town and
7 municipality, and that non-Serbs were maltreated at these check-points.
8 Can you tell us who was manning these check-points?
9 A. We can say that it was exclusively the police, although in the
10 early days in some parts of town there were attempts to organise, well
11 maybe not check-points, but joint patrols, that was in 1991, but that
12 soon came to an end. Then the police took over exclusively and they wore
13 police uniforms. Did you ask anything else?
14 Q. No, I didn't, but I will now.
15 How were the police maltreating non-Serbs at these check-points?
16 If you can describe that briefly.
17 A. They were asking for personal documents and if you showed them --
18 showed your documents, they sometimes wouldn't return them to you. You
19 could be hit and it often happened, and if somebody tried to come from
20 the suburbs, if they were non-Serb and tried to bring agricultural
21 produce into town, they were either ordered to return or taken away or in
22 some cases they would have to discard them on the spot. And the farmers
23 later tried to bring that into town through Serbs who were their friends,
24 so in such a way wood was brought into town, which was important to live
25 through the winter, and I also bought firewood from -- in this manner.
1 So obviously one of the objectives was to prevent non-Serbs to
2 move through town and keep them inside their enclaves.
3 Q. I want to move to another topic now. In your prior testimony you
4 mentioned that non-Serbs were evicted from their businesses and their
5 homes, and these businesses and homes were then given to Serb soldiers
6 who were returning from the front lines.
7 Can you tell us who issued these eviction orders in Banja Luka
8 A. There are some concrete cases that I know, but let me first tell
9 you, often times there weren't any orders at all. Simply if a Serb,
10 especially if they had come to Banja Luka with their family and wanted to
11 enter an apartment, they had force at their disposal and could do so by
12 force. And I can mention an example from my own family. My father and
13 brother were evicted from their apartment and came to me, and they were
14 evicted without any -- without any statement of reason. Even the
15 president of Merhamet was evicted and another who didn't want to leave
16 his apartment, well, to him they placed a bomb there so that he fell
17 through the floor to the apartment below.
18 Q. Let me stop you there. Before we get off too much off track,
19 where you say that there were cases where orders were actually issued,
20 who would issue those orders? Would there be an entity that would issue
21 an order evicting a non-Serb?
22 A. As far as I know, the municipality Crisis Staff or staffs and the
23 removal agency, but I can't say what their share was in all that and what
24 the share of sheer force was.
25 Q. In 1992 were you aware of a policy concerning property exchanges
1 between non-Serbs living in Banja Luka and Serbs moving into the
3 A. Yes, I know that very well from my own experience.
4 Q. Please take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 143. And we can see from
5 the heading that this is an ARK Crisis Staff conclusion dated 28 May
7 MR. OLMSTED: If we can go to the second page in both the English
8 and B/C/S and look at conclusion number 7.
9 Q. Now, conclusion number 7 states that:
10 "If Muslims and Croats, or members of the SDA or HDZ wish to
11 leave or move out of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, they must enable
12 the endangered Serbian people, against whom unprecedented genocide is
13 being conducted, to move collectively into their places, i.e., they must
14 facilitate an exchange based on reciprocity."
15 Mr. Krzic, was this generally the exchange policy that you were
16 aware of that was in existence in 1992?
17 A. That was general knowledge, but I repeat, from the experience of
18 my immediate and -- immediate relatives and remote relatives and from my
19 own experience, I can tell you who was present there.
20 Q. Were these exchanges voluntary?
21 A. By no means.
22 Q. Could you please describe to us how these exchanges actually took
23 place in Banja Luka in 1992?
24 A. There were several variants. There was also private initiative
25 where people would exchange property without accompanying documentation,
1 I can mention examples for that too. And when they went to Croatia
2 other places in Bosnia
3 barn instead of a house. So the removal agency was first run privately
4 by Ms. Perka and her husband. They came to the apartment of my parents
5 in 1991 and offered an exchange for a house on the island of Krk
6 immediately understood that if I were to do that, that act of mine would
7 effect the other population very negatively so I refused. The agency
8 conducted a large number of both successful and unsuccessful exchanges.
9 Some were fair and many others were unfair.
10 When we started sending such information abroad, then at some
11 point in late 1992, I believe, it was transformed into an official
12 removal agency which speaking of Banja Luka, was linked to the
13 municipality, and they had their own price list for these services with
14 the exchange of property or without. First -- at first you needed a huge
15 amount of documentation, and people would sign that because they were
16 forced to do so, and later on it was all -- it all became very simple
17 because as Mr. Brdjanin said, it is important that they leave even if we
18 give them passports.
19 Q. Just a clarification in your testimony just now you said that
20 they came to your apartment of your parents to offer an exchange in 1991.
21 Was that in fact the correct year?
22 A. Yes, I think it was in late 1991. I can find the exact date.
23 But certainly before April 1992. Before the 4th of April 1992. So the
24 efforts were being put into this willing exchange and departure as early
25 as that.
1 Q. Did the SDA or for that matter since you probably worked with
2 them to certain respect, the HDZ, did they take a particular position
3 with regard to these exchange -- these exchanges? Were they opposed to
4 it, or were they in favour of it?
5 A. I must say that both the SDA and the HDZ clearly condemned such
6 activities and said so clearly at several press conferences.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would move for the admission of
8 this Exhibit 65 ter 143 into evidence.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P468, Your Honours.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. Now, for those non-Serbs who did not exchange their properties,
13 what happened to their property if they left Banja Luka?
14 A. Speaking about real estate, there was no chance for them to leave
15 it to somebody to look after their property. That property was
16 immediately taken into possession by somebody else. Mostly people who
17 returned from the front line or refugee Serbs from Croatia. During later
18 periods such as 1993, the municipality put up their personnel there.
19 They would send a commission for such property and that it's in my case
20 and they evicted my parents in the process, and they developed a formal
21 institutional approach to that. They would establish that willingly
22 abandoned property can be used for the needs of the municipal
23 institutions. And that was the way of taking over such property,
24 including all furniture unless it had been taken away or stolen before
1 So if somebody would go to Zagreb
2 most frequent place where people would go. I went there for treatment,
3 medical treatment, and even though I had a permission to go there, such
4 people who left even for a short time couldn't go back to their property
5 because it had already been occupied.
6 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 10216.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 break. Would this be a convenient point to interrupt your --
9 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 back to the stand, I would alert you that over the two hours you've
15 requested, you've exhausted 1 hour 24 minutes. Sorry, 1 hour, 34
17 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, I'm certainly making progress
18 here. This is a unique witness in that we do not have non-Serb witnesses
19 from Banja Luka talking about what was going on in Banja Luka
20 the Trial Chamber's a little bit of indulgence in case I go over that. I
21 know that Defence counsel, we can ask them, I'm not sure whether they
22 oppose if we do so.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE HALL
25 Mr. Olmsted.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Otherwise, you could have chosen to lead this
2 witness as viva voce witness.
3 MR. OLMSTED: I'd like to jump ahead then and if we could have 65
4 ter Exhibit 10214 on the screen, please.
5 Q. Now, this is a "Glas" article dated 16 April 1992. Mr. Krzic, do
6 you recall reading this article in 1992?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This article describes a 15 April meeting that you attended in
9 Banja Luka with Mayor Predrag Radic and SJB chief Vladimir Tutus in April
10 1992. Do you recall attending that meeting?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. This article, if we scroll down a little bit, at least on the
13 English, reports that the reason for this meeting was a public statement
14 made by Stojan Zupljanin. Could you tell us what precisely was the
15 statement by Zupljanin that prompted this meeting?
16 A. Chief responsible for the general security of the citizens of
17 Banja Luka. Mr. Zupljanin had all our attention whenever he spoke to the
18 press because he was not a politician, he was an officer of an
19 institution that was supposed to hold primary responsibility for us at
20 the time. And when he stated that he could not guarantee complete
21 security, and mind you, security in this case means physical security and
22 the safety of our property, we found it shattering, and we could see for
23 ourselves that our security was in great jeopardy even then.
24 Q. At this meeting with the government representatives and the
25 police representatives, what concerns did you raise to them?
1 A. Well, first of all, we stated the things that were common
2 knowledge by that time. If I recall well, the first thing mentioned were
3 murders that were happening already without anyone being identified.
4 Then we discussed the security of property, the daily looting and nightly
5 explosions and bombings and of course one of the main things was that
6 general panic had overtaken the town. Everyone was wondering what was
7 going to happen and many people could still vividly remember the horrors
8 of the Second World War. It was fear that drove us to speak to
9 Mr. Radic.
10 Q. Just to be clear for the record, the crimes that you described as
11 well as the statement made by Zupljanin, against whom were these crimes
12 being perpetrated?
13 A. Well, for the most part against non-Serbs. It's true that there
14 were also crimes against Serbs, but they were mainly accounted for by
15 settlements of personal accounts or settlements of accounts between two
16 or more mafia gangs who were sort of dividing up the territory and wanted
17 to have as big a chunk of the looting for themselves.
18 Q. What response to all this information about the crimes and the
19 treatment of non-Serbs that you were conveying at this meeting did you
20 receive from the police and government representatives at that meeting?
21 A. We were very disappointed by his response, the response of
22 Mr. Radic primarily, who said that the situation was even worse for Serbs
23 outside of the Bosnian Krajina. He mentioned, and it is stated here, the
24 territory under the control of the HVO such as Tomislavgrad, et cetera.
25 We were astounded, and we saw a kind of continuity in that whatever was
1 going on in Banja Luka was seen as reciprocity against what was happening
2 to Serbs outside. For instance, Dr. Koljevic said to the press and to
3 the television, What are you up in arms for when 10.000 Serbs were
4 dismissed in Croatia
5 headquarters of the Krajina Corps.
6 Q. Let me stop you there. This kind of response that Radic gave to
7 your concerns, was this unusual, or was this the typical response you
8 would be receiving from authorities, the Serb authorities in Banja Luka
9 when you raised these issues?
10 A. It was the typical response for that time. Later on as the
11 situation escalated, it was out of the question to even complain. For
12 this also you have documents. Anyone who complained, risked their life.
13 There is enough evidence of that.
14 Q. Do you recall what was SJB chief Tutus's response to the issues
15 you were raising at this meeting?
16 A. This, what's his name. Excuse me, I can't remember the last
17 name. I know it begins with a T. Yes, yes, we have his name on the
18 record. He tried to mention our representative on the police force,
19 Mr. Bajazit Jahic but by that time Bajazit Jahic had already been
20 dismissed as a Bosniak because he had refused to sign the document on
21 loyalty. And this document on loyalty also implied availability for the
22 front line, the front line service. His name was Tutus, is that who you
24 Q. That's right. Now, in your prior testimony, you mentioned
25 attending a meeting with Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen in Banja Luka in
1 September of 1992 and at that meeting you raised once again a number of
2 concerns regarding treatment of the non-Serb population in Banja Luka and
4 When you met with Vance and Owen on that occasion, can you tell
5 us the names of the Bosnian Serb officials who were present?
6 A. I cannot tell you who was present at the talks directly with Lord
7 Owen and Cyrus Vance because various groups came to these talks. We came
8 as a group from the SDA. There was a group from the SDS and from the
9 HDZ, but I can't tell you who was sitting in the hall. It was a hall
10 double the size of this one, and this led to a conference room where the
11 co-chairmen were sitting. In that hall, at that hour you could see the
12 highest representatives of various community, Mr. Karadzic,
13 Mr. Kupresanin, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Brdjanin, I believe
14 Vukic was there as well. I probably omitted some of them, but I can't
15 recall them. But you can find more names in the documentation drawn up
16 at the time.
17 Q. These individuals you just mentioned, were they present when you
18 were telling Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance about the various problems that
19 the non-Serb population was suffering in Banja Luka in 1992?
20 A. We acquainted the co-chairmen not only with the situation in
21 Banja Luka but the entire Bosnian Krajina, and after that while they were
22 still in the offices and conference rooms, it was offered to hold
23 parallel with the talks press conferences. I don't know whether we were
24 the first, and I was accompanied by Mr. Hadjagic vice-president, and it
25 was approximately as far as the door from the co-chairmen. We had a desk
1 facing about 50 reporters from all corners of the former Yugoslavia, but
2 also many foreign reporters, and if I can draw a comparison to make it
3 clearer, we stated at that press conference verbatim, everything that we
4 had told the co-chairmen, so our communication with them was completely
5 transparent and open to the public, and it could be broadcast not only in
6 Banja Luka, but worldwide, truly worldwide because there were reporters
7 from the US
8 indirectly or directly, if you wish, while we were waiting our turn to
9 speak to Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, we familiarised them with the situation
10 with their own -- in their own territory, conditionally speaking their
11 own territory.
12 Q. Just to clarify, this press conference where you reiterated all
13 these problems that were occurring for the non-Serb population in Banja
14 Luka, were the Bosnian Serb officials also present at that press
16 A. Yes, they were sitting behind the reporters. They had not left
17 the hall. They did not leave. In order to leave they would have to pass
18 by us because that was the only exit from that amphitheatre. And I have
19 to correct you on one point, if you allow me. We did not discuss only
20 problems because we use the word problem mainly to talk about minor
21 things, this was about genocide. At that conference information was
22 given loud and clear about the Omarska camp, Manjaca camp, Susica near
23 Mrkonic Grad. About the concentration camp of Trnopolje and the
24 massacres when hundreds of women, children, and men were killed.
25 Q. Thank you. I want to move on to one final topic.
1 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could bring up what has been admitted now
2 as P459.10.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 Tutus could you ask the witness he was SJB chief where?
5 MR. OLMSTED:
6 Q. Mr. Krzic, you just heard the Judge's question. Do you recall
7 for what municipality was SJB chief Tutus the chief of?
8 A. I think it's the municipality of Banja Luka.
9 Q. Now, we are of moving --
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: My problem is, I don't find Banja Luka SJB on the
11 chart so I didn't find SJB chief Tutus.
12 MR. OLMSTED: We'll have to look at those charts. Banja Luka is
13 one of the indicted municipalities, and it should be there. We'll
14 correct it if there's a mistake. Sorry about that, Your Honour.
15 Q. Now, I'd like to just briefly cover the issue of Vecici in Kotor
16 Varos. You testified in Brdjanin that you were involved in the
17 negotiations with the non-Serbs in that village. What we have before you
18 is a report that you wrote that's part of your prior statement that
19 discusses this event, these negotiations, but in the interest of time, I
20 want to jump ahead in it and get to a very important point. You describe
21 how you were told to go to Vecici to negotiate with them to surrender in
22 this document, and when you arrived in Kotor Varos before going to Vecici
23 you met with some Bosnian Serb officials. We would like to verify is
24 that at that meeting in Kotor Varos, which Bosnian Serb officials were
1 A. When I arrived there, together with another Bosniak on the
2 Executive Board of the SDA, and together with representatives of the HDZ,
3 I met Colonel Peulic for the first time, and also Mr. Balaban. I can't
4 recall his first name now, but I recognised him from knowing his brother,
5 a doctor in Banja Luka, very well. Then there was Mr. Zupljanin, also
6 Mr. Zdravko Pejic, a police commander in Kotor Varos covering also the
7 territory of surrounding villages.
8 Q. To clarify, when you say "Mr. Zupljanin," is that the accused in
9 this case?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you stand behind the information you provide in this report as
12 you testify today?
13 A. Yes, if I can see -- well, this is my own report, although I'd
14 like to see the second page as well, if possible.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, could we look at the second page. And
16 perhaps --
17 Q. You are looking for the signature?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at the last page then. There it
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is my report done within
22 24 hours after the event.
23 MR. OLMSTED:
24 Q. Now, I'd like you to look at 65 ter Exhibit 10215.
25 JUDGE HALL
2 MR. OLMSTED: That's right, it's already in. This is part of his
3 92 ter package.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 MR. OLMSTED:
6 Q. Now, if you could just take a look at this document. Did you
7 receive a copy of this document in 1992?
8 A. I think I got the original, or one of the originals, because as
9 far as I can remember, there was an accompanying report with this
10 decision which I can't see here. There was an accompanying document
11 indicating even the colour of the stamp. Anyway, I got this document
12 from a person who was in Kotor Varos.
13 Q. Could you tell us who you got this document from and who he was?
14 A. Is that absolutely necessary?
15 MR. OLMSTED: Well, perhaps can we go into private session, and
16 he provides the name, if there's a -- that is a valid concern that this
17 is a person who is not before this Tribunal who might have some security
18 interests that we don't know about.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 5146-5147 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. Your Honours, I believe the rules are
12 and the jurisprudence is clear about this, the Prosecution have to ask to
13 amend the 65 ter list first and then we would be given the opportunity to
14 object or not object and then Your Honours will decide.
15 Now, I understand this is a shortcut, but I believe my learned
16 friend will follow up the procedure by asking for amendment of the 65 ter
17 list. As far as the Stanisic Defence is concerned, we do not object to
18 this document being admitted to 65 ter list and to evidence.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic.
20 MR. PANTELIC: No objection for us.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL
23 has kindly reminded you of, Mr. Olmsted, on your application by motion
24 without notice to admit this document -- to include this document on your
25 65 ter list and thus enable it to be admitted as an exhibit, there being
1 no objection from the other side, the document may be admitted and
3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. And just one
4 administrative matter. I'm sorry.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P469, Your Honours.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Seems to be my trend today, to interrupt. Just as
7 an administrative matter, I showed him the document before, this was an
8 article. It was 65 ter Exhibit 10214. We just asked that be marked for
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. OLMSTED: Then, Your Honours, the Prosecution is done asking
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 10214 will become P470 marked for
14 identification, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, what is the reason why you wish to
16 have the article tendered for -- marked for identification? Because
17 normally when we do MFI
18 and so what do you expect shall happen to allow the Chamber to finally
19 admit or possibly admit this article into evidence?
20 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honour, given the objections raised by
21 the Defence regarding other articles, this one was more just for context
22 purposes but at this stage we thought we'll mark it for identification
23 just so it's on the record with a P number in case we need to refer to it
24 again with another witness if it comes up. Obviously there are other
25 names mentioned in there, some who may or may not be witnesses.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HALL
3 document were admitted as an exhibit at this stage and it may be so
4 entered and marked.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in that case, Your Honour, I would welcome
6 the opportunity to object again on the very same reasons why I objected
7 earlier to newspaper articles.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 that you have made in respect to similar matters today that is noted for
10 the record. Thank you Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
12 MR. PANTELIC: And Zupljanin Defence is also supporting this
13 position, for the sake of the [indiscernible] of time we didn't raise
14 after Stanisic Defence but for the record we are supporting this
15 position. Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, may I proceed with the
19 JUDGE HALL
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you gave a certain amount of statements
23 to the OTP beginning with 1994 to date?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. One of the statements was given in December 2000 and in February
1 2001, do you remember that statement?
2 A. I don't know which statement you are talking about.
3 Q. I'm talking about your statement, your witness statement, the one
4 you signed.
5 A. If it's signed by me, then I understand. I thought you were
6 talking about a document.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I would like to suggest that to be
8 fair to the witness we give him a copy of his statement in a language he
9 understands so he can follow.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, this statement is
12 1D03-0002 in e-court. This is a statement by this witness from 2000 and
14 [Trial Chamber and legal officer
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber feels a bit uncomfortable -- right,
19 here it is, thank you very much. We can now see the document. We
20 thought that you were going to have a long discussion --
21 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, I just provided the hard copy to the
22 witness in all fairness to him in order that he can shuffle through it,
23 and the document is in e-court with the proper number.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, did you have a look at the statement,
25 is it your statement from 2000, 2001?
1 A. The first page that I can see indeed is.
2 Q. Look at the last page to see your signature and your
4 A. There's no signature, but I suppose that's it.
5 Q. There's no signature because you only signed the English version
6 of the statement?
7 A. I cannot remember all the details. You are probably right. I
8 signed only the English version because there was no time to have it
9 translated then and there.
10 Q. Let me then show you your statement in English to verify the
12 Just confirm this is your signature.
13 A. It is.
14 Q. Look at the last page or the one but last.
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Thank you. Does the English version have the same dates as the
17 one I gave you before?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher give me back the
21 English statement to avoid confusion.
22 Q. Witness, you recall, it's a very detailed statement over 40
24 A. On balance I remember.
25 Q. In addition to the facts from the relevant time that you
1 described and in addition to your answers to specific questions, you also
2 provided clarification of certain documents as well as passages from your
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That statement is not part of the 92 ter package and therefore I
8 must ask you, do you stand by the statement that you gave as being
9 truthful and that you replied truthfully to all you signed?
10 A. I always strove to gave truthful answers.
11 Q. Thank you. So we have no reason to doubt that anything contained
12 in that statement is not true?
13 A. But I must say that as far as I remember during the trial here
14 once there was discussion, but I don't remember the exact case, when a
15 discrepancy between the English translation and the Bosnian one was
16 identified, and it was clarified here in a way.
17 Q. I understand you. But apart from these inadvertent mistakes, the
18 facts mentioned in the statement are generally correct; right?
19 A. Yes, as far as I know.
20 Q. Tell me, Witness, you were the president of the SDA, of the Banja
21 Luka municipality; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If I remember well, you were in that position from 1991 on; is
24 that correct?
25 A. To be more precise, from the end of 1991 onward.
1 Q. Do you remember the initiative launched by the SDA and
2 implemented in the territory of the Banja Luka municipality about the
3 separation of some parts of the Banja Luka municipality and they becoming
4 separate municipalities? When I say that, I'm referring to the part of
5 the Banja Luka municipality called Stari Grad old town, which is a part
6 of Banja Luka city, and the settlement of Ivanjska in the Banja Luka
7 municipality, according to that SDA initiative separate municipalities
8 were to be established there toward the end of 1991 or in early 1992, do
9 you remember?
10 A. Yes, I remember, but I stress the fact that these were only
12 Q. All right.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit P460
14 to the witness.
15 Q. That's the map, sir, that you were looking at today with my
16 learned friend the Prosecutor, so if you can identify the Stari Grad part
17 of Banja Luka, can you please mark it with the pen that you have?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I misquoted. I would
19 like to see 65 ter 10213. So as to avoid confusing the Chamber.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I say something before I do so?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Yes, of course.
23 A. As far as I remember, that initiative wasn't precise in terms of
24 territory. I can't remember the local communities in question, I can
25 only roughly outline the territory.
1 Q. All right. You will show us on the map once we see it.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10213. Your Honours, we
3 have this map which is marked P460. Oh, now we have it.
4 Q. Can you see it? This is the map that the OTP showed you earlier
5 today and just approximately because it isn't essential, show me which
6 part of Banja Luka the Stari Grad is which under the SDA initiative
7 should have become a separate municipality.
8 A. I believe that one part of this planned municipality of Stari
9 Grad is not shown here. It's along the right bank of the Vrbas River
10 toward Seher.
11 Q. Okay, then do mark the part that can be seen on the map, please.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. And now to make it completely clear, can you mark the part that
14 was supposed to become part of the new municipality, could you mark it
15 with lines?
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Thank you. So the part that you marked with the blue pen would
18 be part of the municipality that was the object of the SDA initiative
19 that should have been separated from Banja Luka and become a separate
20 municipality; is that correct?
21 A. No. This territory -- yes, it is this territory, but the rest of
22 what you said is not true. Can I explain?
23 Q. Go ahead.
24 A. Well, first of all, it was not a pure SDA initiative. It was a
25 joint initiative in which the HDZ took part and the leftist parties as --
1 are something, I don't -- whatever it's called, and then the planned
2 municipality of Stari Grad shouldn't have been taken out of Banja Luka
3 The aim was the re-organisation of the bulkiest municipality in former
5 Q. Sir, allow me to interrupt you. I asked you a very concrete
6 question so kindly answer it because our time is limited. This isn't
7 this significant. I know I'm asking the question, and I asked you
8 whether what you marked in blue on this map represents part of the Stari
9 Grad municipality, and the SDA was one of those who initiated its
10 creation, irrespective of the intention of with whether it was supposed
11 to become a separate municipality or community of municipalities or
12 anything else?
13 A. I must add something else, that there was an initiative board
14 headed by experts, but I wasn't part of that board, and from that aspect
15 I was not familiar with the exact limits of the municipality, but I did
16 know that all the municipalities were multi-ethnic and this one in
17 question was Serb dominated, were the Serb majority.
18 Q. Sir, I do kindly ask you to listen to my question. What you have
19 marked with the blue pen, is that part of the planned municipality of
20 Stari Grad in 1991 or 1992, yes or no?
21 A. With a probability of 70 per cent.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
24 into evidence.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D154, Your Honours.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now please
3 show to the witness, 65 ter 3144.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you can see this map here, the one on
7 the left is the map of the Banja Luka municipality isn't it, roughly?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Now, please, let me first ask you, there was also an initiative
10 for Ivanjska to become a separate municipality; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, I think so, but if you want to ask me about the borders, I
13 Q. I'm not asking about the borders, I'm only asking about
14 geographical notions. So the settlement of Ivanjska, is it right that
15 others were also planned such as Stricici?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then Centar; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Krupa na Vrbasu; right?
20 A. I think so.
21 Q. Bronzani Majdan?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you now use the same blue pen to mark these geographical
24 entities on the map. Ivanjska, Centar, Krupa na Vrbasu, Bronzani Majdan
25 and Stricici, if you know where they are, approximately of course, just
1 mark circles.
2 A. That's Ivanjska. I don't think that Stricici is marked here but
3 I can approximately mark where it is located. And what else did you
5 Q. Krupa na Vrbasu?
6 A. You said Centar approximately.
7 Q. So these are approximately the municipalities to be newly
9 A. Stari Grad isn't marked here as it should be hereabouts.
10 Q. Yes, please do add Stari Grad.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
14 with the witness's marks into evidence unless the OTP object.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D155, Your Honours.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Sir, isn't it true that in some of these parts of the Banja Luka
19 municipality that were envisaged to become new municipalities, and in the
20 community of municipalities or association of municipalities of Banja
21 Luka, the Croats and Muslims were the majority population?
22 A. I don't believe that in any municipality the Bosniaks are the
23 majority population. I'm not sure that this applies to Ivanj ska though
24 because these supposed municipalities all have a mixed population, so I
25 doubt that anywhere there would be an absolute majority of one ethnicity.
1 Whereas in the other municipalities that was possible.
2 Q. Which other municipalities are you referring to?
3 A. Well, if you speak about Stricici and the centre of town and even
4 the so-called Stari Grad municipality was predominantly Serb populated.
5 You could tell by the number of representatives in the town Assembly.
6 And I'm convinced that the Serbs were the majority there. So the
7 intention was not to separate ethnicities.
8 Q. Then what was the intention behind this fragmentation of Banja
9 Luka municipality?
10 A. Even then experts irrespective of their ethnicity wanted to help
11 Banja Luka. It wasn't actually us. That was an initiative that goes
12 back to communist Yugoslavia
14 here. So this all stemmed from an economic survey which was made during
15 communist Yugoslavia
16 Q. Sir, I must interrupt you. Communist Yugoslavia is no concern of
17 ours here. I would like you to answer my question. You remember that
18 you were criticized at the time in early 1992 that is, that you are
19 creating municipalities with a Muslim majority out of parts of the then
20 Banja Luka municipality, do you remember that? Were you criticised, yes
21 or no?
22 A. I don't remember such criticism.
23 Q. But do you remember that you gave an interview to the newspapers
24 and which you say no matter what they are saying it isn't true that we
25 want to create municipalities with a Muslim majority in parts of the
1 Banja Luka municipality?
2 A. Well, I would have to see that interview, but isn't that actually
3 corroborating what I said a minute ago?
4 Q. Well, I'm actually wondering why a local journalist is asking you
5 about creating municipalities with a Muslim majority, and you are here
6 telling us that Serbs were the majority in some of these parts?
7 A. Well, yes, absolutely.
8 Q. Let me just show you something to refresh your memory lest
9 somebody should think that I want to confuse you or lead you astray.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please show the
11 witness document 1D03-0156.
12 Q. Can you see this? Is this an interview you gave, sir? It says
13 on the side 17th of January, 1992, and underneath it says "Muslimanski
14 Glasnik," is that so?
15 A. If I can give you more detailed --
16 Q. No, no, no, I just want to know whether you remember this
17 document and whether this is an interview you gave?
18 A. This is an interview that was taken from "Oslobodenje".
19 Q. But that's your interview, isn't it?
20 A. I have to read it first. I have trouble remembering and this is
21 very small.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please enlarge the
23 version in the language that the witness understands, please.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I know, Your Honours, I just want to deal with
1 this. I'm not offering this as ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my interview, but what
3 do you want to know?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You see, at the very end of this interview of yours?
6 A. No, I can't see it.
7 Q. It's under the other document. The last paragraph. And you say
8 here too I want to stress that this isn't about the establishment of
9 Muslim municipalities but about the streamlining of the two big current
10 municipality of Banja Luka, et cetera. Do you remember?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to deal
14 with another topic now, so this may be a convenient moment.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 courtroom tomorrow at 9.00, and I would remind the witness that having
17 been sworn, you cannot communicate with the lawyers from either side in
18 this matter, and in such conversations as you may have with anybody
19 outside the courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony before the
20 Tribunal. So thank you, sir, you are excused to return at 9.00 tomorrow
21 morning. We rise.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day of
25 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.