1 Friday, 20 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.16 a.m.
5 [B/C/S on English channel] [French on English channel]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
7 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. Thank you,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 Good morning to everybody.
12 Can we have the appearances, please.
13 MR. HANNIS: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the Office of the
14 Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis, along with Gramsci Di Fazio and
15 Crispian Smith.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
17 Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: And may the record show that we are sitting
19 pursuant Rule 15 bis, Judge Hall being absent today.
20 Mr. Zecevic, we were told you had a -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm
21 awfully sorry.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
23 Igor Pantelic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm sorry, Mr. Krgovic.
25 Mr. Zecevic.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Your Honours, just a quick clarification. Yesterday, the matter
3 of principle tu quoque was brought up. The jurisprudence of this
4 Tribunal to our knowledge relies on the Kupreskic decision of
5 14 January 2000, and it's IT-95-16, number of the case. In that
6 judgement, the tu quoque principle has been rejected on the basis that
7 the accused cannot exculpate himself from a crime by showing that another
8 has committed a similar crime, and additionally the Chamber pointed out
9 that the norms of international humanitarian law are absolute and
10 unconditional and they are not based on reciprocity or contingent upon
11 the adherence to these norms by the other party or parties to the
13 That is our understanding, and we are trying to abide by this
14 rule. And I certainly hope that we are in agreement with the
15 Trial Chamber on the basis of the authority to the tu quoque defence.
16 I am raising this, Your Honours, because after reviewing the
17 document which was disclosed late yesterday, I am going to ask a number
18 of questions of the witness -- pose a number of questions to the witness
19 concerning the arming of Muslims, but this is not aimed at tu quoque
20 defence. It is aimed to establish the credibility of this witness and
21 to -- to establish the context of the events that happened in
22 Bosanski Samac. That is what I wanted to --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber accepts, of course, your challenge of
3 the witness's credibility, but I am uncertain of exactly what you have in
4 mind when you wish to raise the arming of the Muslims, what exactly turns
5 on that point in your view?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I posed a number of questions
7 yesterday to the witness, and I should say understandably so because he's
8 a politician, he's a leader of the SDA, he's reluctant to give a
9 straightforward answer. Now, the document which I received yesterday,
10 his remembrance, the document which he wrote, he clearly explains how
11 were they armed, how were they organised, he was -- that he was a
12 president of the Crisis Staff, that they have the town command, and
13 everything else. All his answers yesterday were denial of these facts,
14 and that is why I need to challenge the witness's credibility on that.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So it is only for the purpose of challenging his
17 credibility that you are putting these questions to him?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: That is a fact, then the -- and it also shows the
19 context of the events on Bosanski Samac, Your Honours, because we know
20 that to be true.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the reason -- the reason
22 for introducing this evidence is on two plains, according to Mr. Zecevic.
23 First, context. Now, in his transcript from 2001 spreading over six days
24 or so, whatever the figure was, there's ample evidence of the context,
25 the background, of events in Bosanski Samac. The witness in his evidence
1 from 2001 goes into issues of demographics, the political setup in 1990
2 and 1991, the development of the three major parties, and the events
3 leading up to April 16 and 17 in 1992. So there's a vast mass of
4 evidence, of contextual evidence, in Bosanski Samac; it's amply covered.
5 And the Prosecution -- the Defence need not enhance that; it serves no
6 purpose; it's there.
7 The second issue is credibility. If you're going to attack the
8 credibility of the witness on an issue - and it can be any issue,
9 including arming - the way to do it is to show inconsistency, not to
10 simply adduce evidence of the arming of SDA factions or SDA members. You
11 have to use that in order to show the witness has not told the truth in
12 some particular fashion. You can't just ask questions about the issue
13 and leave it at that. It has to be related -- it has to somehow make a
14 connection to show that he's there not telling the truth.
15 So I don't have any objection to asking questions about arming of
16 SDA factions or groups within the SDA, but only as you can see -- only
17 when there's a direct link showing that he's -- the witness is not
18 telling the truth, because how else can you use it to attack credibility
19 or deal with the issue of credibility?
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would tend to agree because I think that at
21 this point we have already received vast amounts of evidence to show that
22 the Muslims did arm themselves, that they did organise themselves in TOs,
23 and that they did set up Crisis Staffs and all that. This is evidence
24 that is already on the record.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm afraid, Your Honours, I must disagree. The --
1 this refers to the specific municipality of Bosanski Samac. I agree with
2 you in principle, that is -- that is a fact that it has been done all
3 over Bosnia, but the evidence for Bosanski Samac is actually not on the
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I accept that.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
7 Can the witness now be brought in, please.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Tihic.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: I have to remind you that you are still on your
13 Mr. Zecevic, you may continue.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: SULEJMAN TIHIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tihic.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. Mr. Tihic, for continuity, in view of our conversation
21 yesterday --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now please be
23 shown 1D3.
24 Q. -- and let me remind you we discussed yesterday about certain
25 moves by the SDA and its local boards throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 and how they were all leading to the establishment of separate or special
2 municipalities. I will now show you a document by the SDA or from the
3 SDA which amounts to an instruction as to how local communes should
4 secede, as it were, from municipalities and establish new municipalities.
5 And I would like to ask you whether you're familiar with that document.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull up 1D3.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, it is not true
8 that the SDA ever did anything in terms of establishing municipalities.
9 That was the policy of the SDS. Generally, the SDA never followed such a
10 policy. And as for this specific document --
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Would you please take a look at it. You see it says there,
13 Request by the local commune to leave the municipality; and then it says,
14 under A, The political and moral action; and then under A, Citizens
15 should bring the decision; and so on and so forth. And then on page 2 we
16 can see that there is a stamp and a signature appearing on the document.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 2, please.
18 Q. Please take a look at page 2 and tell me whether you have ever
19 received this document, you in the Municipal Board of the SDA in
20 Bosanski Samac?
21 A. No, I have never received it. And that was not the policy that
22 we followed. We just didn't have that kind of situation in our
23 municipality, and the organisation was in technical terms different.
24 Q. Very well. Speaking about authenticity, sir, yesterday I showed
25 you document 1D00-2787, and I made a print-out so that you can take it to
1 the hotel and peruse it. You were unable to recognise that document.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have it on the
3 monitors now.
4 Q. And yesterday, on page 1.353 [as interpreted], I established that
5 in your testimony in Bosanski Samac you had actually confirmed that this
6 document was an authentic document of the SDA party, and it was
7 introduced as an exhibit, Prosecution exhibit, in that case under
8 number P13.
9 A. I said that I did not -- I had not signed this document, and I
10 said this yesterday as well. And I also said - and I want to repeat
11 it - that the content of this document is in keeping with the decision
12 that was adopted by the Presidency, that all groups and armed individuals
13 should join Territorial Defence; in other words, the legal institutions.
14 Q. Mr. Tihic, I have to interrupt you. This document speaks for
15 itself. My question to you is: Do you accept or can you confirm that
16 this document is, in fact, a document of the Party of Democratic Action?
17 A. Well, judging by its content, it could be, but I never signed
18 this document.
19 Q. But if I tell you that on page 1.355 of the Simic transcript you
20 had actually confirmed that ...
21 A. Well, I couldn't have confirmed it because I simply did not sign
22 this document so I couldn't have said that. But looking at the content
23 and in view of the position of the Presidency, it is possible that such a
24 document was produced and sent out from the party. But I did not sign
1 Q. Sir, would you please focus on my question. My question was: Do
2 you accept that this is a document of the Party for Democratic Action,
3 regardless of who it was who signed it; yes or no?
4 A. I'm not sure. It's possible.
5 Q. My next question then: How do you explain that, that in the
6 Simic case you -- in the Samac case, Simic et al., you confirmed - and
7 again I'll say that was in transcript page 1355 - you confirmed that and
8 it was actually accepted as an exhibit, as number P13?
9 A. Well, I could have confirmed it in the same way that I'm
10 confirming it today.
11 Q. Mr. Simic [as interpreted], you did affirm that it was an
12 authentic document of the SDA in the Samac case, and I'm asking you today
13 whether you can confirm the same thing here today; yes or no?
14 A. Well, I can only confirm in the same way that I've already done
15 it, just as I've said it.
16 Q. Well, tell me, then, what did you say? What I want to know is:
17 Are you saying that this is an authentic SDA document?
18 A. Well, I said that it is possible, judging by the instruction --
19 by the contents of the document, because there was this instruction from
20 the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina that all these groups should
21 join the Territorial Defence of municipalities. It's possible, but I did
22 not sign it.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to waste
24 any more time on this. If there are no objections from the Prosecution,
25 I would like to tender this document into evidence.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: No objections.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document is accepted as
4 Exhibit P -- 1D00346. Thank you, Your Honours.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Sir, Mr. Tihic, yesterday we talked about some facts about the
7 situation in Bosanski Samac in 1991 and 1992. I put a few questions to
8 you, and you did not answer my questions or at least your answers were
9 not clear. Last night I read your memoirs, that's document 1D03-4712.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull it up on the
12 Q. Mr. Tihic, is this a -- your document? I mean, are these your
14 A. Not this first page; but as for the rest, probably, yes. I don't
15 know where you got this cover page from.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps the Court Officer could
17 help me.
18 Q. I would like to give you the hard copy of this document so that
19 you can leaf through it.
20 A. Yes, this is -- this would be it, except for the first cover
21 page, because the cover page was added later on because I wrote this in
22 Rijeka when I was released from the camp.
23 Q. Well, why don't you keep that hard copy so that you can follow.
24 Sir, yesterday we talked about this and you said - and you were
25 very explicit in answering my question about a sabotage platoon which was
1 part of the unit that was established by the SDA. On page 7 of this
2 document, that would be page 8 in e-court of the B/C/S version and pages
3 6 and 7 of the English version, but I do have to note here that the
4 translation is not quite precise. On page 7, and I believe that's on the
5 third sentence, you say:
6 "Professional seminars were organised so that we, members of
7 Municipal Boards, sent people to receive sabotage training. Among the
8 people from Sarajevo, there was also Sefer Halilovic."
9 I think --
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] This is page 8 in e-court of the
11 B/C/S version and pages 6 and 7 of the English version. Could we please
12 show that on the screens so that we can all follow.
13 All right. Now we have the correct B/C/S page -- no, no, no, the
14 previous page, the one that you just showed was the -- the right page,
15 but in English we need 6 and 7. The page 7 in B/C/S. In English it is
16 on pages 6 and 7.
17 Q. So, sir, it says here that you sent people for sabotage training;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's what it says here, and we did do that. But if you
20 look at the entire context, you will see that it was really nothing very
21 professional or serious. It was really very amateurish.
22 Q. Well, I don't know. After that you say that you have established
23 co-operation with the Slavonia HDZ, trying to keep that secret, and you
24 tried to create some kind of coalition with the left bloc. Now, I want
25 to ask you this: Is it true that you sent people for sabotage training,
1 because that's what you say in your memoirs; yes or no?
2 A. Well, yes, we did. They went once and then they returned, but
3 that was really minor. But you have to bear in mind that the policy of
4 the SDA was to act legally, but the Territorial Staff, the Serbian half
5 of it, did not permit that.
6 Q. Well, Mr. Tihic, speaking about legal institutions, was partisan
7 sending of citizens for sabotage training legal or not?
8 A. Well, you see, if on the other side you have another party that
9 is illegally acting by arming only one ethnicity, what do you -- what did
10 you -- what were we supposed to do? Were we just supposed to sit and
12 Q. So in other words in response to an action that was illegal or
13 illegitimate, you, too, were doing something illegal?
14 A. Well, we were just trying --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues]...
16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: So will you please slow down a little bit in
18 order for the interpreters to be able to follow. Thanks.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: This is becoming, I submit, again, we're
22 descending into pure tu quoque territory. I can't, for the life of me,
23 see how this line of cross-examination on the memoirs is dealing with the
24 credibility of this witness, those issues. It's dealing solely, as far
25 as I can tell from the questioning and the lines of the question, with,
1 once again, the issue of arming of the SDA and sending people off for
2 sabotage training and so on, and nothing else. It's purely and simply
4 So I fear that the issue that we raised and ventilated earlier,
5 we're coming back to that.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I totally disagree, Your Honours. My learned
8 friend can read the transcript of yesterday and he will find the
9 reference to the -- to the platoon -- the special platoon of the SDA,
10 where I asked the witness and he denied that it existed. Now we
11 see - and he confirmed today - that they in fact did have the training
12 for the special platoon of the SDA. And then the -- I'm going only
13 further because --
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, would you then please ask the
15 witness about the existence of platoon, because sending some people for
16 training and having actually a platoon existing is not the same. So --
17 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- please go to the question you want to ask about
19 this and the challenge you want to make.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Sir, yesterday I showed you a document - let me just see where I
22 have it.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honours.
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It is 1D03-4817. Could we please
1 have the document on the screen.
2 Q. Sir, yesterday I showed you a document which I think is a list of
3 some platoons formed by the SDA in Bosanski Samac. In particular, this
4 seems to be an engineering sabotage platoon which was supposed to be a
5 standing formation commanded by platoon commander Ratif Atic. Under
6 item 1, we have the sabotage section, comprising ten members plus the
7 commander and three reserves.
8 A. First of all, I'm certain no such platoon existed. The only
9 thing there could have been, perhaps could have been a group of people
10 with hunting rifles. I don't know how authentic this document is. I am
11 positive that it did not exist. The people listed here had nothing to do
12 with what is stated therein. They had nothing to do with any platoons or
13 special units or anything of that sort; that is certain. And besides,
14 time has shown what happened once Samac came under attack. They did not
16 Q. So you confirm to us that you sent people for training, but they
17 were not organised into platoons; correct?
18 A. I confirmed that they left twice or thrice and that nothing much
19 came out of that training and that no platoons were ever formed.
20 Q. So people went for training, but yet they never -- were never
21 organised into platoons; is that what you're saying?
22 A. Well, an attempt was made at training.
23 Q. Very well.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now we'll need to go back to
25 document 1D03-4712, the same page. It is page 8 in the B/C/S and 7 in
1 the English version.
2 Q. Yesterday when I asked you about the Crisis Staff of the SDA and
3 the command formed within the party headed by Alija Fitozovic, you
4 responded negatively. However, in these memoirs of yours, at page 7, you
6 "Simultaneously within the party we formed a Crisis Staff,
7 command, and produced the necessary documents such as a war plan and
8 alike. Specifically, Alija Fitozovic was in charge of that, given that
9 no other Muslims wanted to take part and be the commander."
10 Do you see that?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. Is that true?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Thank you. Tell me this: Yesterday I asked you about arming.
15 You were non-committal in terms of your answer when you said that
16 basically everyone was arming themselves. It was something to that
17 effect --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, it would be helpful if you could
19 indicate the exact location of the answer of the witness in the
20 transcript of yesterday. Are you able to do that?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I was -- because I never
22 received the transcript at home and it --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, I can understand.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I didn't receive the transcript, and I couldn't
25 locate it before.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Please have a look at page 12, which is page 13
2 in the B/C/S, and I suppose it is page 12 and 13 in the English version.
3 There you talk about some talks the SDA held with the army on the
4 establishment of check-points, and you say:
5 "We agreed that a check-point at Uzarije be established ..."
6 You specify a reason, and you also say that the true reason was
7 that we knew that arms were being transported across the bridge into
8 Bosnia so that such a check-point at Uzarije would prevent any such
9 activity. Is that true?
10 A. Well, it is true, because in Bosnia there were seven army corps
11 which sided with one people only. The rest of us tried to do as best we
12 could, and this is why we wanted to close off the bridge.
13 Q. Very well. Yesterday we discussed the Patriotic League and the
14 Green Berets. Do you remember that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. Again, your answer was rather unclear. At page 15, in the last
17 paragraph, which is page 16 in e-court in the B/C/S and I suppose page 15
18 in the English version.
19 There you say that since you did not expect an attack on
20 Bosanski Samac, among other reasons because on the other side of the Sava
21 there were strong Croatian formations, among those units were the
22 Green Berets which crossed the bridge on a number of occasions, once even
23 disarming the Serb policemen, i.e., the policemen of the
24 Bosanski Samac Police Station who were Serb.
25 "Izet ... Zubak and I went to Bosanski Samac, and I spoke to
1 their commander. We arranged that they would no longer do that since
2 they could cause a counter action by the Serbs on our side of the river."
3 If I understand well, you crossed over into Croatia and spoke to
4 the Green Berets' commander who were attached to the Croatian army in
5 Croatian territory, entering Bosnia across the bridge; is that correct?
6 A. Yes. I believe that formation was called the Green Berets in
7 Bosanski Samac. We went there and asked them not to cross the bridge and
8 not to disarm any policemen. Our goal was to avoid any conflict.
9 Q. Very well. Just one more question about this document, on the
10 same page. You say there - and it is the second paragraph from the top,
11 the same in English, you say:
12 "On the eve of the war, an important event took place, which is
13 that Vinko Dragicevic, the chief of the MUP, was sent away, and
14 Lukovic [as interpreted], Dragan was appointed in his position. After
15 the SDS called for the formation of a Serbian MUP, in the Bosanski Samac
16 MUP all employees signed the petition of support to the republican MUP,
17 that is to say for a unified MUP, under the condition that the chief of
18 police and commander submit their resignations. Finally they did so;
19 however, the chief of police tried to resist that for a while."
20 Do you recall that?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Mr. Tihic, Vinko Dragicevic was the chief of the public security
23 station appointed by the ministry under normal and legal procedure;
25 A. [No interpretation]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the
2 witness's answer.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could the witness repeat his answer, please.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. When this petition of support to the republican MUP was being
7 signed, if I understand your words correctly, it was then that the
8 employees of the public security station in Bosanski Samac requested that
9 the chief of police and the station commander be removed from their
10 position before they signed any petitions?
11 A. Yes, one of them was a Croat and the other a Serb.
12 Q. And then I would say they were forcibly removed, and we can see
13 that the chief of police tried to resist it?
14 A. Yes, they were removed, but following the regular procedure.
15 Q. That is precisely the thrust of my question. Were they removed
16 legally or forcibly?
17 A. The legal procedure of the republican MUP was followed.
18 Q. The ministry issued a decision about their removal?
19 A. Yes, and it also issued a decision on new appointments.
20 Q. Are you certain of that?
21 A. I am.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just for my understanding, who are
25 we talking about here? Who was removed and who was appointed?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: May I clarify that with the witness or --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Of course.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Sir, on that occasion when the petition was being signed by the
5 employees, they asked that the chief of the public security station,
6 Vinko Dragicevic, be removed, he was a Croat; and the commander of the
7 public security station, who was a Serb. I can't recall his name at this
8 moment. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And new people were appointed. As requested, Dragan Lukac was
11 appointed chief; he was also a Croat?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the commander --
14 A. Another Serb.
15 Q. Yes, another Serb person?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown --
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I just ask, out of curiosity, what was the
20 purpose of replacing a Croat with another Croat and a Serb with another
21 Serb in those leading positions? Why would they have to be replaced at
22 all if the purpose was to maintain a joint police station in
23 Bosanski Samac?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the two of them did not
25 co-operate. They kept clashing, causing problems in the police.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
3 1D00-2782. It is an SDA document dated the 19th of December, 1991,
4 signed by acting SDA secretary, Hasan Cengic. It was forwarded to all
5 Executive Boards of the SDA.
6 Q. Did you also receive that document in late 1991?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in the
8 witness's version, and perhaps it should be focused a bit more.
9 Q. Can you make it out, Mr. Tihic?
10 A. I can see it.
11 Q. It was sent to all Executive Boards of the SDA. As subject, it
12 specifies personnel changes in the public security stations, referring
13 back to their letter of the 19th of August, 1991. Do you see that?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Do you remember having received this document?
16 A. I don't.
17 Q. Perhaps I can jog your memory. In the contents, it is stated
18 that Mr. Jusuf Pusina was appointed assistant minister for police affairs
19 and Mirsad Srebrenikovic was appointed assistant minister for personnel
20 affairs. It is also expected that our co-operation, meaning the SDA, was
21 going to be more successful and try to compensate for what was not done
22 in the previous period of time. Does this refresh your memory?
23 A. I know about Mirsad and his appointment, but as for
24 Srebrenikovic, I don't know. It is possible that this document arrived,
25 but in the Samac police we did not have the right to have our commander
1 or chief. So this did not pertain to our people in terms of the number
2 of the population. Perhaps it wasn't sent.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just one moment, please.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's something I don't know -- don't
6 understand in the document or in the witness's answer. The document
7 speaks about Mr. Mirsad Srebrenikovic and the witness speaks about Mirsad
8 on the one hand and Srebrenikovic on the other hand. Is it the same
9 person or is it two different persons?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is an error in the
11 transcript. When the witness said "Mirsad," he said "I know that Mirsad
12 was appointed," and he had in mind Mirsad Srebrenikovic, but we can
13 clarify it with the witness.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Then the question is: Who didn't he know about.
15 "But as for ... I don't know," he said.
16 Mr. Witness, is it about the other gentleman in the document that
17 you didn't know about?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know about Mirsad Srebrenikovic
19 and his appointment. I don't know anything about Jusuf Pusina's
20 appointment. It is possible that he was appointed around the same time.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. That corrects the transcript.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 2 of this document, please.
23 Can we please enlarge it.
24 Q. Can you see, Mr. Tihic, under number 8 it says:
25 "For these posts," and I mean this is in reference to the
1 document, "Sidik Spahic will be the representative from the SDA."
2 Do you remember Mr. Sidik Spahic?
3 A. I don't recall him from that time, but I do remember him from
4 later on when he was the counsel general in Stuttgart. But we did not
5 communicate. We did not appoint either commanders or chiefs, and that is
6 why, to me, this document is unknown. We were not entitled to that, you
8 Q. Let's just clarify this. Our exchanges are too fast again. We
9 overlap. What you mean to say is that in view of the provisions of the
10 inter-party agreement reached between national parties and on the basis
11 of the number of Muslims in Bosanski Samac municipality, you, as the SDA
12 party, were not entitled on the basis of that inter-party agreement to
13 appoint an executive official at the public security station, which is
14 why this communication, this letter, was not relevant to you. And that
15 that is why -- perhaps why you did not recall receiving this; correct?
16 A. Yes, you're right.
17 Q. And just one question, one final question about this document.
18 Yesterday we mentioned Mr. Hasan Cengic. Here we see that it says that
19 this was signed by the acting secretary of the SDA, Hasan Cengic, and we
20 see his signature there. Does this refresh your memory that
21 Mr. Hasan Cengic was the secretary of the SDA party at the headquarters
22 in Sarajevo in late 1991 and early 1992?
23 A. I don't really recall exactly, but I know that he was active in
24 the headquarters. But I think this function mentioned here was actually
25 established later on within our party.
1 Q. Very well.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I would
3 like to tender this document.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. DI FAZIO: The purpose of the evidence or the relevance of
6 the evidence is not entirely clear to me. I wonder if Mr. Zecevic could
7 make clear what -- for what reason he's tendering the document.
8 Otherwise, it's a bit difficult to -- it's not -- obviously, this man,
9 this witness, is not the author of it and so on, but if there's some
10 relevant purpose, I won't object.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] This document clearly shows how and
12 what type of personnel changes were effected within the Ministry of the
13 Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina in late 1991 and in the course of
14 1992. We think that this is very relevant because of the indictment and
15 the facts that ensued in mid -- or, rather, the events in mid-1992. And
16 this is why we move to tender this document, because we feel that it is
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, as the witness doesn't know about
19 this document, would the best course of action not be to mark it for
20 identification through another witness?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. I understand, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: So it will be -- can the Registrar repeat the
23 ID number of the document.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Indeed, Your Honour. Document 1D00-2782 shall be
25 given number 1D00347, marked for identification.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Speaking of this issue, Mr. Tihic, tell us, please, who, as far
4 as you know, appointed Stevan Todorovic as chief of the public security
5 station in Bosanski Samac?
6 A. I don't know that exactly. It was rumoured in the town that a
7 meeting of the Serbian municipality of Samac had been held and that the
8 chief of the police and the president of the municipality had been
9 appointed, and I think that he was appointed at that time, whether by the
10 Assembly, the Municipal Assembly, or someone else, I don't know.
11 Q. Mr. Todorovic was not a professional police officer; right? He
12 was employed someplace else?
13 A. Yes, he was an employee of the wicker furniture factory.
14 Q. If I recall well your testimony in the Samac case, he was a man
15 who did not command much authority in Bosanski Samac or any place else;
17 A. Well, before these events, he was -- he did not have any kind of
18 authority or powers; but once he came to this position, he was
19 inescapable. Nothing could be done without him.
20 Q. It is a fact -- or, rather, I assume that you're aware that as of
21 April 17th up until late October 1992 the Crisis Staff was the body that
22 made all the key decisions in Bosanski Samac; correct?
23 A. Well, at the time, I was outside of Samac, I was not in Samac, so
24 I can't really talk about that.
25 Q. Are you aware that the municipal Crisis Staff decided to appoint
1 a commission for an exchange of the prisoners and other --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: That's document 65 ter 1310.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I've got to object for the reason
4 that the witness has made it plain that he was outside of Samac. And if
5 you read his testimony, you'll see that he was undergoing mistreatment in
6 various prisons for the -- a good part of that year. And he said:
7 "... and I really can't talk about that." And the next question is an
8 immediate invitation to talk about precisely that.
9 Unless the witness has got direct knowledge or some other source
10 of knowledge of Crisis Staff decisions and how they were made - and he
11 says he has that and makes it clear what his source of information
12 is - he shouldn't be asking -- he shouldn't be asked questions about it.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm really surprised
14 by this position of the Prosecutors. I mean, it's not -- they're
15 inconsistent. If a witness can confirm - and we should hear the witness
16 first - but if the witness can confirm that he has seen the document and
17 that he knows about it, it is only then that we can decide, or, rather,
18 decide -- the party that is proffering the document will then decide
19 whether they will seek to tender the document or not. And it is at that
20 point that the other party can object, and of course the Trial Chamber
21 will rule on that.
22 Therefore, I think that this objection is at the least too early,
23 pre -- could the witness now please be shown document 65 ter 1310.
24 Q. Mr. Tihic, are you familiar with this document, and do you know
25 anything about this committee composed -- made up of Velimir Maslic,
1 Simo Nikolic, and Miroslav Tadic?
2 A. No, I don't know this document.
3 Q. Very well. Mr. Tihic, please tell us, did you have occasion to
4 see documents -- or, rather, are you familiar with documents of the
5 Crisis Staffs of Odzak municipality and Domaljevac?
6 A. No.
7 Q. These territories were under the control of Croatian forces;
8 isn't that true, Odzak and Domaljevac?
9 A. Odzak is, for a while.
10 Q. And Domaljevac all throughout time?
11 A. Yes, Domaljevac was under their control all the time.
12 Q. Tell me, Mr. Tihic, do you know that the Ministry of the Interior
13 in September, October, and November on a number of occasions - and I'm
14 referring to the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska - in
15 September, October, November 1992 sent, on several occasions, inspectors
16 from the Ministry of the Interior to establish the -- what was happening
17 and what had happened in the Bosanski Samac municipality and to determine
18 whether there was any responsibility of the police officers in those
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know that the chief of the CSB from Doboj and the
22 inspectors of the republican MUP initiated, at the end of 1992 after
23 reports were submitted, the replacement of the chief of the security
24 station and other leading officers and he wanted their responsibility to
25 be established?
1 A. No, I don't know anything about that.
2 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
4 questions for this witness.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
6 Mr. Krgovic, your position is still the same?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. We don't have questions for this
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
10 Redirect, Mr. Di Fazio?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Only one question.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
13 Q. Just one minor clarification from your evidence yesterday. You
14 were asked questions about -- well, let me rephrase that. You mentioned
15 security commissions. You said that you knew that you had security
16 commissions within the municipal party structures. Every municipal
17 organisation within the party did so, and it was customary for all
18 parties. What are these security commissions?
19 A. Well, each party from the headquarters level to the lowest levels
20 had these security commissions who -- and the members monitored the
21 situation and they assessed the situation and sent their assessments to
22 the leadership, the party leaderships. This was not the case only within
23 the SDA, but within all other parties as well.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: And when was this, approximately; do you know?
1 How soon did the parties begin to set up security commissions?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I suppose this was in
3 response to the security situation in the republic. The situation was
4 unstable. But I can't really recall when exactly this occurred, but it
5 must have been already as early as 1991.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
7 MR. DI FAZIO:
8 Q. Can you remember when in 1991? Towards the end of 1991, would
9 you say? Or was it even earlier?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: This is leading, Mr. --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
12 Q. Can you remember when in 1991?
13 A. I cannot. I'm sorry.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Tihic, this concludes your testimony in this
19 case. We thank you very much for the assistance you gave to the
20 Tribunal, and we do understand all the suffering you underwent in those
21 times and we sympathise with that. We wish you a safe journey home.
22 Thank you very much.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, I suppose you make an application
2 for the 92 ter package?
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I do, if Your Honours please.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's one problem. It's the second time this
5 problem arises, Mr. Hannis -- Mr. Di Fazio, sorry. That's the official
6 and the unofficial version of the transcripts. Of course, we can't -- at
7 the end of the day we can't but rely on the official transcripts, but we
8 need the highlights as well. So sooner or later your office has -- will
9 have to fix that.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: But this being said, the package is marked --
12 tendered and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the package will be given the
14 prefix number P01556. The necessary memo will be filed in due course.
15 Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. We still have one matter to deal with,
19 that's the decision on ST-210. We need a short break to prepare that and
20 handle that after the break. For technical matters, should we take a
21 break of 20 minutes, or would 10 minutes suffice for the technical
22 problems? This is a question for the interpreters and --
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: So we need 20 minutes. Okay. So we resume in
25 20 minutes.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: The Chamber is now prepared to partially rule on
4 the Prosecution's motion to change the mode of testimony of
5 Witnesses ST-136 and ST-210 filed on the 5th of August, 2010. The
6 Defence of both accused jointly filed a response opposing the motion on
7 the 19th of August, 2010, and the Prosecutor filed a reply -- leave to
8 reply and a reply today. The present decision will only deal with
10 The Prosecution seeks to change the mode of testimony of the
11 witness from viva voce to 92 ter. The Prosecution also seeks to add four
12 police registers and log-books to its 65 ter list in order to illustrate
13 the methodology and findings used by ST-210 in compiling his statistical
15 Considering that the hearing of ST-210 pursuant to 92 ter would
16 be expeditious and efficient and in accordance with the rights of the
17 accused, considering that it is in the interests of justice to add the
18 four police documents to the Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list,
19 considering that the Defence is not prejudiced by the addition of these
20 documents, inter alia, because of the fact that the Defence has the
21 possibility to use other similar documents if they wish to do so in order
22 to establish the full picture, considering as to the Prosecutor's request
23 for two hours of court time for examination-in-chief, no indication has
24 been made that this witness would offer evidence beyond the 92 ter
25 statements. In other words, there's no additional viva voce issue that
1 would warrant additional time on top of the 20 or 30 minutes the
2 guide-lines provide for a 92 ter witness.
3 The Trial Chamber grants the Prosecution's request to file a
4 reply. The Trial Chamber grants the Prosecution's motion to change
5 ST-210's mode of testimony to 92 ter and allows it 30 minutes for
6 examination-in-chief. The Trial Chamber also grants the Prosecution
7 leave to add the four documents described in paragraph 17 of its motion
8 to its 65 ter exhibit list.
9 The decision on ST-136 will follow on a later date. Thank you.
10 If there is nothing else to be discussed ...
11 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
13 MR. OLMSTED: I'm not sure I'm on the record, so this is
14 Matthew Olmsted with the Prosecution.
15 If I just may address the amount of time we'll have to examine
16 him just very briefly. I understand the position of this Trial Chamber,
17 and I would request at least an hour with the witness, and here is why:
18 The four log-books that the Trial Chamber has admitted onto our
19 65 ter list, I would like to show it to him on the witness stand and
20 they're kind of big and it will take a little bit of time to get to the
21 entries and go through them with him. And also I wanted to lay a little
22 bit of foundation about his background and the scope of the project. It
23 is explained in his 92 ter statement, but it might be helpful to put that
24 on the record.
25 So I would ask leave just for an extra 30 minutes on top of that
1 half-hour. Otherwise, I don't see how I'll really have time to go
2 through those log-books with him as illustrative examples.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: So basically you're asking to reconsider our
5 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, just on the amount of time.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, as you said yourself just a moment
8 ago, the material is in his statement, and his statement will go in, so
9 we don't see any need to have that on the record in another way. You
10 can't have the cake and eat it. It's whether viva voce or 92 ter, and if
11 it's 92 ter it's -- you should apply to the 92 ter rules, and there's no
12 new material as we understand it that would be in favour of adding time
13 viva voce. So your application is denied, I'm afraid.
14 Nothing else?
15 MR. HANNIS: Only, Your Honours, to thank you for sitting today
16 so that we could finish with the witness that we had a difficulty with
17 yesterday. We appreciate that. And the Defence and the accused for
18 agreeing to let us do that. And also, Ms. Korner wanted me to convey to
19 anyone in and around the courtroom who might have a birthday today best
20 wishes. Thank you.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: We join with the best wishes, of course. Thank
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: I thought that a birthday was part of a man's
25 privacy, but obviously it isn't.
1 MR. PANTELIC: [No interpretation]
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: [No interpretation]
3 Okay. So that's all for the day, and we'll rise.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.02 a.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 23rd day
6 of August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.