Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18013

 1                           Thursday, 2 December 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Good morning to everyone.

12             May we have the appearances, please.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Matthew Olmsted,

14     Tom Hannis, and Indah Susanti for the Prosecution.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  For

16     the Stanisic Defence, Slobodan Cvijetic and Tatjana Savic and

17     Claire Plumb.

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

19     Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21             So if there are no housekeeping or other preliminary matters, I

22     believe that the witness who was to come has protective measures that we

23     have affirmed, and, therefore, the first thing would be to the lower the

24     blinds before he is escorted to the stand.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

Page 18014

 1                           [The witness entered court]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, sir.  Would you be so kind as

 3     to make the solemn declaration on the card the usher hands to you.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly swear that I will speak

 5     the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6                           WITNESS: ST-223

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  You may be seated.

 9             And from your responses, I take it that you are hearing me in a

10     language that you understand.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Well, welcome to the Tribunal, sir.  And I would,

13     first of all, remind you --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

15             JUDGE HALL:  -- remind you that the solemn declaration that you

16     have just made imposes upon you an obligation to give truthful testimony

17     to the Tribunal, which is empowered to impose penalties for perjury if

18     you give false or misleading testimony.

19             You have been granted the protective measures of a pseudonym and

20     image distortion.  The effect of this is that, whereas the -- this being

21     a public trial, insofar as is impracticable, the public, either in the

22     courtroom or listening via the Internet, is able to hear what you're

23     saying, but they would not be able to identify you as the -- as the

24     person who is testifying.

25             So I would, first of all, invite you to look at the pseudonym

Page 18015

 1     sheet which the usher will hand to you.  And if you're satisfied that it

 2     correctly states your name and date of birth, please sign it and hand it

 3     back to her.

 4             That is admitted under seal and marked.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P01742 [sic], under seal,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Sir, you would have previously testified before this

 8     Tribunal, and therefore I need only remind you of the procedure that is

 9     followed.  Namely, that the side calling you - in this case, the

10     Prosecution - begins, and then the side opposite would have questions of

11     you arising out of what the Prosecution has asked.  The Prosecution has a

12     right to re-examine, and the Bench may, at that stage or indeed at any

13     earlier stage, themselves, have questions of you.

14             You are testifying under an expedited procedure which the

15     Tribunal has --

16             And if I may interrupt myself briefly to ask Defence counsel

17     whether they have an indication and to how much time they expect that

18     they would spend in cross-examination, because I don't have an update on

19     what is before me.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we announced three

21     hours for this witness before, but I believe one session will be

22     sufficient because of your decision in which you gave written reasons

23     when you admitted the statement of this witness.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if there's anything

25     after my learned friend Mr. Krgovic, I will ask the question some

Page 18016

 1     witnesses [as interpreted].  But, in essence, I have no questions planned

 2     for this witness.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 4             So, Mr. Witness, and we would refer to you as Mr. Witness because

 5     of the protective measures which you have been afforded, you would have

 6     heard from what has passed between the Bench and Defence counsel as to

 7     how long they expect that they would spend in cross-examination.  The

 8     Prosecution will spend 45 minutes in their examination-in-chief, so the

 9     net result is that your testimony would be completed within the compass

10     of today's sitting.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12                           [Technical difficulty]

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, we are back.

14             And, Mr. Witness, continuing where we were before the technical

15     difficulties required us to pause, you would have heard from what has

16     passed between the Bench and Defence counsel that they expect that the --

17     of the time that they expect to spend with you, and the Prosecution has

18     45 minutes for their questions, so the result is that your testimony is

19     expected to be completed before the Court rises today.

20             And I would now invite counsel for the Prosecution to begin their

21     questions.  And I expect that in terms of such preliminary matters as he

22     has, we should go into private session.

23             MR. OLMSTED:  I don't think it's necessary, Your Honours, because

24     I'm just going to ask the standard 92 ter questions.  And his prior

25     testimony wasn't in closed sessions.

Page 18017

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Very well.

 2                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

 3        Q.   Good morning, sir.

 4        A.   Good morning.

 5        Q.   I first want to ask a few questions regarding your prior

 6     testimony before this Tribunal.

 7             Did you testify in the Brdjanin case in April 2002?

 8        A.   Yes, I did.

 9        Q.   Prior to testifying here today, did you have the opportunity to

10     listen to an audio recording of your prior testimony in that case?

11        A.   Yes, I did.

12        Q.   And was that recording an accurate reflection of your testimony

13     in that case?

14        A.   Yes, it was.

15        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions today, would your

16     answers be the same?

17        A.   Surely.

18        Q.   In the 45 minutes I have with you, I just want to clarify some of

19     the matters that you testified about in your prior testimony.

20             In the Brdjanin case, you testified about police officers in blue

21     camouflage uniforms who drove around Banja Luka in 1992 in a red van, or

22     a red kombi, terrorising the non-Serb population.  And you mentioned that

23     Bosko Vuksan was consistently among these police officers.

24             Sir, besides Vuksan, were the other police officers in the red

25     kombi always the same?

Page 18018

 1        A.   Vuksan was there the most frequently.  However, they would come

 2     as a squad of seven to ten men, and they weren't always the same men.

 3        Q.   You testified previously that the red kombi began operating in

 4     the spring of 1992 and that you had a personal encounter with this van in

 5     winter of 1992.

 6             Could you tell us, for how long did this red kombi operate in

 7     Banja Luka?

 8        A.   At the beginning, they had other vehicles as well.  As far as I

 9     recall, the red kombi was there in 1992 and 1993, when I left Banja Luka.

10        Q.   And when did you leave Banja Luka?

11        A.   In November of 1993.

12        Q.   Focussing on 1992, would you see this red kombi parked at any of

13     the government buildings in Banja Luka?

14        A.   It was a police vehicle, so they were under the jurisdiction of

15     the Banja Luka SUP.  You could often see them at the leather and fur

16     factory in the Deovici.  And towards the end, they were most frequently

17     at the old army centre.

18        Q.   Would you see it, this red kombi, parked outside the CSB

19     building?

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  We object to that.  I mean, it's leading, isn't it?

21     The witness clearly said when he saw this kombi.  What is the point

22     of it?

23             MR. OLMSTED:  I don't believe it's leading, Your Honours.  I'm

24     just asking him whether he saw it in -- at the CSB building.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.

Page 18019

 1             MR. OLMSTED:

 2        Q.   Sir, did you see this red kombi parked at the CSB building

 3     in 1992?

 4        A.   Yes.  Yes, I did.

 5        Q.   Now, in your prior testimony, you mention that check-points were

 6     established throughout Banja Luka.  Can you tell us when these

 7     check-points were first established?

 8        A.   The check-points that I had to go through were established in

 9     April of 1992.

10        Q.   And who manned these check-points?

11        A.   They were manned by reservists, by police reservists.

12        Q.   And in order to pass through these check-points, did non-Serbs

13     have to have certain documentation?

14        A.   At that time, they required us to have passes.  And anybody who

15     didn't have such a pass, couldn't get through.

16        Q.   Were Serbs required to have these passes?

17        A.   I am not sure.  I believe they checked everybody.

18        Q.   If a non-Serb had one of these passes or had proper

19     documentation, were they always allowed to pass through these

20     check-points, or sometimes they were not allowed to pass through them?

21        A.   If you didn't have the appropriate document, that is, the pass

22     for movement, you couldn't get through.

23        Q.   Yes.  Perhaps you didn't understand my question.

24             My question is:  Non-Serbs who did have proper documentation,

25     were they, nonetheless, prevented from getting through these

Page 18020

 1     check-points, on occasions?

 2        A.   I understand you now.

 3             There were such cases.  They were very insolent anyway.  And if

 4     one of us showed a pass, they would take it and simply tear it up and

 5     say, Well, you no longer have it now.  There were many such cases.

 6        Q.   And what impact did these check-points have on the ability of

 7     non-Serbs to move around Banja Luka?

 8        A.   Well, it's difficult to describe the situation that prevailed at

 9     the time.  But if you are confined in a very small area without any

10     possibility of movement to do your everyday business and shopping and

11     things like that, a man feels as if he were in a ghetto, as if he were an

12     inferior person.  And that had a great impact on all the people, because

13     that was psychologically very detrimental.  We felt like second-class

14     citizens or enemies.

15        Q.   Just one further question regarding this documentation that

16     non-Serbs had to obtain to even get through these check-points.  Was this

17     documentation difficult for non-Serbs to get at the time?

18        A.   Yes.  Initially, we were able to get a pass or two at the local

19     commune.  Later on, these passes were issued by the military draft

20     office.  For those who had work obligation, the passes were probably

21     issued to them by their units.  But, generally speaking, it was very

22     difficult to obtain one.

23        Q.   You also testified previously about the resettlement agencies

24     that were established in Banja Luka in 1992.  And, in fact, your daughter

25     used one of these agencies in September of 1992.

Page 18021

 1             Can you tell us, if a non-Serb wanted to leave Banja Luka, did

 2     they have to use one of these agencies?

 3        A.   We all had to take this route, because that was the only route to

 4     take.  These agencies appeared and provided and organised bus

 5     transportation to Croatia.

 6        Q.   In order to use one of these agencies, did non-Serbs have to pay

 7     a fee to the agency?

 8        A.   If you allow me, I would like just to say that even if you are to

 9     come to the point where you can use the services of this agency, you had

10     to do a lot of things ahead of that, including payments.  For example,

11     one had to prepare all the certificates confirming that all the utility

12     bills had been paid.  You also had to have a certificate from a bank

13     confirming that you are not in the red.  Then you had to register with --

14     or, rather, de-register from the draft office and then register with the

15     SUP.  After you have collected all these papers, in the neighbourhood of

16     Mejdan there was a prefabricated building where you get -- you -- the

17     resettlement people, and then you had to join the queue, because there

18     were hundreds, if not thousands, of people who were waiting to get out.

19             So that was the route and the procedure for getting out.

20        Q.   You mentioned that they -- that the non-Serbs who wanted to leave

21     Banja Luka had to pay various fees to municipal organs; but did they also

22     have to pay a fee to these agencies themselves, to be transported out of

23     Banja Luka?

24        A.   In order for one to get the document that we referred to as

25     resettlement paper, a cheque had to be filled.  I cannot tell you in

Page 18022

 1     which amount because I don't remember.  But after you have done that, you

 2     have to sign the resettlement paper confirming that you concede to leave

 3     all your mobile and immobile property to be disposed of by

 4     Republika Srpska.  Only after the payment has been effected and after one

 5     has collected all the papers that I mentioned earlier, then you take the

 6     resettlement paper as the main document, you go to the agency, and they

 7     provide transportation.

 8        Q.   Now with regard to these -- this transportation, did these buses

 9     have escorts?

10        A.   Yes, they did.

11        Q.   And who --

12        A.   The police secured the transportation.  And I can speak about the

13     first organisation, or company.  I don't know.  It was owned by a woman

14     called Perka.  She was the one who notified the people who were

15     interested about the schedule of departure.  She determined the schedule

16     of buses.  There were, daily, some dozen buses of hers leaving, but

17     sometimes she had -- had to -- to postpone the departures because she was

18     constantly in negotiations with the Croats, who had to give their

19     approval.

20             So this is how people left for Croatia, in these convoys, of

21     course, with proper security and escort.

22        Q.   Did the police escorts conduct any searches of the non-Serbs on

23     these buses?

24        A.   The main search was conducted either before or at the

25     Bosanska Gradiska border crossings.  This is where the Serb policemen

Page 18023

 1     conducted a thorough search, partly of the buses, or on the buses.  Which

 2     was followed by their taking all the people outside, where there were

 3     containers, so to speak, where they conducted another detailed search.

 4     These Serb policemen took away all the valuables.  They simply seized

 5     items of gold, money, everything they fancied.  They even established the

 6     limit of the money that one can carry with -- with them.  If I'm not

 7     wrong, I think that this limit was 300 German marks.  And with this kind

 8     of restrictions, I believe that this offered an excellent opportunity for

 9     looting and seizing everything that they liked.

10             In addition to that, they used an extremely abusive language.  We

11     were humiliated.  We were ill-treated.  Which is difficult to comprehend.

12     I mean, the extent to which a human being can go.

13        Q.   I want to move to a different topic now.

14             In your prior testimony, you described how two police inspectors

15     took you to the SUP in summer 1992, where they and a Drago Samardzija

16     interrogated and beat you.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Can we have P35 on the screen.

18        Q.   Sir, what we have in front of us is a photograph.  Do you

19     recognise this building?

20        A.   That's the Banja Luka SUP.

21        Q.   Can you tell us, is this where you were interrogated and beaten

22     on that particular day?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Can you tell us what floor you were on when this happened?

25        A.   I think -- I think that I was on the second floor.  When you

Page 18024

 1     enter the building, you go a couple of metres ahead, and on the left-hand

 2     side was Mr. Samardzija's office.

 3        Q.   And can you tell us approximately what time of day this

 4     interrogation took place?

 5        A.   I think it started at around 10.00.

 6             I forgot to mention that on the other side of this building was

 7     the office where I was brought.

 8        Q.   And, again, that was on the second floor?

 9        A.   Yes, it was.

10        Q.   And you said your interrogation started around 10.00.  Was that

11     in the morning or at night?

12        A.   In the morning.  In the morning.

13        Q.   You mentioned in your prior testimony that you knew Samardzija

14     from before the conflict.  What position did he hold before the war?

15        A.   He also worked at the SUP.  And, as far as I know, he was an

16     officer or a clerk for materiel procurement and assets.  I think that's

17     how we would call it.

18        Q.   Do you know what position he held in 1992, once the conflict

19     began?

20        A.   I don't know, because, probably, changes took place.  Hence, I

21     don't know which post he held.

22        Q.   In your prior testimony, you go into considerable detail

23     regarding your interrogation and beating, so I won't ask you to repeat

24     that today.

25             But can you tell us what happened after the three police officers

Page 18025

 1     had finished beating you?

 2        A.   First of all, thank you for sparing me the request for recounting

 3     the details of probably one of the worst days in my life.

 4             When these men took me out of the office, they threatened me in

 5     the most strict -- in the strictest terms, not to mention anything about

 6     this to anyone.  If I would not comply with that, that would mean the end

 7     of me.

 8        Q.   Having said that, was your experience at the CSB building unique,

 9     or do you know about other non-Serbs who suffered similar treatment at

10     the CSB building in 1992?

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know how this question can

12     be fitted in with the adjudicated facts.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, the adjudicated fact deals with campaigns of

14     intimidation, perilous living conditions.  The Trial Chamber has admitted

15     this witness's testimony regarding his own beatings.  I thin it is

16     relevant, whether he heard about other such incidents from other

17     non-Serbs that he knew in the community.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  We'll allow it.

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Sir, can you answer my question?  Did you know about other

22     non-Serbs who had received similar treatment at the CSB building in 1992,

23     as you did?

24        A.   I definitely do know that, because a huge number of people were

25     involved.  I can give you the names of the people for whom I know for

Page 18026

 1     sure that were severely beaten in this particular building.  It was no

 2     secret among our people.  Everybody knew that that was common practice.

 3     So I can fully ascertain that in this building there were quite a few

 4     beatings and interrogations, the purpose of which was to seek something

 5     that, in my mind, was completely pointless and devoid of any purpose.

 6     The most frequent reason for that was to get hold of material belongings,

 7     as was in my case, or to intimidate the people.  That was their aim.

 8        Q.   Now, during your prior testimony, when you were asked to describe

 9     life in Banja Luka for the non-Serb population in 1992, you stated that

10     there were shootings and killings.

11             Can you provide us with a little more detail about those crimes?

12     Who were the perpetrators and who were the victims?

13        A.   One cannot have enough words to describe the situation of

14     non-Serbs in Banja Luka in 1992.  A minute ago I spoke about the

15     restriction of movement imposed on us.  We were under constant

16     surveillance.  People who were going to or back from the front line would

17     resort to senseless shooting at the buildings and places of shrine --

18     of -- of worship.  Believe me, I can tell you that in my neighbourhood

19     where the road ends, we could collect piles of casings from the bullets

20     fired by the Serb soldiers.

21             One such incident of the shooting at the buildings and houses

22     resulted in a death and also another person was seriously wounded.  Do

23     you want me to tell you the names?

24        Q.   That won't be necessary at this stage.  And I think it's included

25     in your prior testimony.

Page 18027

 1             But, can you tell us, just to clarifies, these homes, businesses,

 2     and shrines that were being targeted, were they non-Serb property?

 3        A.   In my neighbourhood, nearly 100 per cent of the residents were

 4     Muslims.  There were a few houses - how shall I put it? - with mixed

 5     marriages.

 6        Q.   From what you could observe, were these random acts of violence,

 7     or did they appear to be organised to you?

 8        A.   That was almost a rule.  For example, if they see a mosque, and

 9     there were four of them in my neighbourhood, they just couldn't help

10     passing by without opening fire.  That was a rule.

11             Those were visible signs of what they did.  You could see

12     bullet-holes.  As soon as the shooting would start, people would scatter

13     around as far from the main street as possible and seek shelter.

14        Q.   Was your own business targeted?

15        A.   The building where I lived was damaged, and the wall next to the

16     building was targeted and hit by a mortar shell.  People came to see it,

17     and I showed this to the police.

18        Q.   And that's what I want to move on to at this point.

19             From what you were able to observe in 1992, were the police doing

20     anything to prevent these kind of crimes from being committed against the

21     non-Serb population in Banja Luka?

22        A.   I think that they did quite the contrary.  In 1992, we had

23     meetings with representatives of the civilian, military, and police

24     authorities in Banja Luka because we had complaints about the situation

25     which we felt was unbearable.  However, I have a feeling that this

Page 18028

 1     meeting was completely counter-productive, and that after that, we were

 2     subjected to even greater torture.  They assigned patrols for the

 3     neighbourhood in which I lived.  We thought that that would be a relief.

 4     However, the situation worsened.  All these people who were there to

 5     protect us, their -- they would seize money from people via their

 6     informers and they also collected information in order to be able to take

 7     people to the police headquarters, to interrogate them and intimidate

 8     them.  And I can confirm that there was absolutely no reason for that

 9     whatsoever.

10        Q.   And just to clarify, who was performing these patrols in the

11     Muslim neighbourhoods?

12        A.   The Serb police.

13        Q.   Now, you mentioned a meeting in 1992.  Did you attend a meeting

14     in Gornji Seher in August 1992?

15        A.   I would just like to go back a little.

16             Before that meeting in August at the swimming pool owned by

17     Dzemil Kobilj, a meeting was held at the local commune, which was also

18     attended by the civilian, military, and police authorities.

19             Now back to your question.  Yes, in August of 1992, I attended

20     the meeting at the swimming pool.  Mr. Predrag Radic, the mayor, was

21     there; Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, the chief of SUP was there; and there was a

22     military person, I think his rank was major, and his last name was Ilic.

23        Q.   Can you tell us were there -- who were the Muslim representatives

24     at this meeting?

25        A.   This meeting was attended by representatives of the Muslims who

Page 18029

 1     were rather influential within their community, who had certain

 2     authority.  But I would like to add that apart from the Muslims, there

 3     were 80 of us, because each neighbourhood sent two representatives.  And

 4     I think that there was some 30-odd Serbs there as well.  Maybe less; I'm

 5     not sure.

 6        Q.   Do you recall, was Dzevad Osmancevic there?

 7        A.   Yes, I do remember him being present.

 8             This meeting had been initiated by Mr. Adem Gunic, an engineer

 9     who was, at the time, the deputy mayor; then Sadik Beglerovic and

10     Dzevad Osmancevic.  As far as I know, those three people asked the

11     gentlemen that I mentioned - Radic, Zupljanin, and Ilic - to come and to

12     address our people, because they wished for a joint solution to be found

13     in order to suppress such phenomena.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, let me just remind you that you have

15     about eight minutes left.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   And what information -- at this meeting, what information did the

18     Muslim representatives provide to the Serb representatives?

19        A.   We informed them thoroughly about all forms of provocations, the

20     ceaseless firing, shooting, incursions onto private property, ban on

21     movements.  Because, despite the ban on movement during the night, there

22     was also a curfew from 9.00 in the evening to 6.00 in the morning, during

23     which time you were not allowed out on the streets.  Nobody dared leave

24     their yard.  So that we simply asked those present to find a solution to

25     reduce the shooting, to maintain some kind of control.  And the result of

Page 18030

 1     the meeting were these patrols that they introduced, which also didn't

 2     prove to be that great, after all.

 3        Q.   Can you tell us, was the red kombi brought up at this meeting at

 4     all?

 5        A.   I don't remember the kombi at that meeting.

 6        Q.   I mean -- let me rephrase my question.

 7             Was -- did the Muslim representatives tell the Serb

 8     representatives about the red kombi incidents at this meeting?

 9        A.   Absolutely.  I think that the worst thing that happened in

10     Banja Luka was precisely that kombi that everybody feared, and we asked

11     that something be done so that those people would be stopped, prevented

12     from sowing fear all over Banja Luka.

13        Q.   Were the Serb representatives surprised by all this information

14     provided by the Muslim representatives?

15        A.   All I can say is that everyone promised to do everything in their

16     power to improve the situation, and I think that they were not surprised,

17     because the people who initiated the meeting had to have -- inform them

18     about what was going on in our area so that they knew that they were

19     coming to the meeting because of problems that we had mentioned earlier.

20     So they were not surprised.

21        Q.   But was there any suggestion that the non-Serbs were creating

22     these problems for themselves?

23        A.   One of those present said that the Muslim population, which was

24     the majority population there, were not looking at the situation

25     realistically, that they had to understand that it was war, and that they

Page 18031

 1     had to respond to the call-up in as a greater number as possible.  And

 2     everything that was mentioned, he kind of implied that we, ourselves,

 3     were responsible for that situation.

 4             I have to point out, though, that the gentlemen did promise that

 5     they would do everything in their power to improve the situation.

 6             If I may add something.  Things turned out quite differently.

 7     The next day already, there were raids - that's what we called them - on

 8     a wide scale.  And only -- alone in the Sitari settlement they searched

 9     several hundred houses, brought in scores of people.  They spread fear

10     everywhere.  And in the area where I was, with the appearance of these

11     policemen, things became even worse.

12        Q.   And that's why I want to clarify:  Who conducted these raids?

13        A.   The Serbian police.  They did the searches with the most frequent

14     explanation, that they were looking for weapons, that they were looking

15     for those who didn't respond to the call-up, to bring them in.  And let

16     me just say this, too:  They looted and took everything that they liked.

17     If they couldn't take something that they liked right away, they would

18     order that this be set aside for them because they were going to come the

19     next day or at some other time, that they had determined to pick up those

20     things.  With the instruction that the homeowner, the host, shouldn't

21     tell anybody anything about this.

22        Q.   And just -- my final question is a clarification.  These searches

23     and arrests against -- who were they against?  Were they against

24     non-Serbs?

25        A.   Mostly against non-Serbs.

Page 18032

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.  I just wanted to

 6     make a clarification on the record.  The previous pseudonym sheet of

 7     Witness ST-223 should be Exhibit P01743 and not P01742 as previously

 8     indicated.

 9             Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

11             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning.

14        A.   Good morning.

15        Q.   I am Dragan Krgovic, representing Mr. Zupljanin.  I'm going to be

16     putting some questions to you regarding your testimony today.

17        A.   Go ahead please.

18        Q.   First one clarification.  You spoke about the procedure during

19     border crossing, when people from these different organisations would

20     cross.  These convoys, actually.  You did not leave with that convoy in

21     1992.  Is that correct?

22        A.   Sir, I don't think that were following.  I said, loud and clear,

23     that I left on the 15th of November, 1993.  So I don't see actually why

24     you're putting this question to me.

25        Q.   So you didn't see what you testified about today about searches

Page 18033

 1     at the border and the confiscation of items.  Isn't that right?

 2        A.   What I'm talking about is reliable, definite data, because I saw

 3     that, myself, in 1993.  People who went through this were members of my

 4     own family.  My wife, my daughter, my son, and my daughter in law.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the last

 6     sentence.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   My question was that in 1992 you personally did not see these

 9     things.  You can just answer with a yes or no.

10        A.   I think this is a ridiculous question, and I'm repeating that I

11     left in 1993.  So how could I also leave in 1992 then?

12        Q.   But this is why I'm asking you this.  Precisely.  You did not

13     see, personally, these things that you are testifying about.

14             Can you please answer with a yes or no.

15        A.   I did see them in 1993.

16        Q.   You didn't see them in 1992, did you?

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, you have an intervention?

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, just that the interpreter said that she was

19     unable to complete the witness's prior answer about members of his family

20     leaving through these convoys in 1992.  And, I don't know, it's probably

21     too late now to go back to that question, but we've missed part of his

22     answer.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  I would remind the witness and counsel to

24     remember that the evidence has to be interpreted.

25             So, Mr. Witness, please wait for counsel to complete his question

Page 18034

 1     before you begin to answer.  And counsel, of course, you would wait for

 2     the answer before you proceed to your next question.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Sir, perhaps if you can answer once again.

 6             In 1992, you personally were not at the Gradiska border crossing.

 7     Isn't that right?  Yes or no?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   So what you testified about in response to Mr. Olmsted's question

10     is something that you heard from others; is that right?

11        A.   Yes.  In relation to 1992, correct.

12        Q.   You also responded to the Prosecutor's questions about the

13     black [as interpreted] kombi that was parked.  And you mentioned a couple

14     of locations in your earlier statements.  You said that you never saw

15     this vehicle in front of the CSB.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction: Red kombi.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Krgovic, were you in Banja Luka

18     in 1992?

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Sir --

21        A.   I just want to tell you one thing.  There was no place in town

22     where at some point the red kombi was not parked.  You need to know that.

23     It was either in front of the SUP or in front of the old army hall, in

24     front of the daumic [phoen], in front of the Boska.  The kombi could be

25     seen in any part of town.  I am telling you this for sure.

Page 18035

 1        Q.   In your previous testimony you didn't mention that you saw this

 2     vehicle in front of the CSB.  You mentioned the JNA hall, the Mali Logor

 3     camp.  You mentioned the barracks where the 4th Infantry Brigade was

 4     located.  But you never mentioned that you saw it in front of the CSB.

 5     Is that correct?  That is the gist of my question.

 6        A.   Do you think that after so many years a person can remember all

 7     the locations?  That perhaps he is not permitted to skip a location which

 8     simply doesn't occur to one at that point?  I think it would have been

 9     better if you had asked me whether this was true or not.  And I'm telling

10     you it is 100 per cent true, what I'm telling.  If I happen to forget

11     something, if I don't recall a date, please don't hold it against me.

12        Q.   So you allow for the possibility that in your previous testimony

13     you never mentioned that you saw the red kombi parked in front of the

14     CSB; isn't that right?

15             And I am telling you that I looked at all of your statement and I

16     never found a references to that.

17        A.   As far as I can remember my testimony, I think that I did not

18     mention the CSB.  But that does not mean that what I'm saying today is

19     not true.  This is 100 per cent true.

20        Q.   When you talked about documents that were necessary in order to

21     be able to leave Banja Luka, you mentioned a certificate where one would

22     have to leave all movable and immovable property to the Serbian police.

23     Is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Did you sign something like that?

Page 18036

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   Do you have a copy of that?

 3        A.   No, I don't.  And I couldn't have a copy of it.  You would hand

 4     that in.  The document was called a resettlement paper.  Nobody could

 5     leave without the resettlement paper.  And if you want, I will say it

 6     again:  In order for a person to leave, he had to pay all his bills, the

 7     rent, electricity, garbage, other utilities, any other bills.  He had to

 8     provide a letter from the bank that he was not in debt, that he didn't

 9     owe anything to the state.  He needed to bring a certificate from the

10     SUP, a certificate from the military department, then go and make a

11     payment in the bank - I don't remember which amount exactly - and then

12     the resettlement paper, which was a thicker piece of paper, literally

13     stated that the signee renounced or gave up all of his movable and

14     immovable property in favour of Republika Srpska.

15             Only when you received the resettlement paper where you would

16     spend hours in line next to the city bridge on the left bank of the

17     Vrbas -- no, actually, on the right bank of the Vrbas, on the left-hand

18     side opposite the Vrbas river, next to the Kastel, was the local commune

19     where these resettlement papers were issued.

20             That was the only way for us to leave.

21        Q.   Sir, you never left your property to Republika Srpska, as a

22     matter of fact; isn't that right?

23        A.   I don't know whom I left it to.  At the time, it was called

24     Krajina or Republika Srpska.  In any case, it was the state.  This was

25     clear.

Page 18037

 1        Q.   But you sold that property later; isn't that right?

 2        A.   No, never.  Never.

 3        Q.   So you still have that property that you allegedly gave to

 4     Republika Srpska?  You are still the owner of that property, aren't you?

 5        A.   I would kindly ask you to refrain from provocative questions.  I

 6     didn't allegedly hand it over.  I really had to sign this.  Not just me,

 7     but every single citizen who was leaving.  This is the truth.  You cannot

 8     evade that.  Everyone knows that.  It's not just me.  And the conditions

 9     under which I had to do that are known.  The conditions in which a person

10     would sign such an agreement are known.  These are conditions when you do

11     not have any other way.  You have no possible choice.  You just are

12     focussed on saving your life.  That -- that is when property is of no

13     consequence.

14        Q.   But, sir, you are still the owner of the property for which you

15     claim that you handed over to Republika Srpska?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Sir, when you were speaking about this meeting in Gornji Seher,

18     Mr. Tutus, the chief of the Banja Luka Public Security Station, did he

19     attend that meeting?

20        A.   I seem to recollect that Predrag Radic was there, Mr. Zupljanin;

21     and I said, if I remember correctly, there was a major from the military.

22     He was definitely from the military.  And his name was Ilic.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, I don't know if you've left this

24     question of the property, but I have a -- there's a clarifying question I

25     wish to put to the witness.

Page 18038

 1             Mr. Witness, you -- in response to counsel's question, as to

 2     whether you were still the owner of the property for which you claim you

 3     handed over to Republika Srpska, you answered affirmatively.  Are you in

 4     possession of this property, the property of which counsel spoke, to the

 5     extent that you understood his question?  Or -- could you expand on your

 6     answer for me, please.  I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that in order

 8     for a person to be able to leave Banja Luka, he had to sign a document

 9     which was called the resettlement paper and which, without any doubt,

10     clearly stated that by leaving, a person was leaving behind all of their

11     movable and immovable property to the state.

12             However, after all these events were over, our expulsion, in

13     2002, I again got my property back, and now it is in my possession again.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, sir.

15             Yes, Mr. Krgovic, you may continue.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Just one moment, please.  I would like ... oh,

17     no, sorry, I misunderstood.  It's okay.  Thank you.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   And to stick with the question His Honour Judge Hall put to you,

20     there were no changes to the title deed of -- of your property.  There

21     was no transfer from you to the state.  Isn't that correct?

22        A.   All the property is 100 per cent in my name.  I am the full

23     owner.  As for who used, managed, or had the property in their hands for

24     a while, I don't know.  But today, the property is in my name, just as it

25     was before.

Page 18039

 1        Q.   And as far as you know, there was no change in the land property

 2     register?

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Krgovic,

 4     please, what is the relevance of this?

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this question put by

 6     my learned friend Mr. Olmsted during the examination-in-chief, that he

 7     had to hand his property over to the state in order to be able to leave,

 8     I am trying to show that this practically never happened.  This is why

 9     I'm asking if there were any changes in the land register.  Was the

10     ownership transferred to the state, to Republika Srpska, and then

11     transferred back to him again.  This is what I'm asking.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I don't quite understand.  Are you challenging

13     the testimony that he got it back in 2002, which means that between 1992

14     and 2002 he didn't have it?  Or at least -- or at least he thought he

15     didn't have it because he handed it over to -- are you challenging the

16     handing over?

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  We're talking

18     about a change in ownership here, because the testimony of the witness

19     was that he had to sign over the property to Republika Srpska.  These are

20     two things: Possession and ownership.  These are two different

21     categories.  The ownership and possession.  I think that it was his

22     testimony that he had to transfer ownership to Republika Srpska, if I

23     understood him correctly.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I give an explanation?

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And -- and --

Page 18040

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] My position is that this is not

 2     correct.  It is not true.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And were people told so at the -- at the moment

 4     they handed over what they thought to be their property and what you say

 5     was their possession?  Were they told so, that it was only the possession

 6     that they handed over, and not the ownership?

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this could be clearly

 8     seen if there was such a certificate.  That's why I asked him.  But we

 9     did not find any such certificate, at least as far as Banja Luka is

10     concerned.  We didn't find it.  There are similar certificates in other

11     municipalities, but I have not seen anything of that kind that the

12     witness was talking about.  Perhaps the Prosecutor would gladly have

13     that, and they would tender that happily, if they were in possession of

14     such a certificate.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I answer the

16     question?

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please do.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the lawyer of the

19     gentleman knows full well, even if he never had a resettlement paper in

20     his hand, the resettlement paper clearly states, and this is something

21     that nobody can deny or doubt in any way, and that confirms that on the

22     basis of the resettlement paper, I agreed to hand over my property to the

23     state.  (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18041

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted) so that there is no confusion and what I said

11     cannot be put into doubt.  There is also my request for restitution of

12     property and a ruling in my favour, and all of that indicates that I am

13     telling the full truth, just as I said right at the beginning when I was

14     standing at this witness-stand.  You cannot doubt this, Your Honours.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think it's time for a break now.

16     Perhaps it's a convenient moment.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... just out of

18     an abundance caution, I think that the part about the details of the

19     people taking over the witness's house have to be redacted.  Somewhere

20     in 28, line 10 to 17.

21             Thank you.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

23             So we take the break and resume in 20 minutes.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

Page 18042

 1                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, just one moment, please.

 6             Mr. Witness -- oh, I'll just wait.

 7             Mr. Witness, the moment you signed over your -- your house, or

 8     your houses, to the state, did -- did you think that that was handing

 9     over forever, or just for the time of you being away?  Or something else?

10     Was it handing over the entire property for good?  Or was it something

11     else?  Was it just temporarily?  In your understanding, at the moment.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to give a broader

13     reply to this question, if you'll allow me.

14             My assessment of the war was false from the very beginning,

15     because I thought that all of that would blow over quickly, that it would

16     end, and that I personally was not guilty of anything.  I did not owe

17     anybody anything.  And that, for that reason, I might be spared of any

18     kind of problems.

19             At the beginning, I must admit that I felt sorry to leave

20     everything that I had gained by working, because everything that I

21     gained, I gained by working.  The example that I sent my child away from

22     Banja Luka when she was 15 confirms this, as does the fact that I sent my

23     wife, my son, my sister-in-law, and my grandchild away and stayed in the

24     house alone.

25             However, as the situation became increasingly complex and as the

Page 18043

 1     problems increased from day to day - and let me emphasise that it was

 2     with the help of an international organisation of the UNHCR - I was taken

 3     out of Banja Luka to Zagreb.  I never thought that I would leave my

 4     property behind.  I never intended that.  But that was the only way to

 5     leave.  That was the only possibility for leaving Banja Luka.  I realized

 6     that I had to agree to relinquishing my property.  Deep down, I still had

 7     hope that I would return to my home, but I was fully aware that I had

 8     lost everything that I had.

 9             I didn't think that there was a way for me to return and that all

10     this would be mine once again.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And how, then, did you recover your property, as

13     you said, in 2002?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know when exactly, but an

15     office for the restitution of property was established in Banja Luka.

16     They were housed in pre-fabricated houses near the town clinic.  Our

17     people would go there, as did I, from all over Europe, even the

18     United States, and they filed requests for the restitution of property.

19             Allegedly, before then, the High Representative for Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, Mr. Petric, had passed a decision that all the property had

21     to be returned to their previous owners.  Relying on that decision, I

22     also applied for the restitution of my property.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Sir, as it says in the statement, you didn't go to the court to

Page 18044

 1     have it certified that you were relinquishing your property in favour of

 2     Republika Srpska; is that right?

 3        A.   As far as I recall, I didn't mention a court.  I said that apart

 4     from the certificates and the report made with the SUP and the military

 5     department, you would receive this certificate on the right bank of the

 6     Vrbas river, near the local commune, and it was called the resettlement

 7     paper.  If that's what you're referring to.

 8        Q.   And what you later said about people who stayed in your houses,

 9     these were refugees, Serbian refugees, who had had come from Kljuc to

10     Banja Luka and were assigned these houses for temporary use; they were

11     allowed to use your immovables temporarily?

12        A.   I said that loud and clear.  They received decisions allowing

13     them to stay in my houses.  They were given decisions.  They were allowed

14     to use my houses.

15        Q.   And when you filed a request to -- for the restitution of your

16     property, they agreed to move out and to hand your property back to you;

17     is that correct?

18        A.   We were called to the premises that I mentioned earlier, at the

19     clinic, together.  And there, in the presence of an official, we agreed

20     on the terms, agreed when they were supposed to leave and when I was to

21     take over my property.  These were so-called evictions, and they were

22     done with the help of the police in order to avoid any problematic

23     situations.  Because usually during the handover one of the parties,

24     usually the person living there, refused to leave.  So evictions were

25     organised.  There were forced evictions and all kinds of other things.

Page 18045

 1        Q.   Sir, you also talked about some events, attacks on Muslim and

 2     Croat civilians.  Did you know that the police in Banja Luka arrested and

 3     escorted into custody people who attacked Muslims and Croats?

 4        A.   I must admit that I had limited information about this, but I

 5     know that they had to take certain measures and certain activities

 6     because the situation in Banja Luka was hopeless.  There was terror,

 7     looting, murders, and I believe that the police had to take measures

 8     against such cases.  I don't know about individual cases personally, but

 9     I believe, as a person, that they had to do something.

10        Q.   And do you know that among those arrested who were suspected of

11     attacking Muslims and Croats in Banja Luka in 1992, there were some

12     people who used the red kombi in order to terrorise and instill fear

13     among the Muslim and Croat population?

14        A.   I don't know.  As for the red kombi that I am talking about, I

15     think it was neither borrowed, nor could it have been used by anybody

16     other than the police that I talked about.

17             And let me tell you this:  Bosko Vuksan worked at the shoe

18     factory in Banja Luka, and his brother was one of my bosses.  Zuco, as we

19     called him, is a private entrepreneur from Rudarska.  He -- he made

20     tombstones.  We were good friends.  We hunted together.  So the people

21     who were in this red van were people that we knew.  We knew each other.

22        Q.   I would also like to ask you, you talked about some shootings and

23     murders that took place in Banja Luka, and you said you were an

24     eye-witness to some of them.  Did you know that the military police or

25     the police arrested a person who killed two Muslims?  I'm talking about

Page 18046

 1     Avdo Softic and the other man.  You know the other name better than I do.

 2     It was in your neighbourhood.  Right?

 3        A.   I will correct you about the last name.  His last name was not

 4     "Softic"; it was "Sofic."  It does not have a T.  And his first name is

 5     Avdo.  The second man was Ramiz Zdenac.

 6             They were killed in the centre of our settlement on the old road

 7     on the 5th of December, 1992.  They were killed by Zeljko Ceko, a young

 8     man who lived very close to our settlement.

 9             As far as I know, I was informed that he was taken into custody.

10     He was in detention for a while.  Apparently he was under investigation,

11     because it's a remand prison, as far as I know.  You surely know what I

12     mean.  But I know that for such a crime, he was never convicted; at least

13     not while I was there.  His punishment was that he was sent to the front

14     line.  Whether he was later convicted, for how long, I really don't know

15     that.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Witness, do you happen to know the profession

17     of this gentleman, Mr. Zeljko Ceko?  What was his occupation?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe he was a labourer.  His

19     father worked at the market.  I don't know his exact occupation.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Sir, you know that after these two men were killed, the police

23     cordoned off the entire area in search of the perpetrator.

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   And soon after, he was arrested and taken into custody.

Page 18047

 1        A.   I don't know about that.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

 3     Exhibit 2D03-1340.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, while this is being pulled up, I

 5     should just note that in the Trial Chamber's decision they issued last

 6     night, his testimony concerning this particular case was excluded from

 7     his 92 ter package.  I'm wondering whether, in light of Defence counsel's

 8     persistence in this particular case, this case of a killing, that that

 9     decision should be amended to include his testimony with regard to this

10     particular case.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may respond to

12     this.

13             The reason I'm showing this document is that the Prosecution, in

14     its examination-in-chief, expanded the testimony of this witness in

15     relation to the statement and asked what the police and other organs did

16     in order to take measures against the perpetrators of certain crimes

17     committed against Muslim and Croats.  The witness replied that he didn't

18     know.  And to my question he said that he didn't know about this.  So I

19     want to show him this document in relation to what the witness said in

20     the examination-in-chief so we could identify the person he talked about

21     and whether he belonged to any institution, as Judge Harhoff asked.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise.  If I

23     may say something?

24             JUDGE HALL:  Just a moment -- just a moment, please, while

25     resolve this objection that's taken by the Prosecution.

Page 18048

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  We agree with the objection taken by Mr. Olmsted.

 4     This -- putting this particular document falls outside of the specific

 5     adjudicated fact to which this witness was called to testify.  And that

 6     although Mr. Olmsted was permitted to ask a general question, to which,

 7     as I recall, there was an objection which was overruled, we do not think

 8     that that general question is sufficiently -- was sufficient to open the

 9     way to deal with specific questions raised in this document because then

10     that would -- the Chamber would -- would, in effect, be reversing a

11     ruling it's already given.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Sir, in your examination-in-chief, you mentioned an incident when

14     a wall next to your house was hit by a missile from a hand-held

15     rocket-launcher.

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   And you reported that to the police.  The police visited the

18     scene and carried out an on-site investigation.

19        A.   That's correct.  It was done by the patrol which was patrolling

20     our neighbourhood.  Their response was that that was something normal,

21     only to be expected, and that we were lucky not to have sustained any

22     injuries.

23        Q.   Do you know that the Banja Luka Police actually arrested a group

24     of people involved in such attacks where rocket-launchers were used?

25        A.   I said at the beginning that our movement was restricted.  We

Page 18049

 1     virtually lived in a ghetto.  We were not allowed to move around.  I was

 2     fond of reading newspapers, but since it was difficult to get, buy, them,

 3     I sometimes asked the people who went to town to procure them for me.  I

 4     also obtained some information on the radio and on TV.  But in spite of

 5     that, we didn't have a clear picture of the situation.  And nobody

 6     actually asked what the police was doing.  That's not the case nowadays.

 7     Everybody knows what the police work involves, that is, preserving law

 8     and order and things of that nature.  Therefore, it was beyond my realm

 9     of interest to ask whether the police were arresting someone and what

10     they were doing.

11        Q.   Sir, you mentioned your visit to the police headquarters.  Sir,

12     isn't it true that that the police summoned you on account of suspicions

13     that you were involved in some illegal activities, that you were a member

14     of the so-called Walter Group which was organised by the SDA Banja Luka

15     and that it was involved in intelligence operations?

16        A.   I never went to the police for those reasons, and I was never

17     questioned or interrogated about these issues.  The only reason that they

18     arrested me was to beat me, to humiliate me, and do other things.

19             I only heard about this group that you are mentioning after the

20     war, when some people were arrested, like Smail Djuzel; his wife,

21     Suhreta; and another man from Pobrdje.  I don't know who else was

22     convicted.  However, as far as I'm concerned, I never heard a word about

23     this until I left Banja Luka.  I had never been brought in by the police

24     for those reasons, and this group was never mentioned.  Only after the

25     war did I learn that I been sentenced to 12 years in prison, purportedly

Page 18050

 1     for treason and intelligence activities.

 2        Q.   Sir, isn't it true that alongside Mr. Korzic [phoen] and the

 3     other individuals you just mentioned, you organised collection and

 4     delivery of military intelligence or the information pertaining to the

 5     situation in Banja Luka and that you sent this information to the Embassy

 6     of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Zagreb and other foreign missions?

 7        A.   Sir, I think that are you wasting your time.  A while ago I

 8     reiterated twice that my movements were restricted, that I never ventured

 9     out, that I did not meet any people, and that I heard about this

10     organisation called Walter only after the war.  Nobody ever asked me a

11     single question about this, nor did they accuse me of this kind of

12     activities.  Therefore, I'm asking you, what kind of information,

13     intelligence, could I have conveyed to Zagreb, bearing in mind that I was

14     living in the part of town where there was no electricity, where there

15     was curfew, where there was limited movement, et cetera?  I really don't

16     understand where you got this from.

17             Who told you that I could have done such things, given that it is

18     well known that after 9.00 in the evening I couldn't even leave my yard

19     and during the daylight I could only go outside into the streets?  So

20     this is a total fabrication.  And it is additionally confirmed by the

21     fact that when I returned to Banja Luka, to this date, nobody ever asked

22     me anything about this.  They never called me into account, and, God

23     forbid, I never served the sentence that you are mentioning.  Thank you.

24        Q.   Sir, isn't it true that you wrote a report, or reports, in which

25     you described the position of Croats and Muslims in Banja Luka as being

Page 18051

 1     actually worse than it actually was and that women and children were

 2     being killed in the area of Krajina?

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, what would be the dates of the

 4     period of these reports?

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 1992, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I reply?

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Please go ahead.

10        A.   Mr. Krgovic, this is a blatant lie.  Tell me, first, to whom

11     could I have sent a report of that kind?  You are talking about thousands

12     of dead people.  What are you talking about?  You see that this is

13     completely groundless.  And if you claim that it was I who sent those

14     reports, could you be so kind at least to show me a portion of such

15     report.

16             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Witness,

17     counsel is, in the course of cross-examination, putting his case, and he

18     is doing his job.  If he asks an improper question, the Chamber would

19     certainly intervene.  But it would speed matters along if you would

20     listen carefully to counsel's question and then answer as simply and

21     clearly as possible.

22             Thank you.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, the witness said you are talking

24     about thousands of dead people.  Did you mention that? because in the --

25     in the transcript, in your question, I don't see that.

Page 18052

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, maybe it wasn't

 2     recorded.  I talked about tens of thousands of women and children killed

 3     in the area of Prijedor and Krajina, that the witness reported about

 4     that.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I reported about this?  No.  Never,

 6     ever.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted).  And I said at

21     the very beginning that I never sent a word to anyone, nor did I provide

22     any information to anyone, nor was I involved in that kind of activity.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, Mr. Olmsted.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours.  And to clarify this matter,

25     there is a document in the list of the Prosecution's exhibits for this

Page 18053

 1     witness which I believe Mr. Krgovic is referring to, and as the witness

 2     has testified, it does not -- he was not the author of that document.

 3     And, therefore, I would was going to object, but the witness obviously

 4     picked up on the issue himself and corrected Defence counsel.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not talking about

 6     this specific document.  I am talking about the whole series of documents

 7     from which this question generates, and I intend to show them to the

 8     witness.

 9             I'm not talking about this document, and my questions do not

10     relate to it.

11        Q.   Sir, isn't it true that together with Mr. Kjazim Durakovic you

12     organised and attended the meetings in which you gathered information

13     about the developments in Banja Luka, and that you assisted Mr. Krzic

14     while he was in Banja Luka, as well, Mithad Smajic, Amir Novalija, and

15     Osman Gujacic, in the activities of this kind?

16        A.   You're going back again to what I deny and have denied from the

17     very beginning.  I can confirm that I had no links whatsoever with that

18     organisation.  I believe that you all know that this was all a

19     fabrication.  And I really don't know where this idea came from about my

20     being in co-operation with Kjazim Durakovic, who had never been an

21     activist throughout his life.  He never did anything, except, perhaps,

22     being active in the trade union.

23             As I said, with regard to these activities, this could only be

24     made up in order to exert pressure on our people to leave Banja Luka, to

25     expel them.  And as for espionage and activities of that sort,

Page 18054

 1     particularly when it comes to the people from my neighbourhood, I can

 2     tell you again that there is nothing to confirm that.

 3        Q.   Isn't it true that you had a code-name, Ivo, in that group, and

 4     that is how the other members of the group addressed you?

 5        A.   If you permit me, you are making me say things that have no

 6     sense.  From the very first word on, I deny, I've been trying to prove,

 7     and I'm stating that I have nothing to do whatsoever with the group in

 8     question.  Had I had anything to do with it, members of the police, or

 9     whoever is in charge of that, would have brought -- taken me in and

10     interrogated me and would have taken certain measures.  And I repeat:  If

11     we're talking about the authorities, civilian, military, police

12     authorities, I never discussed any illegal [Realtime transcript read in

13     error "legal"] activities of mine with them, and I never did anything in

14     relation to reports of this kind.  The most weird thing would be that I

15     had a pseudonym, a code-name, that being Ivo.  That is very, very far

16     from the truth.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, just an intervention in the transcript.

18     I believe page 37, line 21, I believe the witness said:  I never

19     discussed any "illegal" activities.  Not "legal" activities.

20             Thank you.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Sir, you are probably aware that this group of people that I

24     mentioned, this group Walter, was brought to trial in Banja Luka, some of

25     them.  And before the indictments were issued, some of them provided

Page 18055

 1     statements in the SUP and to the investigating judge, and that is where

 2     they mentioned your name.  Are aware of this fact and of these details

 3     that I just asked you about?

 4        A.   As for them giving statements and who they gave them to, that's

 5     something I don't know.  But I am stating, once again, that that has

 6     nothing to do with me.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness look at 2D03-1521

 8     now, please.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I question whether this is going

10     beyond simply trying to challenge this witness's credibility.  This is

11     with regard to allegations of a spy network, where this witness has

12     clearly stated that he had nothing to do with.  He acknowledged that at

13     some point charges were filed against him but they were baseless and he

14     was not even in the country at the time.

15             So how does this hinge on his credibility at this stage, and how

16     does this even relate to the adjudicated fact which is at issue for this

17     witness?

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was asking the

20     witness about these facts, and I put it to him clearly that this was the

21     reason for his arrest.  And now I'm showing documents to him that confirm

22     this, because it is the position of the Prosecution that these people

23     were brought in only because they were Muslims and so forth, for no other

24     reason; and I'm trying to prove the very opposite.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I answer?

Page 18056

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In want to show the witness these

 2     documents which show the reason for this whole series of questions that I

 3     put to him.  The document and the questions have direct relevance to the

 4     testimony of this witness in terms of Rule 92.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  I would have thought, though, Mr. Krgovic, that

 6     having put the question directly to the witness and having received an

 7     answer, that's it, as far as this witness is concerned.  But give me a

 8     moment, please.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic, please proceed.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Sir, can you please look at this document.  You've had the

13     opportunity to read the contents of the document on the screen in front

14     of you.

15        A.   Yes, I have.

16        Q.   It can be concluded, on the basis of this document, when asked

17     about you specifically, Mr. --

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't want to mention his name --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please take into account that we don't have an

21     English translation of this.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm just going to say

23     that --

24        Q.   Sir, do you agree that this is an Official Note from the

25     15th of September, 1994, given by this person that you know?  Do you know

Page 18057

 1     Smail Djuzel?

 2        A.   I will tell you.  This is a document --

 3        Q.   No, just answer my question, please.  Do you know Smail Djuzel?

 4        A.   I have to give an explanation.

 5        Q.   Well, you can give an explanation when the Prosecutor asks you.

 6     I don't have too much time for my cross-examination.  I want to cover

 7     this quickly.

 8        A.   Yes, I do know Smail Djuzel, and I know Muharem Krzic.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... were under

10     the impression that the document you wanted to show was a document dating

11     from the time the witness was still living in Banja Luka, in 1992/1993.

12     This is obviously something from a later date.  1994?

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  But it speaks about the

14     events.  It speaks about the witness specifically.  And events when the

15     witness was living in Banja Luka in 1992 and 1993.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So it's -- it's not an Official Note because that

17     was -- that was the basis on -- on -- on which we accepted this ... this

18     is not -- this is --

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This is an Official Note,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... this is not

22     an Official Note of the interrogation of the witness, when he was brought

23     to the police building in Banja Luka while still living in Banja Luka?

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  This is an

25     Official Note on the basis of which an indictment was issued and a ruling

Page 18058

 1     was issued that the witness referred to.  I can show the judgement, the

 2     ruling, to the witness.  I can show him the basis on which there was

 3     suspicion that the witness took part in certain activities.  And --

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... but then this --

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] -- but let me say, this is the

 6     initial -- the starting document.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But then this is -- this is an Official Note.

 8     Is this an Official -- this is an Official Note.  This is not a

 9     witness -- this is not a statement of the witness.  Or is it?

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, this is not a

11     statement by the witness.  It's not anyone's statement.  This is an

12     Official Note made by a MUP member who was investigating the activities

13     of this Walter Group and the activities of the witness, among other

14     things.  It was made in 1994.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I happen to have an English

17     translation of this document, and it doesn't relate to events in 1992.

18     And, in fact, the only portion which mentions this witness talks about

19     after this witness left the Republika Srpska, which, as this witness has

20     testified, was in November of 1993.  I just wanted to correct that.

21             And, otherwise, it is an Official Note by a person who is not a

22     party and who is not present before this Tribunal to testify regarding

23     the truth of the matters asserted in this document.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, we misunderstood the -- what this

Page 18059

 1     document would have contained.  And it is now the view of the Chamber

 2     that it is an irrelevant issue, so please move on to something else.

 3     It's entirely collateral to the issue at hand.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one question.

 5     Is it the position of the Prosecutor that the Official Note taken from a

 6     person who did not testify before the Tribunal should not be part of the

 7     documents in evidence?

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Our position, Your Honours, is this -- this

 9     statement was taken in 1994 --

10             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Olmsted --

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Sorry.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Just one moment, please.

13             Mr. Krgovic, the Trial Chamber's decision has nothing to do

14     with -- with the OTP's position on Official Notes.

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  I understand.

16             [Interpretation] Could we then show the witness 2D03-1453.

17        Q.   Sir, you testified that you heard that you were convicted and

18     sentenced to a prison term of 12 years, actually, 13 years' imprisonment,

19     for espionage.  Do you remember that?

20        A.   Yes.  I said today, also, that I was informed after the war only

21     that for alleged membership of this group I had been sentenced to

22     12 years in prison for espionage.  This is the information that I got.

23        Q.   Sir, did you have the opportunity to look at the judgement

24     according to which you were sentenced?

25        A.   No, I didn't.

Page 18060

 1        Q.   This is the judgement.

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly like to move to

 8     private session.  And can we redact this part of the transcript, please.

 9             JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.

10                           [Private session]

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18061











11 Pages 18061-18069 redacted. Private session.















Page 18070

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, maybe for the record, I would like

23     to mention that we started in open session.  Thank you.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the reference I made

25     in the transcript, it's on page 18 in the Serbian version, when I spoke

Page 18071

 1     about a verdict being handed down in absentia.

 2             So can we please have page 18, and page 16 in English.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  In open session?

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Should we revert --

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I asked for this document not to be

 6     broadcast.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  So we should revert to private session, Mr. Krgovic,

 8     I take it?

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just for reference,

10     I'm just going to show this portion that Judge Harhoff's question

11     referred to.  One can see clearly what is this all about in the last

12     paragraph in English.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I accept that, Mr. Krgovic.  And I -- but I

14     already did take your word for it.  Obviously these people were tried

15     in absentia, and that's fine.  But, still, I - speaking for myself, at

16     least - I'm not convinced that this witness is the person who is

17     mentioned in the judgement.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we just move into

19     private session for my next question, to be on the safe side.

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18072











11 Pages 18072-18074 redacted. Private session.















Page 18075

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15                           [Open session]

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.  Thank

17     you.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no questions

19     for this witness.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.

21             Yes, Mr. Olmsted, anything in re-examination?

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             May we have 65 ter 10216 on the screen.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [No interpretation]

25                           Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

Page 18076

 1        Q.   And what we're looking at is the ARK Crisis Staff

 2     Official Gazette dated 23 June 1992.

 3             And I would like you to look at, in particular --

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  If we turn to page 13 of the English, page 6 of the

 5     B/C/S.

 6        Q.   And I want, sir, to focus your attention to this decision that's

 7     numbered number 45.

 8             Under which it states:

 9             "The proper municipal organs of administration shall be informed

10     of all abandoned property, which shall then be proclaimed property of the

11     state and placed at the disposal of municipal assemblies."

12             Sir, how did this language in this decision compare to the waiver

13     that you had to sign?

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I did

15     not show this document to the witness.

16             And, second of all, this is a leading question.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  It's not a leading question, Your Honours.  In

18     fact, I kind of wish that Defence counsel did show this document to the

19     witness.  And I'm showing it to him now.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that you should first ask

21     him whether he is familiar with this document.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  That's not the point of my question.  I'm asking

23     the witness to compare the waiver that he had to sign in Banja Luka --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 18077

 1        Q.   Sir, looking at this decision that's in front of you, regarding

 2     property being proclaimed property of the state and placed at the

 3     disposal of the municipal assemblies, how did this language in this

 4     decision compare to the waiver that you were made to sign before leaving

 5     Banja Luka?

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is the witness a

 7     jurist?  Is he capable of discussing these kind of issues?  There is no

 8     single word in those provisions that pertains to this witness.  What is

 9     at stake here is abandoned property.

10             JUDGE HALL:  What I understand the question to be, Mr. Krgovic -

11     and Mr. Olmsted would certainly indicate whether we have it wrong - is

12     that this being part of the law and, therefore, applicable to everyone,

13     how does this --

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment.  We're not

15     receiving a B/C/S translation.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Is it better -- is it up now?

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Keep talking.

18             JUDGE HALL:  The -- this particular provision, being part of the

19     law library -- still not getting it?

20             It's okay.  Thank you.

21             This particular provision, being part of the law library, is an

22     item which is of general application and presumably known to everyone,

23     hence the -- in terms of Mr. Krgovic's first objection about it being not

24     shown to the witness not -- the fact that it wasn't, doesn't prohibit

25     Mr. Olmsted from using it.

Page 18078

 1             And the question, as I understand - as I said, Mr. Olmsted would

 2     correct me if I misunderstand the import of his question - is:  Having

 3     regard to this general provision, how did the waiver compare or how did

 4     it fit into this?

 5             Was -- was that your question, Mr. Olmsted.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Precisely.  I couldn't have said it better myself,

 7     Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  And, Mr. Witness, I trust you understand the --

 9     Mr. Olmsted's question.  If you're able to answer, please do so.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this is the right

11     question and a genuine confirmation of what I said earlier when I stated

12     that for anyone to be able to leave Banja Luka they had to collect a

13     number of documents required.  And eventually, once these documents are

14     filed, he, in turn, would be issued a document called a resettlement

15     paper, which clearly states that every person leaving Banja Luka shall

16     waiver the right to his mobile and immobile property.  This decision was

17     passed by the Crisis Staff, and it confirms verbatim what I've just told

18     you.  You can see here that they are taking over and disposing of the

19     property in question.

20             So what I said earlier is confirmed by this decision.  And what I

21     said was absolutely true.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Witness, at this point it might be

23     appropriate for the Chamber to advise you of how your testimony has been

24     understood.  Because, in your answers to the questions put to you by

25     Mr. Krgovic, you seemed to imply that what you signed off in relation to

Page 18079

 1     your property was not the legal ownership but, rather, the right to

 2     temporarily occupy and use the two houses, so as to allow the authorities

 3     in Banja Luka to use your houses for the purpose of resettling refugees.

 4             So there is a remaining question:  Whether what you meant to say

 5     was the physical possession of your house on a temporary basis, or

 6     whether you were speaking about the legal ownership.  And this is why

 7     counsel for the Prosecution is now raising the issue again.

 8             And if I may suggest to you that you either say that you don't

 9     know for sure, because you are not certain about the legal distinction.

10     Or you repeat what you have said in your answers to counsel for the

11     Defence; namely, that what you signed off was the -- the right to -- to

12     use your property.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So what I have just told you, sir, was meant to

15     indicate you to the uncertainty that -- that may still remain in relation

16     to your testimony.  And I understand perfectly well that for someone who

17     is not a trained lawyer the distinction between possession, on the one

18     hand, and legal ownership, on the other hand, may not always be easy

19     to -- to understand.

20             So could I now direct you to inform the Chamber about your

21     understanding of what it was that you signed off in those documents to

22     the State of Republika Srpska at the time you left, in 1993.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I left in 1993, I said that

24     one had to have a final document called the resettlement paper.  Its very

25     name indicates that the person holding it is resettling and leaving the

Page 18080

 1     particular town and the part of the country where he or she used to live.

 2             The text contained in the resettlement paper makes no mention of

 3     temporary use.  There is no word "temporary."  Which means that my

 4     property that I was relinquishing was to be handed over to the state for

 5     its imposal [as interpreted].  Whether the state transferred the

 6     ownership in the land register is something that I said I know nothing

 7     about, because I wasn't there.  But I can confirm -- and by the way,

 8     there are tens of thousands such settlement papers held by all the people

 9     who had to leave.  You can check that it clearly states that our property

10     was placed at the disposal and that the ownership of that property was

11     taken over by the state.  I only added that this decision of the Crisis

12     Staff confirms this because it was them who disposed of the property,

13     including mine.  I left this to the municipality, and you yourselves know

14     that a municipality was a basic organisational unit in our society.

15             So it was not taken away temporarily.  However, whether it was

16     conducted properly, in a legal way, like a probate, I don't know.  Maybe

17     the people present here can help me with that.

18             I hope I was clear in my answer.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.  I think this is as far as we can

20     take the issue.

21             But I leave -- give the floor back to you, Mr. Olmsted.

22             MR. OLMSTED:

23        Q.   At page 3 of the transcript today, you were asked some questions

24     about an incident in which the wall near your house was hit by an

25     explosive device.  And you testified that a police officer who was

Page 18081

 1     present told you that this was normal.

 2             To your knowledge, did the police ever conduct an investigation

 3     into this crime?

 4        A.   Not that I know of.  Because they considered this to be normal.

 5     And it was normal.  Because we were able to collect pieces of such shells

 6     all around our neighbourhood.  They even left one such device in front of

 7     my house.  Maybe I omitted to mention that in my previous statement.

 8             So they actually left a Zolja with a grenade attached to it.  And

 9     when I reported this to the international forces, they came and carried

10     out a controlled explosion of that device in broad daylight.  This is the

11     truth, and everybody knows that.

12        Q.   You also testified, in response to questions by Mr. Krgovic, that

13     you believed that the police had to do something to stop all these crimes

14     against the non-Serb population.  Did you have a personal experience with

15     your private business that led you to believe that the authorities in

16     Banja Luka were co-operating with these criminal groups that were causing

17     these problems?

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  I object to all this.  I mean, what's the point?

19     Ask a question and now --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, that objection was quite foreseeable.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  May we go into private session.

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18082











11 Pages 18082-18084 redacted. Private session.















Page 18085

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, for the record, we're back in open

14     session.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE HALL:  And now that we're in open session, I repeat that

16     the witness is released.  Thank you.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE HALL:  The -- it is 1.20.  I don't suppose the Prosecution

19     has another witness that they intended to begin today?

20             MR. HANNIS:  No, Your Honour.  The only other witness we have in

21     town is ST-008.  He's still hospitalised, and there may be a further

22     follow-up procedure necessary.  So he will not be able to testify today

23     or tomorrow.  We have no other witness for the rest of this week.  We

24     have a full week, full slate of witnesses for next week.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 18086

 1             Are there any procedural issues or housekeeping matters which

 2     need or could be dealt with before we rise for the day?

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I had one I wanted to bring to your attention

 4     before -- because it concerns the witness coming on Monday.  And I think

 5     Mr. Zecevic has one.

 6             Now, mine, in regards to Witness ST-247, who's scheduled to

 7     testify Monday, by an oral ruling on the 11th of November, you admitted

 8     some of his testimony and gave us a certain time-limit.  The question we

 9     needed clarification on was that by your oral ruling you indicated that

10     the -- only the accompanying documents to his transcript that you found

11     pertinent could be used.  He has a transcript which highlighted in blue

12     pertaining to the adjudicated fact and highlighted in yellow for other

13     information we thought was relevant and pertinent as far as background

14     and placing the adjudicated fact in context.  It wasn't clear from the

15     oral ruling whether all the yellow and all the blue is permitted and

16     which accompanying documents.

17             In your oral ruling you indicated that there would be written

18     reasons to follow.  And as far as I'm informed by Mr. Rindi, who's

19     leading the witness, we haven't seen those written reasons yet for that

20     witness.

21             So if we could have that before Monday, it would help in

22     preparation.

23             That's all I had for today.

24             JUDGE HALL:  And I would only say that that is in process.  And

25     we fully -- we understand the urgency of the situation.

Page 18087

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And, Mr. Hannis, aren't we also expecting an

 3     answer, reply, on the motion to re-call 191, if I'm not wrong?

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  191.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I'm not sure.  I've lost track.  I

 7     will check on that and see --

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I thought that was for today, expedited

 9     responses.  Unless I'm wrong.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, it was supposed to be an oral response for

13     today.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Ah, I thought that Ms. Korner had already given an

15     oral response.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

17             MR. HANNIS:  My Case Manager is looking at the transcript at

18     page 17 -- I'm sorry.  Give me a moment.

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             MR. HANNIS:  Pages 17946.  She did give an oral response at that

21     time, and I have nothing further to add to it.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, there's a couple of housekeeping

25     matters.  And there is our exhumation submission, additional exhumation

Page 18088

 1     submission.  And I believe I will be able to deal with all of that in

 2     20 minutes, if it pleases the Court.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  In order that we use the time efficiently.

 5             The first thing, Your Honours, the housekeeping matters.  The day

 6     after the ST-041, the last witness for the Doboj municipality, was

 7     called, we received the batch 160, the disclosure from the Office of the

 8     Prosecutor.  This disclosure, the batch 160, contains a number, precisely

 9     24 documents, which are, to our opinion, extremely important, and -- and

10     definitely severely impaired our -- our ability to cross-examine the

11     witness, especially on the issues that the witness -- that that

12     particular witness, ST-041, testified about.

13             Now, we had this experience before, but it wasn't such a big

14     problem because we always had another witness from the same region and we

15     could use these documents.  Now this -- this situation has created a

16     problem for us because there are no more Doboj witnesses.

17             I -- I just wanted to inform the Trial Chamber, we will try to

18     find -- find out the solution by communicating to our friends from the

19     Office of the Prosecutor, but I just wanted to raise this with

20     Your Honours.  And it -- it creates a grave concern for us.

21             Now the second thing, Your Honours.  We -- I found out only

22     yesterday watching the -- the live feed from the Status Conference of one

23     of the -- in the other cases that -- that there is another enormous

24     amount of documents, the military documents, the so-called Pecanac

25     disclosure, it only came to my attention yesterday, then I checked and I

Page 18089

 1     hear that this enormous amount of documents has been disclosed to other

 2     Defence teams in other cases.  In our case, we -- we never heard anything

 3     about it before yesterday.

 4             Now, it come to my -- when I started investigating that, I found

 5     out that there is -- there is four DVDs containing total of 6.662

 6     documents.  I know -- out of this number, the large number pertains to

 7     the -- to the documents which are outside the relevant period for this

 8     indictment.  But just by -- just by shuffling through the list of the

 9     documents, I -- I identified at least one -- or let's say 10 per cent of

10     the documents might be really relevant for us.

11             Now, we sent the -- the mail to our friends from the Office of

12     the Prosecutor immediately, when I found out about this -- this Pecanac

13     disclosure.  Now, this might -- this might, again, impair our ability

14     to -- to cross-examine the -- the military expert in January, if we don't

15     receive that on the -- on the -- on an expedited basis.  And, plus, we

16     need to know if there are any other documents in the possession of the

17     Office of the Prosecutor which have any military significance so that we

18     know that once it is over and that we can really start preparing the

19     cross-examination properly for the military expert.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

21             Just to be clear about this Pecanac disclosure.  Does it have the

22     quality of being exculpatory material?  Or is it just material that might

23     be relevant or interesting?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry I wasn't precise enough.  These documents

25     that I have been able to identify just by the list -- because I never saw

Page 18090

 1     the documents, you see, Your Honours, I just saw the list of the

 2     documents.  And from that list, I -- it appears to me that the number of

 3     documents are 68 -- Rule 68 documents definitely, and the others are 66,

 4     Rule 66 documents.

 5             And we asked the Office of the Prosecutor to disclose that to us.

 6     Of course, they have the obligation to disclose the Rule 68 documents

 7     immediately.  And it apparently is the situation that exists already one

 8     month ago.  I wasn't aware.  I'm really sorry, it might be -- it might be

 9     really my problem or my -- my mistake, that I didn't check the other

10     cases.  But, believe me, Your Honours, I don't have enough time for this

11     particular case, not only to check what is happening in the other cases.

12             So -- again, I -- we ask the Office of the Prosecutor to disclose

13     that to us.  We hope we will receive that.  But I just wanted to raise

14     this issue again with the Trial Chamber because we are concerned with

15     that.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Hannis, are you able to shed some light over

17     this issue?

18             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I'm -- not very much.  Actually,

19     Mr. Zecevic told me today he was going to make a submission on

20     exhumations, and I didn't know this matter was coming up.

21             This collection, I saw an e-mail at -- just this morning.  I'm

22     not sure who provided this to us.  It appears to be mostly military

23     material, but I have just now, while we were sitting here this morning,

24     downloaded an Excel spreadsheet into my own collection so I can start a

25     personal review on it.  But as we stand here now, I can't tell you much

Page 18091

 1     more about it.  Where it came from, how we got it, whether any of it is

 2     duplication of other materials, how much of it applies to 1992; I just

 3     don't know.  All I can tell Your Honours right now is that after I leave

 4     the courtroom and take care of two other matters needing attention today,

 5     I will direct my attention to the Pecanac materials.

 6             And that's all I can tell Mr. Zecevic at the moment.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand and I appreciate it, because it just

 8     came up last night and this morning.

 9             Now, Your Honours --

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But before we leave this issue, is anyone able to

11     tell us just what the Pecanac documents are?  I mean, have they recently

12     been seized by the Prosecution or what -- what are they?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, my understanding is that

14     Mr. Pecanac was a high-ranking officer of the VRS and apparently was in

15     a -- in a -- in a close surrounding to General Mladic.  And the seizure

16     of the documents is -- it's -- it's called Pecanac disclosure, Pecanac

17     batch.  So my assumption is that it was found somewhere in -- in the --

18     in the belonging of this officer.  That is as far as I know at this

19     moment, Your Honours, because, as I said, it only came yesterday evening

20     to my attention that it exists at all.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, just to be precise on my exhumations

23     submissions, I will speak in Serbian language.

24             [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to remind you that on

25     the 17th of September of this year, on page 14822 of the transcript and

Page 18092

 1     onwards, Ms. Korner, Mr. Pantelic, and I presented our arguments related

 2     to exhumations.  I would like to take this opportunity to incorporate all

 3     the arguments presented at the time in relation to this issue in order to

 4     avoid unnecessary repetition.

 5             On that occasion, I would like to remind you all again that we

 6     presented arguments regarding the position of the Prosecution that it is

 7     admissible at this phase of the proceedings for the Prosecution to expand

 8     its list by an additional 1.795 victims not listed in the schedule to the

 9     indictment.  This was opposed by both Defence teams, and the

10     Trial Chamber is to take a position on this, as far as we know.

11             Your Honours, I sent copy of my submission to the interpreters in

12     order to facilitate their work and in order to speed up this as much as

13     possible.

14             On that occasion, Your Honours, the Stanisic Defence informed the

15     Trial Chamber that it officially asked the Prosecution for relevant

16     documentation relating to 1.443 victims listed in the schedules to the

17     indictment.  On that occasion, in its response to the Defence arguments,

18     Ms. Korner, on page 14834, claimed that at her request she would send the

19     Defence all the necessary documentation relating to the victims, because

20     this documentation is in the possession of the Prosecution, and if the

21     Defence were to challenge these facts, which is the right of the Defence,

22     the Prosecution was prepared to present necessary evidence.

23             I will also like to remind you that the Defence informed the

24     Trial Chamber, at the time that it asked the Prosecution to provide for

25     each of the victims listed in the schedule to the indictment, only six

Page 18093

 1     basic pieces of information, and in the cases of missing persons,

 2     additional information declaring the missing person dead in accordance

 3     with the valid legal regulations and in a legal procedure before the

 4     Court.  That was on page 14832.  This necessary data was listed for the

 5     record.

 6             Indeed, on 18 October, in batch 151, the Prosecution provided the

 7     Defence, in an electronic format, the documentation which allegedly

 8     contained the requested information.  Despite some technical

 9     difficulties, the Defence managed to analyse the supplied documentation.

10     What we managed to establish is that this voluminous documentation

11     contains information for over 9.000 alleged victims, that is, names.

12     Victims between 1991 and 1995.  This information is composed of several

13     various databases in which the information was repeated and where some of

14     the sought information was located.

15             The problem is, Your Honours, that the documents on which the

16     entries are based in these databases were not there, at least they were

17     not given to us.  Therefore, in our opinion, it is impossible to verify

18     the veracity of the information in the database which was the essence of

19     our request for disclosure.

20             Our intention was to further clarify the situation, so we

21     organised a meeting at the OTP with Ms. Alison Kipp who, as far as we

22     know, is responsible in the OTP for maintaining this database.  On that

23     occasion we established that the Prosecution receives the information on

24     alleged sources from -- victims from six sources which are listed in the

25     database that the Prosecution initially offered on the 22nd of July.

Page 18094

 1     Back on 17th of September -- and I would like to repeat that in our

 2     opinion some of these sources are absolutely not objective.  Furthermore,

 3     as we understood Ms. Kipp, the Prosecution receives databases from these

 4     sources which it simply copies into its own base without comparing the

 5     information and without verifying this information.  Therefore, there is

 6     a certain number of duplicates for the same victims received from

 7     different sources.  And, as far as we understood, the data entered into

 8     the database was mainly not verified.

 9             What we also managed to find out during the meeting is that these

10     sources which provide the databases to the Prosecution only very rarely

11     provide the Prosecution with documents on the basis of which these

12     entries were made.  So the Prosecution, in fact, has a very limited

13     number of such documents.  Perhaps, in our estimate, as little as

14     30 per cent, if as much.  These are mainly forensic exhumation reports or

15     death certificates without listing any further information about the

16     time, the place, the mechanism of the source of the injury, et cetera.

17     That is to say, after the Prosecution receives this information from the

18     sources, it does not verify its accuracy, nor does it receive any

19     supporting documentation which would indicate how these organisations got

20     the information on a certain person being dead or missing.

21             In particular, Your Honours, there's a certain significant number

22     of persons who are in the Prosecution's database, and data about them is

23     not furnished from either one of these six sources but that data is

24     entered on the basis of witness statements which the Prosecution heard

25     during the years of investigations.  A consequence of such an approach is

Page 18095

 1     the further duplication of victims, because these -- this data is not

 2     compared with data received from other sources.

 3             On the basis of all of the above, we have the impression,

 4     Your Honours, that the Prosecution, in spite of their willingness to

 5     accommodate us, simply does not have all of the basic data about each of

 6     the victims which the Defence requested.  Or if they do possess such

 7     data, then they don't possess the documents on the basis of which the

 8     data was entered into the database.

 9             During the meeting, we tried to reinforce our positions by

10     picking at random one person from the database.  Then we asked Ms. Kipp

11     to find us the relevant data for that person.  After 15 minutes of work,

12     of searching, Ms. Kipp did not succeed in this task.  This simply, in our

13     opinion, means that the Defence, for the bulk of the victims, has no way

14     of verifying the basis or the accuracy of the data entered into the OTP

15     database.

16             Your Honours, I would like to let the Chamber know that the

17     Defence is continuing to analyse the documentation and is trying to

18     establish what is missing, as well as the number of double entries for

19     the same persons.  But this task, in view of our resources, will take

20     some time.

21             To conclude, Your Honours, Ms. Korner and I have cited the

22     jurisprudence of this Court supporting our requests stated on

23     17th of September, and I'm very briefly going to repeat three key

24     positions in legal practice which I believe are relevant.

25             It's a fact that a large number or a number of Trial Chambers of

Page 18096

 1     this Tribunal takes the position that the further the accused is removed

 2     from the crime itself, it is justified not to identify the victims to the

 3     extent and the degree required in cases of direct perpetrators.  However,

 4     there are significant exceptions here.  For example, in the Halilovic

 5     case, even though the accused was quite removed by the -- his function,

 6     from the very crime, the Trial Chamber insisted that the OTP identify

 7     beyond a reasonable doubt all the victims and the alleged perpetrators of

 8     the crimes, which, as is stated in the judgement, is something the OTP

 9     did not manage to do, which resulted in an acquittal.

10             Two, even the Trial Chambers which accept the position that

11     the more an accused is removed from the victim justifies a lower

12     threshold of identification of victims still firmly believe that a victim

13     has to be identified in such a way that enables the Defence to dispute

14     that these victims were really the victims of the crimes that their

15     clients are being charged with.  This is the -- a decision in the Prlic

16     trial regarding preliminary submissions.

17             The Appeals Chamber, in its most recent decision on this question

18     in the Gotovina case pursuant to an interlocutory appeal of last January,

19     granted the Defence appeal and returned it for review to the

20     Trial Chamber, in essence, confirming the position that I have just

21     stated before.

22             In view of everything that I have stated, I would like to inform

23     the Trial Chamber that the Defence in this position is not prepared nor

24     is it able to stipulate the facts contained in the OTP's exhumation

25     database.

Page 18097

 1             Thank you very much.  And this concludes my submission.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  Obviously this is something

 3     that's going to have to be digested.  And we expect that the Prosecution

 4     would themselves, having considered what you would have said, make a

 5     response as soon as possible.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I would request the opportunity

 7     for us to make some kind of response.  Ms. Pidwell and Ms. Korner are the

 8     ones who've been dealing with this issue.  But the bottom line is that

 9     the Defence is unable to stipulate, and therefore we think you've heard

10     enough of the legal submissions about it, and we need a ruling on the --

11     whether or not you will grant our request to add the proof-of-death

12     database.  Because if you do, that settles one thing.  If you decide that

13     you cannot or will not, then we may have to make an application to the

14     Court to try and deal with that evidence in some other fashion.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Well, thank you.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic -- sorry, Mr. Zecevic.  I'm sorry.

17             You said that -- I'm going to repeat.  You said:  "... three key

18     positions in legal practice which I believe are relevant."  And then you

19     said, "first."  And you said "two."  And I don't see "three."  Did you

20     miss something?  Did I miss something?  Or is it just a 1, 2, 3 that

21     isn't clear?

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  I will -- I will briefly try to explain,

23     Your Honours.

24             The first was the -- was the overwhelming position of the -- of

25     the Trial Chambers concerning the -- the proximity of the accused and the

Page 18098

 1     crime.

 2             The second was the decision in Prlic on preliminary motions.  The

 3     decision in case Prlic on preliminary motions where the Trial Chamber

 4     said that the victim must be identified in a manner that gives the

 5     opportunity to Defence to challenge that it's a victim of that crime.

 6             And the last was the appeals in Gotovina, the appeals decision in

 7     Gotovina.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  You're welcome.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just have a

11     question.  It will take up two minutes.  I thought I would have enough

12     time to open it later.

13             It's relating to Witness ST-260.  We received an e-mail from the

14     OTP yesterday when we asked to speak to the witness that the witness had

15     informed the OTP that he was willing to speak to the Defence only if this

16     was something that was granted by the Trial Chamber or was an instruction

17     from the Trial Chamber.

18             We know that this perhaps is not strictly something the

19     Trial Chamber should do, but in view of the request by the witness, we

20     are asking for further instructions.  Should the Trial Chamber grant that

21     the -- that the witness should speak to the Defence, or is there some

22     other way that we could deal with it?

23             But, anyway, this is information that we received from the OTP,

24     and it was their suggestion that we bring this matter before the

25     Trial Chamber.

Page 18099

 1             JUDGE HALL:  With respect, I find that suggestion odd, because we

 2     have walked this road before and we have clearly stated it is not for the

 3     Trial Chamber to direct or suggest to -- the witness speaks to the other

 4     side.  It's entirely up to the witness.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In that case, I would ask the OTP

 6     to explain that to the witness, because evidently there is a

 7     communication problem.  Or perhaps we can have the witness's contacts so

 8     that we can speak to him directly and put our position to him.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Or perhaps VWS could explain to the witness what the

10     position is.

11             MR. HANNIS:  I can indicate, Your Honour, I have explained the

12     position.  I'm willing to do it again.  And I'm happy for VWS to do it as

13     well.  Or instead of me.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So we're five minutes past the time for

15     adjournment.  The -- we thank you the interpreters and the support staff

16     for their indulgence.  And we rise for the day.

17             I wish everyone a safe weekend.

18                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day

20                           of December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.