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]
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 A. Mostly against non-Serbs.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
1 Q. And as far as you know, there was no change in the land property
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 --
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
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I reported about this? No. Never,
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
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
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
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,
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
1 Q. This is the judgement.
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 Pages 18061-18069 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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]
11 Pages 18072-18074 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
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:
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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]
11 Pages 18082-18084 redacted. Private session.
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.
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
21 So if we could have that before Monday, it would help in
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.