1 Friday, 5 March 2004

2 [Sentencing Hearing]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: A very good morning to everybody. May I ask

7 the registrar, please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

9 IT-02-61-S, the Prosecutor versus Miroslav Deronjic.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And may I have the appearances.

11 First for the Prosecution, please.

12 MR. HARMON: Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours,

13 counsel. My name is Mark Harmon. I represent the Prosecutor's office

14 this morning. Present with me is Ms. Lise-Lotte Karlsson who is the case

15 manager.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And for the Defence, please.

17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I am

18 Slobodan Cvijetic, the Defence attorney of the accused, and next to me is

19 my colleague, my co-Defence counsel, Mr. Slobodan Zecevic.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And may I finally ask Mr. Deronjic,

21 can you follow the proceedings in a language you understand?

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, I

23 can follow the proceedings and the translation is all right. Everything

24 is fine. Thank you.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you, Mr. Deronjic.

1 To start with, I think you can believe that we are not amused

2 that we have to continue with the Sentencing Hearing. In a way it was

3 predicted by the parties that it would support the finding of justice

4 when waiting of -- until the Krajisnik testimony of Mr. Deronjic is over.

5 So let me briefly explain why contrary to our previous decision to be as

6 expeditious as possible what is the purpose of this additional Sentencing

7 Hearing.

8 The Trial Chamber recalls that Miroslav Deronjic pleaded guilty

9 to the Second Amended Indictment and admitted the additional Factual

10 Basis on the 30th September 2003. After his guilty plea and having

11 received some clarifications following his testimony in the present case

12 on 27 January 2004, the Trial Chamber entered a finding of guilt on this

13 basis.

14 The Trial Chamber has seen reasons to de novo review in great

15 detail the Indictment, the Factual Basis, the accused's testimony, his

16 prior statements given to the Office of the Prosecutor, his testimonies

17 in relation to the events in Glogova, only limited to this, given in the

18 case Prosecutor versus Momir Nikolic, versus Radoslav Krstic, versus

19 Slobodan Milosevic, versus Blagojevic et al.

20 The review was in particular focused on the accused's witness

21 statement of 25 November 2003 that was tendered by the Prosecution

22 immediately after the accused's testimony in the Sentencing Hearing in a

23 version that was not yet signed but we agreed that the basis was the

24 B/C/S version, and this B/C/S version reflects what in fact the accused

25 has to say, or wanted to say.

1 As said, this statement and, more important, the accused's

2 testimony in the case Prosecutor versus Krajisnik heard from the 12th

3 through 19th of February, 2004, confirmed the necessity of these

4 additional proceedings. The Trial Chamber has concluded that it appears

5 on a prima facie basis that there are in fact material discrepancies that

6 make it incumbent on the Trial Chamber to verify whether all the

7 prerequisites of Rule 60 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are

8 fulfilled.

9 I don't want to repeat in all detail what I discussed already the

10 last time. We are only seized with the Second Amended Indictment, and

11 this is only on the events on -- in Glogova in 1992 and the events

12 anticipating these incidents in Glogova.

13 Let me repeat where we have our problems with Rule 62 bis in its

14 application. It reads: "If the accused pleads guilty in accordance with

15 Rule 62 or requests to change his or her plea to guilty and the Trial

16 Chamber is satisfied that the guilty plea has been made voluntarily, the

17 guilty plea is informed, the guilty plea is not equivocal, and there is a

18 sufficient Factual Basis for the crime and the accused's participation in

19 it either on the basis of independent indicia or on lack of any material

20 disagreement, then the Trial Chamber may enter a finding of guilt."

21 In addition to that, also based on the new evidence, these facts

22 have to be discussed. The underlying facts have to be discussed not only

23 in the light of the prerequisites of Rule 62 bis but they might also be

24 relevant as factors for determining an appropriate sentencing.

25 No doubt the above-mentioned prerequisites are in part

1 overlapping and each of the prerequisites of Rule 62 bis have a mutual

2 impact on one another. The Trial Chamber notes that the following

3 statements by the accused alerted the Trial Chamber to check whether the

4 guilty plea by the accused was voluntary.

5 Mr. Deronjic, you pleaded guilty too, and in doing so you

6 admitted the following, and I quote now from the Second Amended

7 Indictment, paragraph 31 through 35:

8 "During the gathering of Bosnian Muslim villagers of Glogova from

9 their homes, members of the attacking forces shot and killed Bosnian

10 Muslim villagers in Delic, Ibisevic, and his wife Zlatija and Adem

11 Junuzovic outside their homes. Miroslav Deronjic is individually

12 criminally responsible under Article 7(1) for committing the killings

13 described in this paragraph."

14 And then I don't want, and I think it's not necessary, the

15 parties know about this in all details. The first mass killing, the

16 second mass killing, the third mass killing are described.

17 May I -- and then in paragraph 4 it reads: "The crimes

18 enumerated in paragraphs 30 through 39 as described in this charge of

19 persecutions in this Indictment were within the object of the joint

20 criminal enterprise and Miroslav Deronjic held the state of mind

21 necessary for the commission of persecution. The crimes enumerated in

22 paragraphs 31 through 34 as described in the charter of persecution were

23 the natural and foreseeable consequences of the execution of the joint

24 criminal enterprise and Miroslav Deronjic was aware that these crimes

25 were the possible consequences of the execution of the joint criminal

1 enterprise."

2 May I ask in this context of Prosecution, we came only across

3 when reading in all detail that in paragraph 4, you refer to paragraph 31

4 to 34 only. Why is it that you omitted paragraph 35 where it reads: "A

5 total of 65 Bosnian Muslim residents from Glogova were executed during

6 the 9 May 1992 attack. The murdered individuals are those listed in

7 Schedule A which is attached and made part of this Indictment."

8 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I don't have an answer for that. It's

9 certainly nothing that is contested in this case, and I'm quite confident

10 that if we amended the Indictment now that Mr. Deronjic would include in

11 his plea paragraph 35. It is always considered that these number of

12 people were killed in this attack.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may I ask the Defence, can we take this as

14 an agreed fact?

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, you can consider this as an

16 agreed fact, yes.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. But now as regards killing,

18 Mr. Deronjic testified in the Krajisnik trial.

19 "At one point I heard that there had been killings and then again

20 this would be denied. It's difficult for me to tell you precisely when

21 it was that I learned that killings had taken place. After the war or,

22 rather, during the war I had the opportunity to read a book in Glogova.

23 This was all done pursuant to my request because we wanted to establish

24 the truth and find out how many people had been killed in Glogova.

25 However, we were not able to get any firm proof, and I accepted the

1 allegation of the Prosecutor, the case of the Prosecutor. Whether this

2 is the exact number, I don't know, but I have no reasons to doubt what

3 they think happened there." This statement has also had an impact on the

4 question whether your guilty plea was in fact informed, i.e., you as the

5 accused have been really aware of the scope and degree of your individual

6 criminal responsibility and that you have -- and that you understood that

7 by pleading guilty to committing persecutions by killings, you admitted

8 you had at that point in time the necessary mens rea. You pleaded guilty

9 to killings. I referred to this beforehand. In doing so, you admitted

10 at the same time during your testimony in -- on page 157 of the

11 Sentencing Hearing transcript, asked by me: "May I with respect to these

12 65 killings," and you will recall that we heard the names of these 65

13 dead persons, "that this murder of 65 Bosnian Muslims was the foreseeable

14 result of the attack, and you took into account and accepted that this

15 might happen."

16 Your answer was: "Yes, Your Honour. I stated so, and that the

17 way that is put is correct." End of quote on page 157. The quote

18 started on page 156.

19 The Trial Chamber was primarily alerted whether the guilty plea

20 was not equivocal. Once again, the starting points are your guilty plea

21 and paragraphs 38 and 40 of the Second Amended Indictment where it

22 reads -- I only want to repeat an excerpt, 38: "On 8 and 9 May 1992,

23 Miroslav Deronjic committed and ordered the forcible removal and

24 displacement of Bosnian Muslims of Glogova from the municipality of

25 Glogova [sic]."

1 And then concluding in paragraph 40: "The persecutions of

2 Bosnian Muslim civilians as alleged above resulted in the killings of

3 approximately 65 Bosnian Muslims, the forcible displacement of the

4 Bosnian Muslim population from Glogova and the destruction of the village

5 of Glogova."

6 In the Blagojevic trial, you stated: "I pleaded guilty to the

7 extent it was accepted by the Prosecution that I did not order, that I

8 did not kill, that I was not present, that I did not know of those events

9 but that I was responsible, having ordered the action." And I think the

10 phraseology used was that: "I should have forecast that this could

11 happen. I cannot remember the exact words. I did accept it, and I

12 pleaded guilty to that. I confessed to that."

13 What you have stated in relation to this, that in fact you took

14 into account the foreseeable results and accepted them. I just read from

15 the transcript in this case.

16 Now, you are stating once again in the case Prosecutor versus

17 Krajisnik, on pages 1105 through 1106 of the transcripts there: "I

18 agreed to certain things which I did, but I never agreed to that, nor did

19 I ever order a wish that people are killed. In that period or during the

20 war, I never agreed to anything like that."

21 So we have the development, and this development started already

22 with the statements given to the OTP in the time from June to July 2003

23 where you said: "I do not consider myself directly responsible for what

24 happened there."

25 I think it's very clear that we need a clarification on these

1 points. Also, the question of material, the absence of a material

2 disagreement between the parties has to be discussed later.

3 Finally, according to Rule 62 bis, the Trial Chamber has the

4 discretion, it reads there: "The Trial Chamber may enter a finding of

5 guilt."

6 What we are doing today is the continuation of the Sentencing

7 Hearing because one thing seems to be clear over all in the world that

8 when the Judges are not satisfied and they are seized still with the case

9 that in fact the guilty plea fulfils all prerequisites set out in the

10 Rules, you can't convict an innocent person. So therefore, we need some

11 clarification.

12 Let me, before going into details of the facts, further details

13 of the facts, I only gave you some examples, proceed with some technical

14 questions. The Trial Chamber, in its order of 19 February 2004,

15 requested the Prosecution to produce the transcripts of the accused's

16 testimony in the Krajisnik trial, and this testimony, the transcript of

17 this testimony were submitted by the Prosecution accordingly.

18 May I ask, are there any objections to admit these transcripts

19 from the Krajisnik trial into evidence in this case? It's not the case.

20 I see nodding from both parties. Thereby admitted into evidence.

21 Mr. Registrar, may I ask you what is the now following JS number.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be JS26.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Admitted into evidence under this

24 number.

25 Then having read this testimony in the Krajisnik trial, we came

1 across a number of documents, and we requested the Prosecution to produce

2 a number of exhibits tendered in the Krajisnik trial, and nearly

3 everything was produced apart from a document dated the 13th of May that

4 testifies that -- I'm going to quote from Mr. Deronjic: "I expelled

5 volunteers from Bratunac. I have a document about this. The JNA refused

6 to do it, so I did it myself."

7 Prosecution submitted that they are not -- that the Prosecution

8 is not in the possession of this document.

9 The Trial Chamber intends to admit into evidence the following

10 exhibits, and let's go through those that commence case by case, and the

11 deluge of the 700 documents hopefully is melted down to only some

12 documents being relevant for the case before us.

13 I refer to the document, the submission by the Prosecution of

14 exhibits related to testimony of Miroslav Deronjic, and there we can

15 already find the comments given by the Prosecution.

16 First, we have P35. This map shows certain municipalities in

17 which Bosnian Serbs took steps to establish Serb ethnic territories.

18 It's relevant to paragraph 7 and 8 of the Factual Basis.

19 May I ask the Defence, any objections?

20 MR. ZECEVIC: No objections, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then we come to next document,

22 Exhibit P36 in the aforementioned case. The comment given by the

23 Prosecution is that this document supports the assertion set forth in

24 paragraph 3 of the Factual Basis. It's a decision on appointment of

25 personnel and organisational issues commission: "The Commission of

1 Personnel and Organisational Issues is being constituted with the

2 following members appointed: Dukic Rajko, Karadzic Radovan, Krajisnik

3 Momcilo, Simovic Miodrag, Ostojic Velibor, Neskovic Radomir, Vucurevic

4 Bozidar, Hrvacanin Slobodanka, Jovanovic Jovo, Vukic Radoslav, Bjelosevic

5 Milovan," and then the last one, number 13, is "Sarac Jovan," but the

6 second to last it reads, "Deronjic Miodrag."

7 I know it was discussed already previously, but for the

8 transcript of this case, may I have a clarification, is this just a

9 misspelling or is this Mr. Miodrag Deronjic mentioned there under number

10 12 the accused in this case?

11 MR. HARMON: That is a correct spelling from the original

12 document. It was clarified during the trial. This is Miroslav Deronjic.

13 His first name was incorrectly inserted into the original document.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can I take this as an agreed fact?

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Agreed fact, yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Documents P37, P38 are

17 Prosecution's opinion that these documents appear to be irrelevant to the

18 Factual Basis, and having read these documents, I think it's true. There

19 is no intention to admit these documents.

20 Then we have, and this is the last number of documents or pages,

21 P39 and P40. These documents contain references to, inter alia, the

22 implementation of Variant A and Variant B, phases 1 and 2, are relevant,

23 inter alia, to paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Factual Basis.

24 The then following documents, P41, P42, and so on, they are in

25 part excerpts of P39 or P40. Therefore, it might not be necessary to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 admit both documents in its entirety because then we would admit into

2 evidence the same relevant parts twice.

3 My suggestion would be not to admit P39 but P40, because in P40

4 there are some parts relevant also for the incidents in Glogova not

5 mentioned in the clips taken in the following exhibits.

6 Are there any objections to admit into evidence document P40 in

7 its entirety?

8 MR. HARMON: No objection.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: No objection, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then we have document P41, the

11 minutes of the emergency meeting of the Presidency of the Municipal Board

12 of the SDS of Bratunac related to the order of the president of the SDS

13 of BH, Dr. Karadzic, where it, inter alia, reads: "Election of the

14 Crisis Staff, number 1, Miroslav Deronjic."

15 And then we have under P42 the minutes of the meeting of the

16 Bratunac SDS Municipal Board held on 25 October 1991. The Prosecution

17 states that these documents corroborate paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of

18 the Factual Basis and so on, so the relevance is not disputed.

19 Any objections by the Defence to -- in relation to these

20 documents?

21 MR. ZECEVIC: No objection, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we may turn to document P44, minutes from

23 the meeting of the SDS Municipal Board held on 23 December 1991. The

24 Prosecution states this document supports paragraph 11 of the Factual

25 Basis.

1 Any objections? I can see no. Admitted into evidence.

2 That we have a clear overview, may I ask, Mr. Registrar, later,

3 following the next break, to give copies of the new exhibit list to the

4 parties that we know which document we are referring to later on, now

5 that we have the exhibit numbers, now a concrete case.

6 Then let the document P53, let -- it's the decision that the

7 state of imminent threat of war has been declared the 16th of April,

8 1992. The Prosecution submits this document is corroborating Factual

9 Basis in paragraph 7. I can see no objection from the Defence.

10 Therefore, admitted into evidence.

11 P54. This document reflects implementation of P53 in the Serbian

12 municipality of Bratunac. It's an order for a general mobilisation. I

13 can see no objections from the Defence. They are nodding, and therefore

14 admitted into evidence in this case as well.

15 Document P55, aerial image, identifies the location of the Hotel

16 Fontana and is relevant to paragraph 15 of the Factual Basis. I can see

17 no objections instead of nodding by the Defence. Therefore, admitted

18 into evidence.

19 Document P56, an order forbidding all paramilitary formations to

20 be active in the territory of Bratunac municipality, and this order is

21 dated Bratunac, the 1st of May, 1992. And the Prosecution has given

22 comments to -- at the same time to the same document, P57, decision on

23 paramilitary formations leaving the territory of Bratunac municipality.

24 This is a document dated 7 May 1992, 1600 hours.

25 I see nodding from the side of the Defence. Therefore, documents

1 P56, P57 admitted into evidence.

2 P61. P61 lists by name a number of Muslims who had been expelled

3 from the Muslim settlements in the Bratunac municipality including the

4 settlement of Suha. According to the Prosecution, it supports the

5 sentence in paragraph 29 of the Factual Basis that Miroslav Deronjic also

6 stated if everything went well with the Glogova operation, the operation

7 to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims would continue in the following

8 days in the town of Bratunac and the communities of Voljavica and Suha.

9 P61, according to the Prosecution, also corroborate's Miroslav

10 Deronjic's testimony on this point.

11 Nodding by the Defence. Admitted into evidence in this case.

12 Then we have finally P63, and this is only in part additional --

13 of additional relevance and added value. It's a mixture of composition

14 of the 19 December 1991 instructions setting forth Variant A and Variant

15 B. To that end, and this part of the document is already admitted into

16 evidence. However, not the now attached minutes of that very day. So

17 could you accept that we only admit into evidence, not to have the same

18 documents twice, only admit into evidence the minutes of the session of

19 the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina of 11 December 1991?

20 Mr. Harmon, please.

21 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I don't see the relevance of this

22 document in this particular hearing. This document is eight days before

23 the Variant A and Variant B meeting in Sarajevo. This document was

24 tendered in the Krajisnik case only because of sub-part 2 found in that

25 document as a reflection that Mr. Krajisnik supported the proposition in

1 Variant A and Variant B. Mr. Deronjic did not attend this particular

2 meeting. This particular meeting was separate and apart from anything in

3 this particular case, and indeed it was not -- I don't believe is

4 directly relevant, I say directly relevant to anything in the Factual

5 Basis.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the Defence on this?

7 MR. ZECEVIC: We agree, Your Honour, with the position of the

8 Prosecutor's office.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this document needs not be admitted into

11 evidence. The same -- apparently --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I can't check it right now, but I

14 got a message that document P45 was not yet mentioned. These were

15 minutes from the meeting of the Municipal Board held on 24 February 1992.

16 The implementation of level 2 state of emergency where it reads that the

17 suggestion to enter on level 2 state of emergency was unanimously

18 accepted by all the participants. And the Prosecution submitted that

19 this document supports paragraph 12 of the Factual Basis and corroborates

20 the testimony of Miroslav Deronjic.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: No objection, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore admitted into evidence. I thank

23 you for recalling this.

24 Then we agree with the submission by the Prosecution that the --

25 the intercept P601 ID recorded in July 1995 is absolutely not relevant

1 for the case before us and therefore it cannot be admitted into evidence.

2 And as in relation to the request to produce the 18th October 1999

3 documents, the Prosecution correctly states that the already accepted

4 Exhibits P41 and P42 cover this day.

5 So -- and in relation to the 19 December 1999 [sic] Documents,

6 the Prosecution submits that the Prosecution understands the reference to

7 the plural term "documents" in the English translation of the testimony

8 of the accused on the 27 January 2004 to be a reference to multiple

9 copies of the same document.

10 May I ask the Defence, is this correct? Can this be seen as a --

11 as an agreed fact or are there any other documents of 19th of December,

12 1991?

13 MR. ZECEVIC: It is an agreed fact, Your Honour. I just draw

14 your attention to the fact that in line 23 it says December 1999. So ...

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If it could please be corrected, 1991.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: It's an agreed fact. For December 19th, 1991

17 document, yes.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And this part of the -- and these

19 instructions are already admitted into evidence under exhibit numbers

20 PS22 and 22A.

21 So finally for the Office of the Prosecutor, may I ask whether

22 the Prosecution is prepared to tender this very interesting map of the

23 area admitted in Krajisnik case as Exhibit P60, 6-0, into evidence, the

24 map of the area.

25 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we are prepared to tender it. I have

1 copies in my hand if the assistant could collect them from me.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Usher, please.

3 MR. HARMON: And they could be distributed and marked as an

4 exhibit to this case.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: The Defence has no objection, Your Honour, to this

7 --

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And may I ask at the same time --

9 Madam Usher, could you please put this document already now on the ELMO,

10 because we will have to go back to this map for some clarifications later

11 on.

12 May I ask what is the number of this exhibit in this case.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this map would be Exhibit PS40.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, 40. Thank you.

15 So then we are -- we have gone through the list of missing

16 documents save one, the document of 13 May 1992. As I already stated

17 previously, the basis for our request was the testimony of the accused in

18 this case, in the Milosevic case where he stated that he is in the

19 possession of a document of this date indicating the expulsion of several

20 -- or at least one individual.

21 May I ask the Defence. Of course, nobody can compel the Defence

22 to produce evidence. Do you want to act?

23 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, may I be -- may I be heard before my

24 learned friend from the Defence on this issue, because --

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can see the Defence agrees, so therefore,

1 please go ahead.

2 MR. HARMON: The reason I intervened is because when we received

3 your order requesting the production of that document, I endeavoured to

4 get that document as quickly as I could, and I also consulted with the

5 Defence.

6 As Your Honours know, in two of the documents that are before

7 you, Prosecution Exhibit in the Krajisnik case 56 and Prosecution Exhibit

8 57, there are two orders, one dated the 1st of May and one dated the 6th

9 of May, both dealing with volunteers, both dealing with actions taken by

10 the Bratunac Crisis Staff to essentially forbid them from actions in the

11 Bratunac municipality. Now, I then sought a production of that

12 particular document through looking through my archives, because it's

13 entirely consistent with not only those two documents but it's also

14 consistent with a document that I subsequently found, a document which

15 you do not have, a document dated the 13th of June, 1992, expelling a

16 particular named volunteer by the name of Nedeljko Sljivanac from

17 Bratunac. He was a volunteer, and he was specifically expelled on the

18 13th of June.

19 So I consulted with my colleagues and specifically I was informed

20 that this document had been shown to Mr. Deronjic during a proofing

21 session in the Milosevic case. So I then -- and Mr. Zecevic informed me

22 that he specifically recalls seeing that document. I have absolutely no

23 reason to disbelieve Mr. Zecevic when he told me that, so I then searched

24 the archives that I had. I was unable to find this document in my

25 archives. I called the lawyer who was involved in the proofing,

1 Ms. Camille Bibles who is no longer with the Office of the Prosecutor,

2 she's in the United States as a federal Prosecutor, and I asked her about

3 that document, and she recalled that document.

4 So what I can tell you is I'm unable to locate that document. I

5 have other documents that are consistent with that document both before

6 the 13th of May and after the 13th of May. I have a report from

7 Mr. Zecevic that he has seen that document. I have a report from the

8 Prosecutor who was involved in the case and the preparations in the

9 Milosevic case who recalls that document, and I have no explanation as to

10 why I am unable to locate that document. I am -- I cannot. I've

11 searched diligently in my archives, and I can't produce it.

12 That's all I have to say, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Maybe it's even more for the

14 Defence, because it might serve as a mitigating factor, and no doubt

15 there is a difference, and it makes a difference whether this document is

16 now dated the 13th of May, 1992, that is in the four days after the

17 Glogova incident, or the 13th of June, 1992.

18 May I hear you on this, please.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I can confirm in full what my learned

20 colleague from -- from the Prosecutor has just stated. This is a fact

21 that we have seen this document dated 13th of May. And my client has

22 seen it, and I have seen it myself. However, the document was produced

23 during the proofing session out of one folder. We saw it. It didn't

24 appear to be necessary for us to have that document because under the

25 instruction of the Trial Chamber at that time, it was -- it was the 9th

1 of May that was the deadline, so we didn't really insist on getting a

2 copy of that document, which is a mistake which we made.

3 Unfortunately, it is impossible, because we tried for two days to

4 locate that document within the archives of the OTP and we couldn't.

5 However, the only thing that the Defence can additionally offer to the

6 Trial Chamber for the corroboration of the existence of that document are

7 the witnesses we have during the preparation of our case. We have

8 interviewed at least two witnesses - one of them Mr. Ljubo Simic, the

9 president of the municipality at that time, and the other person, Dragan

10 Jovanovic, the member of the Crisis Staff - who during our interviews

11 with them confirmed that this decision has been taken, the date, the --

12 the overall circumstances prior and the reasons why and on whose

13 insistence, I mean the insistence of our client, this decision has been

14 taken by the Crisis Staff.

15 We can -- we can call the witnesses, Your Honour, to that effect

16 if that would be -- if that would be a suggestion by the Trial Chamber.

17 We're -- this is very unfortunately. We understand it's very unfortunate

18 and also from the perspective of the Defence that we cannot produce this

19 document.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So can we take it as an agreed fact that there

21 exist a document of 13th of May, 1992, where it states that: "I expelled

22 volunteers from Bratunac. I have a document about this. The JNA refused

23 to do it, so I did it myself." It is an agreed fact that a document with

24 this content and fact exists?

25 MR. HARMON: It is, Your Honour.

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. So when turning now, in concretum,

3 to the discrepancies and the issues where the Trial Chamber identified

4 some problems, whether or not the prerequisites of Rule 62 bis are met or

5 not. It's a relatively long list, but consisting in the beginning with

6 some minor clarifications in order to establish the facts prior to the

7 crime.

8 These discrepancies in the beginning, and I want to continue

9 in -- in a timely order, would never warrant a continuation of the

10 Sentencing Hearing. No doubt the core issue before us is the crime as

11 such and its continuation, of course, limited by the Indictment, and

12 there we have two core issues, and this is reflected in our Scheduling

13 Order that one, the mens rea in relation to killings as an act of

14 persecution and the destruction of the mosque. And second, when bringing

15 these thousands of pages together, the picture of the role of Mr.

16 Deronjic remains unclear. Who was finally the responsible person who had

17 the say at these days, the end of April, beginning of May until and

18 through the 12th of May? Was it Mr. Reljic? Was it Mr. Zekic? Was it

19 the accused? And this will be the centre of the discussion, and then

20 some minor issues of the post-crime conduct, once again not warranting as

21 such a continuation of the Sentencing Hearing.

22 I don't know whether or not the parties have already discussed

23 how they want to clarify these issues. The first question, of course,

24 goes, as you can read from the Scheduling Order, to the Defence. Is your

25 client willing and prepared to continue with his own testimony?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we've studied your

2 Scheduling Order, and we've reviewed the document we received, which is

3 called the document of differences, table of discrepancies, and our

4 position in all of this is as follows: The Defence stands by the plea of

5 Miroslav Deronjic who has admitted guilt in this case, as well as his

6 pleadings in respect of the Second Amended Indictment, as well as the

7 Factual Basis which explains the basis for his admission of guilt. Of

8 course we abide by everything that he has stated before the Trial Chamber

9 on the 27th of January of this year.

10 Of course, if the Trial Chamber, in spite of that finds that

11 there are certain distinctions, contradictions or unclear things in his

12 statement, we are prepared to propose one way of proceeding further in

13 this hearing. We would like to suggest that you allow us, as you

14 instructed in your Scheduling Order, that we first, since you instructed

15 the parties to agree on as much as possible, for us then to agree with

16 the Prosecution about the facts that you have mentioned, the ones that we

17 can reach agreement with at least.

18 If in spite of that there are still certain explanations which

19 the Chamber -- the Trial Chamber feels it is owed from us, then we hope

20 that you will allow us to consult with our client and agree on the manner

21 in which he will perhaps augment his testimony before this Trial Chamber.

22 We would first, then, like to agree with the Prosecution in

23 regard to some of the facts that you mentioned, as many as possible, and

24 then after that we would like to proceed.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections by the Prosecution to proceed

1 this way?

2 MR. HARMON: None, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then let us start, as I said

4 beforehand, with some minor points only to establish the entire facts

5 prior to the crime. Let's start with the testimony, transcript page 125

6 through 126 where Mr. Deronjic stated that -- about events in November

7 1991.

8 In the Krajisnik transcripts, it reads: "In addition, after

9 meeting of 18 October 1991 in Sarajevo, Miroslav Deronjic held an

10 emergency meeting in the Municipal Board of the SDS Bratunac established

11 by the Crisis Staff. And then another meeting of 25 October 1991,

12 another meeting of Municipal Board, the election of the commission for

13 propaganda and technical assistance accepted by the idea of

14 regionalisation."

15 This is transcript page 927. I think we have already admitted

16 into evidence the underlying documents. Can these two facts that these

17 meetings took place the 18th and the 20th of -- 25th of October 1991, can

18 we take this as agreed facts? I see nodding from the Defence.

19 MR. HARMON: Could I have the exhibit numbers, please, once again

20 to look at those exhibits.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Harmon, please.

22 MR. HARMON: I have them, Your Honour. They were in the

23 Krajisnik case. They were Exhibits P41 and P42. And we are obviously

24 prepared to accept the contents of those documents and what those

25 documents reflect.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. And when I now continue, I always

2 continue with the caveat please understand that in front of this deluge

3 of paperwork there may be the other -- the one or other mistake, so

4 please me -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

5 This is the second issue of minor importance, Mr. Deronjic being

6 a member of the Main Board of the SDS. In the Blagojevic et al.

7 Transcripts it reads on transcript page 6364: "Zekic's death did result

8 in my loaning to the board of the SDS, but only after 1993." Whereas in

9 the witness statement of 25 November 2003 it reads: "I became a member

10 of the Main Board of the SDS in the summer of 1993." In the Indictment

11 and in the Factual Basis it reads: "Miroslav Deronjic became a member of

12 the Main Board of the SDS in summer of 1993."

13 So what is now correct? Only after 1993, as it reads in the

14 Blagojevic transcripts, or in summer 1993? Maybe also here we can

15 proceed on agreed facts.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this should be relatively easy

18 resolved. Defence, please.

19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, simply in the

20 transcript during the testimony in the Blagojevic case it was just a slip

21 of the tongue. I think we have agreed that this is actually the period

22 of summer 1993.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we take this as an agreed fact?

24 MR. HARMON: Yes, you may.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the third issue, Mr. Deronjic and his

1 relation to the War Presidency. In the Milosevic transcript it reads:

2 "In 1992, Miroslav Deronjic was president of the War Presidency in

3 Bratunac."

4 In the witness statement of 25 November 2003, that's the one we

5 have only in B/C/S and not signed in English, it reads: "I was appointed

6 a member of War Commission of the Bratunac municipality." In the

7 Indictment and in the Factual Basis, paragraph 5, it reads: "Miroslav

8 Deronjic was appointed a member of War Commission of the Bratunac

9 municipality."

10 What is now the correct interpretation or what is the correct

11 fact? Was he president or was he a mere member of the War Commission?

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, Mr. Deronjic was a member of the War

13 Commission, and to that effect even the documents exist which we gave to

14 the -- to the Office of the Prosecutor, and I believe that is going to be

15 the agreed fact, that Mr. Deronjic was a member of the War Commission,

16 actually, not the president.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But could you please explain how it's possible

18 that in the Milosevic transcripts, I refer to transcript page 29735, it

19 states and it reads that: "Miroslav Deronjic was president of the War

20 Presidency in Bratunac. President of the War Presidency was the most

21 important person in that area."

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I believe that is a misinterpretation.

23 I really cannot give any better answer than that.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the Prosecution on this.

25 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I don't have that knowledge at my

1 fingertips. I need to check that, and I can come back to you after the

2 recess with that if you --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope not after the recess but after the next

4 break.

5 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. So this remains open.

7 Then the next -- also once again a minor question results from

8 the fact that there are in fact several Crisis Staffs, and sometimes it's

9 not easy to understand which Crisis Staff is meant when it's discussed in

10 the one or other testimony. But the question is now when did Mr.

11 Deronjic become president of the Crisis Staff of the Bratunac

12 municipality?

13 In the Momir Nikolic transcripts it reads: "At 20 something

14 April until mid-June." That's transcript page 104 in that case.

15 In the Krstic transcript it reads: "Towards the end of April,

16 1992." That's transcript page 135.

17 In the statements given to the OTP in June, July 2003, it reads:

18 "After December 1991 meeting, the meeting about this material was held on

19 the 23rd of December in Bratunac...the first phase. We immediately

20 adopted a decision to form a Crisis Staff. We formed the Crisis

21 Staff...at that meeting or...a few days later...I was elected president

22 of the Crisis Staff." This would be in 1991.

23 Then in the witness statement of 25 November 2003, it reads: "I

24 was president of the Bratunac Crisis Staff...from the end of April 1992

25 to June 1992."

1 Indictment and Factual Basis states: "An SDS Crisis Staff was

2 formed and Miroslav Deronjic was elected president. A Serb Assembly was

3 established and Ljubisav Simic was elected president of that organ."

4 In the testimony of the Sentencing Hearing, transcript page 131

5 it reads: "A day or two after the 18 October meeting, they established a

6 Crisis Staff of the Serbian people and Miroslav Deronjic became its

7 president. Upon instructions of 19 December, a second Crisis Staff was

8 set up. Then Miroslav Deronjic became a president of the latter Crisis

9 Staff. The first stage was introduced at once."

10 And then: "At that time," that's transcript page 142, "the 17th

11 of April, I had no executive function in the Bratunac municipality except

12 that I was the president of the SDS Bratunac Crisis Staff."

13 Whereas in the Indictment and in the Factual Basis, and here I

14 refer to the Indictment, paragraph 1, the accused has pleaded guilty to

15 this, it reads: "Miroslav Deronjic was president of the Bratunac Crisis

16 Staff from April 1992 to June 1992."

17 I don't know whether it is possible in light of the many Crisis

18 Staffs to establish when he now exactly became president of the Crisis

19 Staff of the Bratunac municipality and, first of all, had executive

20 functions in the Bratunac municipality.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, if I may be of assistance. Actually,

22 the explanation in the testimony of the Sentencing Hearing, transcript

23 page 131, is -- is the explanation which -- which I'm submitting again.

24 So after the October 18th meeting, there was the first -- let's

25 call it the first Crisis Staff of Serbian people was formed, and this

1 Crisis Staff, Mr. Deronjic was the president of that Crisis Staff in

2 Bratunac. This Crisis Staff lasted until the 19th of December, 1991,

3 when an SDS, so the party Crisis Staff, was established. This party

4 Crisis Staff lasted towards the end of the -- and Mr. Deronjic was the

5 president of the party SDS Crisis Staff.

6 Towards the end of April, the Crisis Staff of municipality was

7 formed, and it lasted until June when the War Presidency was established.

8 So the Crisis Staff of the municipality is end of April until June.

9 When it's -- when it's said in Momir Nikolic at 20 something

10 April, it is basically at the end of the April, because Mr. Deronjic

11 cannot recall and we cannot establish exact date when the -- exact date

12 when the -- when the -- when the municipality Crisis Staff has been

13 established, but it is -- it is undisputed that it is the -- towards the

14 end of the April. So on the 17th, there was no Crisis Staff of the

15 municipality of Bratunac. It didn't exist. At that point, Mr. Deronjic

16 was the president of the SDS Crisis Staff. So a second Crisis Staff.

17 I hope I have been of assistance to the Trial Chamber.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, there still remains a problem,

19 because in the testimony at the Sentencing Hearing Mr. Deronjic was

20 referring to a first Crisis Staff of the Serbian people.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And he became its president.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But step by step. This is an agreement fact?

25 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then upon instructions of 19 December, a

2 second Crisis Staff was set up. Then Miroslav Deronjic became the

3 president of the latter. Now we have already two, and he is also the

4 president of this second Crisis Staff.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. That is the SDS Crisis Staff,

6 party Crisis Staff.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We take it as an agreed fact?

8 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what now about the final problem in the

10 Indictment? Paragraph 1 it reads: "Miroslav Deronjic was president of

11 the Bratunac Crisis Staff from April 1992 to June 1992."

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then in the Sentencing Hearing Mr. Deronjic

14 testified: "At that time I had no executive function in the Bratunac

15 municipality except that I was the president of the SDS Bratunac Crisis

16 Staff."

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, we see no discrepancy in the --

18 between the Second Amended Indictment, paragraph 1, and the testimony of

19 our client. Our client has said towards the end of the April, and the --

20 the Second Amended Indictment in its paragraph 1 says: "Miroslav

21 Deronjic was the president of Bratunac Crisis Staff from the time when it

22 assumed authority from the Executive Committee of the municipality and

23 the organs of the Municipal Assembly in April 1992 to the time of its

24 transformation to War Commission in June 1992."

25 We do not dispute that it's -- that it's the month of April. The

1 only thing we are saying is that it's towards the end of the April. And

2 the first -- the Second Amended Indictment, its first paragraph doesn't

3 reflect the specific date or the time period or the period of the month

4 which was in -- which the party -- which the Prosecutor is alleging.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To facilitate the proceedings, can we take it

6 as an agreed fact that towards the -- as it was the wording now, towards

7 the end of April 1992 to June 1992? This would cover the entire period

8 of the alleged crime, that at that time he was president of the SDS

9 Bratunac Crisis Staff? Can we take this as an agreed fact?

10 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, that has been agreed in paragraph 4 of

11 the Factual Basis where it reflects the end of April. "...From the end

12 of April 1992 to the time of its transformation to a War Commission

13 established by the Presidency of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina to June 1992."

15 So that has been agreed upon previously. We are prepared to

16 agree once again to that fact.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I would like just one clarification,

18 Your Honour. I'm sorry.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please. Please.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour just mentioned something which is not

21 correct. The Crisis Staff from -- which existed towards end of April

22 until June is not an SDS Crisis Staff. It is a municipality of Bratunac

23 Crisis Staff.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Your client stated on transcript page 142: "At

25 that time, [17th of April]," 1-7 April, "I had no executive function in

1 the Bratunac municipality except that I was the president of the SDS

2 Bratunac Crisis Staff."

3 MR. ZECEVIC: That's -- that's true. And toward the end of the

4 April, ten days or 12 days after that, the -- the municipality of

5 Bratunac Crisis Staff has been formed.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So --

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Which had the executive power.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think then it's clear and -- yes. Towards

9 the end can be read including the 17th of April.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: No, not, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No?

12 MR. ZECEVIC: No. We said towards the end, and I said ten days

13 after the 17th of --

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Now we have the clarification necessary,

15 and may I ask the Prosecution, do you agree?

16 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's not turn to the next issue, but maybe

18 it's appropriate time for having a break before we then turn to the core

19 issues warranting the continuation of the Sentencing Hearing, but I would

20 kindly ask the Prosecution to come back to the question whether or not

21 Miroslav Deronjic was already president of the War Presidency in Bratunac

22 in 1992 as reflected in the Milosevic transcripts, 29735.

23 The trial stays adjourned until 11.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

2 Mr. Harmon, you have the floor.

3 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you very much, Your Honour.

4 I, during the recess, was able to resolve the question put to me

5 by Your Honour and the other members of the Trial Chamber. I have two

6 documents which I will introduce as exhibits in this case. They are

7 being copied at the moment. I don't have them to tender, but I will

8 momentarily.

9 One document is dated the 16th of June, 1992. It is signed by

10 the president of the Serbian municipality of Bratunac and the republican

11 commissioner, the War Commissioner by the name of Dr. Dragan Djukanovic,

12 and it lists as a member of the War Commission, Mr. Deronjic.

13 The second document I will introduce is a document dated the

14 following day, the 17th of June, 1992, signed by Dr. Radovan Karadzic

15 confirming the members of the War Commission for the municipality of

16 Bratunac, and it identifies Mr. Deronjic as a member of the War

17 Commission.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you have any idea how it was possible that

19 Mr. Deronjic, when testifying in the case Prosecutor versus Milosevic,

20 stated himself that he was president of the War Presidency in Bratunac?

21 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I have not listened to the original

22 B/C/S transcript, the session, so I don't know whether that's an error in

23 translation, whether that is, frankly, a mistake, an innocent mistake by

24 Mr. Deronjic. I can't account for it. I would need to actually listen

25 to the transcript to see if indeed that is a proper reflection of what

1 was said.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: After having conferred, we come to the

4 conclusion that this point can't be clarified by an agreed fact because

5 we have first to find out whether this was a mistake in the

6 interpretation which -- we have the English version before us, and here

7 it clearly reads -- first the discussion is on 1995, not relevant for

8 this concrete case, but it reads: "But before that you were president of

9 the War Presidency in Bratunac," and the answer is: "Yes, but in 1992."

10 "Question: The president of the War Presidency was the most important

11 person in that area, wasn't he?" "Yes."

12 So this can be clarified in principle by the accused himself.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Now, coming back to this issue, this testimony

15 was made under solemn declaration, and it's rather difficult to

16 understand that this can be seen as a -- but, of course, everything is

17 possible, but it's rather difficult to explain it as a misinterpretation.

18 So therefore, that what has according to the transcript been said by Mr.

19 Deronjic himself can only be clarified by himself. So this question has

20 to remain open, and we will continue later with this point.

21 When discussing the first part of this morning's hearing, we came

22 across that. Unfortunately, we have to come back to another issue, and

23 this was the question of Deronjic being a member of the Main Board of the

24 SDS.

25 We can take it that it's absolutely undisputed that Mr. Zekic had

1 been killed on the 8th of May, 1992. I see nodding from the side of the

2 Defence.

3 And then in the Indictment and Factual Basis it reads: "Deronjic

4 became a member of the Main Board of the SDS in summer of 1993."

5 The witness statement, summer 1993. In the Blagojevic et al.

6 Transcript, only after 1993, whereas -- and it seems to be consequent in

7 the Momir Nikolic transcripts, and for the court reporter, I will always

8 indicate from now on when I quote and when I am just paraphrasing. I

9 quote now from transcript page 104 to 105.

10 "In the summer of 1992, the party renewed its activities, and I

11 was co-opted as a member of the Main Board because my predecessor

12 Mr. Zekic was and somebody from the area needed to represent the area in

13 the SDS Main Board."

14 In parenthesis I want to add that the word "killed" is missing in

15 this sentence.

16 "My activities were the customary activities of a party at

17 municipal level, so I covered party issues in that area."

18 So the -- there is not only the aforementioned discrepancy,

19 whether it was now only after 1993 but the question, Zekic killed the 8th

20 of May, and Mr. Deronjic's evidence in Nikolic that in -- that he was

21 co-opted as a member of the Main Board because of the death of his

22 predecessor Mr. Zekic.

23 May I ask the parties.

24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is not a

25 contested fact between the parties. This is the summer of 1993. It is

1 obviously a mistake to have mentioned the summer of 1992. Therefore I

2 don't see any difference between the parties and even in the statements

3 made by the accused himself. As a matter of fact, when Goran Zekic got

4 killed, there was a vacancy there from the area that he had been elected

5 from, but in the summer of 1993, it was Mr. Deronjic who became a member

6 of the Main Board of the Serb Democratic Party, because that is when the

7 party renewed its activity, in 1993, in the summer of 1993, not in the

8 summer of 1992.

9 Mr. Deronjic, in his statements, explained why he in a way froze

10 his political activity precisely in the period of time that you have

11 referred to. He mentioned that he had had a family tragedy, that his

12 wife had committed suicide. So he devoted his -- himself only to his

13 family, and he was not involved in politics. Thank you.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: However, you will understand that the testimony

15 in the transcript, in the case Prosecutor versus Nikolic, Momir Nikolic,

16 no doubt would make sense when allegedly, and I quote once again: "In

17 summer of 1992, I was co-opted as a member of the Main Board because my

18 predecessor, Mr. Zekic, died and somebody from the area needed to

19 represent the area in the SDS Main Board."

20 So it's once again difficult to understand if there was a need to

21 fill this gap. It would be only consequent to follow his testimony in

22 Momir Nikolic. But may I hear the Prosecutor on this.

23 MR. HARMON: Again, Your Honour, I'm unable to comprehensively

24 give you assistance because I wasn't aware that this was going to be an

25 issue in this case. I can find proper documentation to support, I

1 believe, what has been said by my colleagues from the Defence. I don't

2 dispute one thing said by the Defence at this point in time, and if the

3 Court wants, I will be -- as I said, I will be happy to go back to my

4 office and see if I can find supporting documentation to that fact.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would indeed be helpful.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: After having conferred, we regard this for the

8 time being as an agreed fact. However, it would be of assistance for the

9 Chamber if you could provide us with supporting material on this issue.

10 Now, let us continue with arming of the Serbs in 1991 and

11 Mr. Deronjic's participation.

12 In the Krajisnik transcripts it reads: " ... In the summer of

13 1991, as far as I remember," and now it's a quote, "there were already

14 rumours about the arming operations in Bratunac. The secret was out, and

15 pressure was brought to bear by some people who thought that they didn't

16 receive arms, whereas some others did. So I issued orders to distribute

17 those weapons to people who could be trusted to keep it secret. That was

18 necessary, I thought, because there was a danger the police might find

19 out about it and seize the weapons." Transcript page 963 through 964.

20 Can we take this statement also as an agreed fact for the

21 purposes of this case?

22 First the Defence, please.

23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Prosecution.

25 MR. HARMON: Yes.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then let's turn to the next issue.

2 That's implementation of the second stage of the instructions of 19

3 December 1991. Here we have in the Krstic transcripts a straightforward

4 testimony, and I quote from transcript page 139: "Certain measures...I

5 implemented in the joint assembly in Bratunac. I did implement all the

6 instructions linked to that, and your conclusion is correct."

7 Then in the Indictment and in the Factual Basis it reads: "Late

8 February, 1992, Goran Zekic...conveyed the order to implement the second

9 phase of these instructions in Bratunac municipality, and Miroslav

10 Deronjic took positive and concrete actions including affirmative actions

11 in the Bratunac Municipal Assembly."

12 Mr. Deronjic confessed this as being true in the Factual Basis,

13 paragraph 12.

14 In the Krajisnik transcript, it reads now, I quote from

15 transcript page 1179: "In January we already spoke with Goran Zekic

16 about the implementation of the second stage. A definite, final position

17 to implement this was reached in February 1992."

18 And then: "I even submitted my resignation, not wishing to

19 embark on the implementation of these objectives. I felt that this would

20 lead to war..."

21 "If I carried this out in Bratunac, I could cause the outbreak of

22 war, and I did not want to be the cause of war breaking out in the

23 municipality of Bratunac."

24 So the minor question is when exactly started the second stage,

25 in January or in February, and by whom was the decision -- or who finally

1 made -- made the decision to implement the second phase.

2 In the Krstic transcripts it's absolutely clear: "I did

3 implement all the instructions," whereas in the Krajisnik transcript it

4 now reads: "I even submitted my resignation, and I didn't want to be the

5 cause for war."

6 May I hear the parties on this, please.

7 MR. HARMON: Variant A and Variant B was issued on the 19th of

8 December to Mr. Deronjic and to other municipal leaders in the Serbian

9 community. It described both phase 1 and phase 2. That document was a

10 subject of considerable discussion, both phase 1 and phase 2, and I have

11 absolutely no doubt that it was a lively discussion on all elements

12 described in that document.

13 When Mr. Deronjic says he had a discussion with Mr. Zekic about

14 phase 2 of the document, I don't have any reason to doubt that. I think

15 that's entirely likely. And indeed, we have submitted in the Krajisnik

16 case a document, P44, the numbering of the document in the current

17 hearing I don't have at my disposal. I was given a list but I don't have

18 that at my disposal. But the document that is P44 is a document of a

19 meeting held on -- let me get another document, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 23 December.

21 MR. HARMON: There is a document -- there's two documents. There

22 is P44 which talks about the initial implementation of Variant A and

23 Variant B, and then there is a second document, P45, which talks about

24 the -- receiving to the Bratunac municipal Main Board proceeding to level

25 2, and I quote: "Deronjic read the material regarding the level 2 which

1 he received from the centre and added that since it was an order, it was

2 our duty to act accordingly."

3 My recollection is that this was described in the testimony of

4 Mr. Deronjic in the Krajisnik case. My recollection is that Mr. Deronjic

5 also said that Mr. Zekic was his conduit of information as to the

6 implementation of phase 2. And my recollection of Mr. Deronjic's

7 testimony in the Krajisnik case as well, he said every particular element

8 of phase 2 described in the 19 December 1992 -- 1991 document was not

9 implemented in the Bratunac municipality, and he explained in his

10 testimony why that was not implemented, and he described what was

11 implemented from phase 2 and what was not implemented in phase 2.

12 So I have -- in terms of the discrepancy mentioned by the Court,

13 I can only say that it is undisputed in this case that Mr. Deronjic

14 received Variant A and Variant B on the 19th of December, that he

15 implemented phase 1 of Variant A and Variant B on the 23rd of December,

16 1991, as reflected in Prosecutor's Exhibit 44, that he implemented phase

17 2 of Variant A and Variant B as reflected in the Krajisnik Prosecution

18 Exhibit P45, that not every element of phase 2 was implemented.

19 That's what I can say in respect of Your Honour's concerns about

20 any matters relating to the implementation of Variant A and Variant B in

21 the Bratunac municipality.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So is it seems to be undisputed that the

23 document P45, unfortunately I don't have the exhibit number in our case

24 -- that the measures to implement level 2 state of emergency were

25 accepted unanimously, and the document as such was -- it's not -- its

1 authenticity is not contested, was signed by Mr. Deronjic himself.

2 Can we take this as an agreed fact? Defence.

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. At the same

4 time, we subscribe to the explanation that Mr. Harmon gave. So JS33 is

5 the number of the document. That's what my colleague said to me just

6 now.

7 So we agree with what Mr. Harmon said, but I would like to draw

8 your attention to another fact. There are some differences in

9 interpretation in terms of what Mr. Deronjic said as a witness in various

10 cases, and this is due, inter alia, to the fact that in different trials

11 he was asked to clarify details to a different extent. In some trials

12 his explanations were very brief, but elsewhere he gave definite

13 explanations.

14 In this case, we would like to invoke the Prosecutor versus

15 Krajisnik. I think he spoke in the greatest detail there. So we agree

16 with that. There were two levels. Miroslav Deronjic explained what it

17 was. I don't have to repeat it now. He explained Variant B as well, the

18 second level, what was possible in terms of being carried out in Bratunac

19 and what was not. So he explained that in great detail, so we subscribe

20 to what he said, and we have no further clarifications in this regard.

21 Thank you.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Maybe we have to come back to this

23 in the context of the now following more important issues, and this is

24 about Mr. Deronjic's knowledge of the use of force as part of the plan,

25 and this refers for the first time to the mens rea.

1 In the Milosevic transcripts it reads on page 29752, I quote:

2 "In the beginning of 1991, I understood, however, that the objective was

3 to join Serbia and that it was also planned to use such means as

4 expulsion, killing, et cetera...I'm talking about the beginning." When

5 asked, he continued: "I'm talking about the beginning of 1992."

6 So the emphasis lies with the word "to use such means as

7 expulsion, killing, et cetera."

8 In the Indictment and in the Factual Basis, I quote: "Late

9 February 1992...Miroslav Deronjic subscribed unequivocally to the policy

10 of creating Serb ethnic territories within BiH and later to the use of

11 proclaiming a state of an imminent threat of war, and the second one was

12 a decision on general mobilisation."

13 That's paragraph 96.

14 Thank you for this clarification. I was in the wrong column.

15 "Later to the use of force to remove non-Serbs from Serb

16 designated territories." Factual Basis, page 13.

17 And then in the testimony at the Sentencing Hearing, 27th of

18 January before this Chamber, Mr. Deronjic said: "And today," today, "I

19 know that these violent methods were part of the strategy to create Serb

20 ethnic territories in BiH." That's transcript 133 through 134.

21 Continues by saying: "On the 5th of May, 1992, in a conversation

22 with Mr. Zekic, I found out that beside all the plans which never

23 explicitly contained the use of force, that use of force was planned and

24 that it was already implemented in neighbouring municipalities."

25 Transcript page 134.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 To be continued: "I found out about the use of force before this

2 event earlier, and prior to my conversation with Mr. Zekic...the events

3 began on the 1st, the 1st of April and continued throughout April.

4 During that time, I drew certain conclusions about the use of force in

5 Bijeljina and Zvornik and in some other municipalities about which I

6 found out through the media. The term 'use of force' includes violent

7 transfer of population...conduct of volunteer units...and JNA...The use

8 of arms, the use of a tank...the killing of people."

9 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, if you're quoting from a transcript

10 it would be helpful to the parties if you could give us the page cite on

11 that, because I followed you through page 134, but I couldn't find the

12 rest of what you were quoting.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The last part was 137. "I'm referring

14 specifically to the term 'use of force,'...including the killing of

15 people."

16 May I ask the Prosecution, please.

17 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I'm busy trying to find the various

18 passages you're referring to. Could I have -- I didn't hear the exact

19 question you want me to address. I'm prepared to do it, so...

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So just to repeat the main subject. Already in

21 Milosevic, Mr. Deronjic, explained that: "In beginning of 1991, I

22 understood, however, that the objective was to join Serbia and that it

23 was also planned to use such means as expulsion, killing, et cetera."

24 And then he clarified: "I'm talking about the beginning of 1992." I

25 think we can take this 1992 as an agreed fact.

1 I see nodding from the parties. So therefore, this should be no

2 problem.

3 But then it was confirmed in his own testimony that -- I now

4 refer to transcript page 138 be: "The events began on the 1st of April

5 and continued throughout April...during that time, I drew certain

6 conclusions about the use of force in Bijeljina and Zvornik, and in some

7 other municipalities about which I found out through the media." But

8 then later -- we are referring to a transcript page 137: "The term of

9 'use of force' includes violent transfer of population...Conduct of

10 volunteer units...and JNA,...the use of arms, the use of a tank...the

11 killing of people."

12 MR. HARMON: Again, Your Honour, I'm having difficulty finding

13 the portion that talks about the use of a tank and -- I have seen your

14 reference to the use of force on page 137, and I have found that portion

15 on 134, but I am having difficulty finding the particular portion you

16 just quoted, and I would like to refer to those parts of the transcript

17 before I give you an answer.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On page 137, I asked the accused: "So it

19 includes the conduct of the volunteer units which had arrived in the area

20 and the JNA; correct?" The answer of Mr. Deronjic: "Correct, Your

21 Honour." "Would it include the use of arms, the use of a tank?"

22 "Correct, Your Honour, yes." "Would it include the killing of people?"

23 "Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. Members of the Muslim ethnic group

24 were killed in that period."

25 But no doubt this has to be read together with the testimony in

1 Milosevic where he -- there was a clear statement without interruption

2 that the means to be used were expulsion and killing, et cetera.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Harmon, please.

4 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, you're asking me to explain different

5 testimonies. I wasn't a party to the Milosevic case. I can tell you,

6 however, that it was in April when the violence started in Bijeljina. It

7 was no secret or mystery what happened in Bijeljina. There were

8 expulsions and there were killings. There was cleansing in the Bijeljina

9 municipality, and it followed in a southerly direction in other

10 municipalities. So as these events progressed in the direction of

11 Bratunac, everybody, Serb, Croat, Muslim, and third parties,

12 international observers, and everybody else could see the pattern

13 developing. It was not a mystery.

14 So when Mr. Deronjic testified that he could see this progression

15 coming toward the Bratunac municipality, it makes complete sense to me,

16 and I accept his evidence on that basis.

17 What discussions were had and when discussions were had about the

18 ethnic separation of people I can tell you some things. There were

19 discussions in the -- in the Assembly, the joint assembly, where

20 Mr. Karadzic stood up and said in no uncertain terms that Muslims would

21 disappear. There were discussions and repeated discussions in the

22 Bosnian Serb Assembly that Muslims would disappear and words to that

23 effect.

24 The fact that it was understood by Mr. Deronjic that there had to

25 be a separation of the ethnic groups, that there were going to be --

1 there would be bloodshed is not a startling revelation to me. Indeed,

2 one of the strategic objectives of the Serbian people -- the first

3 strategic objective promulgated on the 12th of May, 1992, was the

4 separation of the ethnic communities. That was the most important of the

5 strategic objectives, acknowledged to be the most important strategic

6 objectives by Mr. Krajisnik and all other strategic objectives were to be

7 subparts of that principal objective.

8 So when Mr. Deronjic says that it included the removal and the

9 separation of the races, the ethnic groups, to me, Mr. President and Your

10 Honours, given the rhetoric that had started in 1991 in the joint

11 Assembly and the repeated rhetoric that occurred emphasising the same

12 thing, "We can't live together with the Muslims. We can't live together

13 with the Croats. We want to be part of Serbia. We want our own state,"

14 that kind of rhetoric clearly is consistent with the testimony of what

15 Mr. Deronjic had to say.

16 Those would be my submissions. If Your Honours have additional

17 questions, I can again provide you with documents identifying those kind

18 of rhetorical comments by responsible members of the Bosnian Serb

19 leadership at the republic level, members of the Assembly, et cetera.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, but this is not the exact point. The

21 exact point is whether or not Mr. Deronjic at that time had the necessary

22 mens rea to hold him responsible for killings. And Mr. Deronjic pleaded

23 guilty to and confessed the facts included in the Factual Basis, and

24 there it reads: "Late February 1992, Miroslav Deronjic subscribed

25 unequivocally to the policy of creating Serb ethnic territories within

1 BiH and later to the use of force to remove non-Serbs from designated

2 territories."

3 And maybe to facilitate the proceedings, isn't it true that

4 Mr. Deronjic in fact learned already, not only from the objective he

5 referred to in the Milosevic transcript but also from other

6 municipalities in the past that use of force included killings and,

7 therefore, killing was a foreseeable act for Mr. Deronjic also in

8 relation to the events in Glogova the 9th of May, 1992? This was

9 foreseeable, and as he himself stated in his own testimony before us that

10 it was foreseeable. He took this into account, and he accepted these

11 killings.

12 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, that description of what you have

13 just said is found in paragraph 42 of the Factual Basis, and there is no

14 dispute of what is contained in this Factual Basis. Mr. Deronjic, and I

15 quote, in respect of the killings that took place in Glogova. He: "Did

16 not physically commit any of the murders of the 65 victims in Schedule A.

17 However, at the time he ordered the attack, given the purpose and the

18 objective of the attack, the existing political climate, and the units

19 that were to participate in it, it was foreseeable to him and he was

20 prepared to take the risk that innocent Muslim residents of Glogova would

21 be murdered as it was a consequence that was natural and foreseeable."

22 I don't believe Mr. Deronjic has come off that element of his

23 Factual Basis. I defer to my colleagues from the Defence, but we

24 continue to maintain that that is -- those facts are true and accurate.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The problem only emanates from the facts, and I

1 quoted this earlier, that in a later testimony that was in the Krajisnik

2 case, I paraphrase now, Mr. Deronjic stated that he never agreed to this,

3 that he didn't know about this, that only later he read in a book about

4 this, and he asked the investigators to clarify whether indeed people

5 were killed in Glogova. But this was no doubt after the events, and

6 therefore we have to go into some details whether Mr. Deronjic stands by

7 his testimony in this case, stands by his guilty plea in this case, or

8 whether he -- and maybe he has misunderstood the meaning of all these

9 legal terms, he wants to depart from this what he pleaded guilty to and

10 what he testified before us.

11 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, in the Krajisnik case, on page 1243,

12 in cross-examination, Judge Orie asked Mr. Deronjic: "When did you first

13 find out how many people were killed in the Glogova attack." And his

14 answer was: "I never learned the exact number of the people who were

15 killed in Glogova." And he went on to say: "Information about the

16 possibility there have been killings in Glogova, after the funeral of

17 Zekic," the funeral of Zekic, I add parenthetically, was held on the 8th

18 of May, 1992, "...Someone did mention that people had been murdered in

19 Glogova. However, this person, I cannot remember who it was, was not

20 certain about it. In the course of the several following days, I'm sure

21 I did not have any opportunity to become acquainted with this."

22 He goes on to say, starting at line 15 on this same page: "Later

23 after that period different information reached me about the events in

24 Glogova. At one point I had heard there had been killings and then again

25 this would be denied. It is difficult for me to tell you precisely when

1 it was that I learned that killings had taken place." And that was the

2 answer that Judge Orie was soliciting, when did you exactly learn how

3 many people were killed.

4 He then went on to describe after the war, or during the war, he

5 says, there was mention of killings, and he identifies the author of a

6 book, and based on what he learned in the course of his inquiries and

7 information he received from third parties and third -- and other sources

8 such as books, Mr. Deronjic concluded that there were killings in

9 Glogova. He never has disputed that fact before this institution. He

10 has said in his Factual Basis that he accepts the responsibility for

11 that.

12 In terms of any disagreements on that issue, I don't think we

13 have any between the parties, and I don't think we have any in respect of

14 Mr. Deronjic's willingness to stand up once again before this Tribunal

15 and say what is found in paragraph 42.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I -- and I think it's more for the Defence

17 than for the Prosecution to answer these questions.

18 In the statements to the OTP, June, July 2003, and I refer to

19 page 940, I quote: "My role in the events in Glogova is such that I have

20 just described to you. Let me just say this: I do not consider myself

21 directly responsible for what happened there."

22 And in the Krajisnik transcripts: "I agreed to certain things

23 which I did. But I never agreed to that, nor did I ever order or wish

24 that people are killed. In that period or during the war, I never agreed

25 to anything like this."

1 And once again, page 903 of the statements to the OTP: "I told

2 you that I did not feel that I was directly responsible for those people

3 who were executed there."

4 So it's a really difficult question before us, because we are

5 discussing now legal terms, and we have to be satisfied that Mr. Deronjic

6 really understands to what he subscribes and to what he testifies and to

7 what he has pleaded guilty, because when you only learn later from books

8 that people were killed, or from other sources, then it's extremely

9 difficult to establish the necessary mens rea before the crime being

10 committed.

11 MR. HARMON: Your Honour has referred to pages 940. My

12 pagination is different. Could you direct me to the day in which Mr.

13 Deronjic said that in the interviews that preceded the guilty plea?

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I refer to page 904 of the statements given to

15 the OTP, always with the caveat that they would never -- these statements

16 would never be used against Mr. Deronjic.

17 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, my -- unfortunately, my interview which

18 you have referred to is not paginated and doesn't have 940 pages. My

19 interviews are sequential. They have dates on which the statement was

20 given, and if I could be -- if the date in which that statement was given

21 can be identified for me, I can find it. I would like to see the context

22 in which that statement was given.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I refer to the transcript of the interview with

24 Miroslav Deronjic, 9 July 2003. And --

25 In this interview, it's -- I can only assist you by saying that

1 it's page 15 of 16 it reads.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Harmon.

3 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, thank you very much. I now have been

4 given copies of these pages that are in accord with your pagination, and

5 I am just trying to find the various references that you have made.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The three last -- sorry. The three last lines

7 on page 904. In the bottom line it reads 15 of 16. Here it states: "My

8 role in the events in Glogova is such that I have just described to you.

9 Let me just say this: I do not consider myself directly responsible for

10 what happened there."

11 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, again, I can't get into Mr. Deronjic's

12 head, but let me read on what that statement says, because Mr. Deronjic

13 has always said that he did not directly kill these people who were

14 victims in Glogova. That's part of the Factual Basis.

15 Mr. Deronjic says, and I quote: "My role in the events in

16 Glogova is such that I have just described for you," and what he has just

17 described previously are the murders. "Let me say this: I don't

18 consider myself directly responsible." He said that in the Factual Basis

19 for what happened there. He goes on to say in the following sentence:

20 "However, I deeply regret everything that transpired there, and I

21 especially regret that people, most of them innocent ones, were killed

22 there."

23 So if you're asking me my opinion I think this can be reconciled

24 with the Factual Basis. The Factual Basis is Mr. Deronjic didn't

25 directly kill the people in the village of Glogova. He did, however,

1 order the attack. He did understand that it was -- and it was

2 foreseeable to him and he was willing to accept the risks that innocent

3 people would be killed in Glogova. That is also set forth explicitly in

4 the Factual Basis.

5 I think it's important when we read these various parts of these

6 transcripts, and I will defer to my colleagues from the Defence, but I

7 think these have to be put into the proper context of what else is said

8 in these transcripts.

9 And that is my interpretation, Your Honour, of the reference on

10 page 904 that Your Honour has directed me to.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me try to use a very unorthodox way to come

12 closer to a clarification of this point. These documents are public, and

13 I think it's important to know, and maybe here the Prosecution can really

14 assist us. The first Indictment confirmed by another Judge of this

15 Tribunal, there was paragraph 23. There was a discussion of the

16 execution of the group of Bosnian Muslims, and then it continues in this

17 paragraph 23: "After the execution of the group of Bosnian Muslims

18 referred to in paragraph 22, members of the attacking forces ordered

19 approximately 15 Bosnian Muslim villagers to carry these and other bodies

20 to the river. Miroslav Deronjic was present near the river bank where

21 Bosnian Muslims' bodies were dumped. At this location a member of the

22 immediate presence -- at this location of the attacking forces executed

23 a Bosnian Muslim villager, Jusuf Ibisevic, in the immediate presence of

24 Miroslav Deronjic."

25 And we can read in the Prosecutor's amended Indictment, in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 paragraph 35: "After the execution of the group of Bosnian Muslims

2 referred to in paragraph 34, members of the attacking forces ordered

3 Muslim villagers to carry these and other bodies to the river. Miroslav

4 Deronjic was present near the river bank where the Bosnian Muslim bodies

5 were dumped. A member of the attacking forces executed a Bosnian Muslim

6 villager, Jusuf Ibisevic, in the immediate presence of Miroslav

7 Deronjic."

8 I take it that these, the first Indictment, and the amended

9 Indictment was based on supporting material, supporting evidence, and we

10 have not to discuss it, but later when there was a Plea Agreement, there

11 was no longer this paragraph and there was no longer, for obvious

12 reasons, the count related to murder. It was no longer charged as

13 murder.

14 So would the Prosecution be in the possession of supporting

15 material that Mr. Deronjic is in fact or was in fact present during the

16 killing, during this second mass killing?

17 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I find this discussion quite

18 uncomfortable. I don't think this is the appropriate place to have this

19 kind of a discussion with the Court. I don't intend to avoid those

20 issues, but to have this public discussion.

21 We superseded this Indictment, both the initial Indictment and

22 the Amended Indictment with a Second Amended Indictment, and the Second

23 Amended Indictment is the instrument that does indeed control this case,

24 and we proceeded on the basis of this instrument. There are many factors

25 that go into a preparation of an amended Indictment and many factors that

1 the Court has recognised. This institution has recognised the value of

2 having cases proceed in a way that is beneficial to the overall

3 objectives of this institution. Those objectives were taken into

4 consideration when this Second Amended Indictment was prepared and

5 accepted by this Court and the plea of guilty on that Second Amended

6 Indictment was accepted.

7 I can -- if Your Honours wish, I can answer some of your

8 questions in a closed session, but at this point in time, that is what I

9 have to say in respect of this Second Amended Indictment, it being the

10 viable instrument on which we are proceeding today.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe it's now for the Defence to discuss it,

12 and maybe it really can facilitate bearing the last words of Mr. Harmon

13 in mind.

14 Does your client stand by his testimony before us, and does he

15 stand by the guilty plea and the confession that he admitted that those

16 facts contained in the Factual Basis were correct, or does he contribute

17 that what he said in the Krajisnik case, that he never agreed, that he

18 never was present, that he never knows -- that he never knew about

19 killings at that time? Because one thing is that of course the

20 Prosecution can, when leave is granted by the Chamber, and this was

21 granted, can drop the one or other charge. But nevertheless, we have to

22 come to the truth as close as possible. And in case the Prosecution is

23 in the possession of documents supporting the fact that Mr. Deronjic was

24 actually present during these killings, then it would no doubt be the

25 easiest way if we now hear from the Defence in order to avoid further

1 orders of producing evidence and in order -- maybe we can, by doing so,

2 avoid an additional testimony, but this has to be discussed by the three

3 of us beforehand.

4 Just to clarify, not in legal terms but in terms that are easily

5 understood as well by the accused, that in fact he had the necessary

6 intent of committing persecutions by killings. Of course not by own hand

7 but through others.

8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I would

9 like to stress the following supporting the position of Mr. Harmon: When

10 we discussed following Deronjic's admission of guilt, in view of the only

11 act at that point that had legal weight at the time, that is the Second

12 Amended Indictment and nothing else. He was informed. You also informed

13 him of the Second Amended Indictment, not the first one or the one

14 afterwards which you mentioned. We did not discuss that. The

15 Prosecutor, had they not changed the Indictment, there would be no

16 admission of guilt. So now you are making us discuss something that was

17 not the subject of the admission of guilt of our client. I don't see

18 what the problem is right now.

19 Before the break when I proposed the methodology of our work, I

20 suggested that we should make quite clear these facts, together with the

21 Prosecution, that we should agree on these facts that you are pointing

22 to, namely, searching for the true form of the culpability of the

23 accused, his mens rea when we're talking about the killings, and in view

24 of all of that you have quoted just now and which is not in dispute,

25 because Miroslav Deronjic simply stated the facts and events which took

1 place in his immediate vicinity. Stating those facts and even knowledge

2 that in the neighbouring municipalities killings took place does not mean

3 that Miroslav Deronjic would personally commit or order for something

4 like that to happen in Bratunac.

5 However, our client pleaded guilty for the -- for the fact that

6 the murder of 64 innocent civilians occurred. This is just a

7 contradiction, an apparent contradiction which actually does not exist.

8 Searching for a formula which would be adequate to the state of his mind,

9 his mens rea, you, Your Honours, have a coordinated, balanced position of

10 the parties, the Prosecution and the Defence. It is formulated in

11 paragraph 42 of the Factual Basis, which states: "Miroslav Deronjic did

12 not physically commit any of the killings of -- personally of the 65

13 civilians as cited in appendix or Annex A. However, at the time of

14 ordering the attack on Glogova, in view of the purpose and the objective

15 of the attack, the existing political climate, and the units that were to

16 participate in the attack, it was foreseeable to him and he was prepared

17 to take the risk that innocent Muslim residents of Glogova could be

18 murdered as it was a consequence that was natural and foreseeable."

19 Your Honours, this is the mens rea in the way that we described

20 it, and in this way Miroslav Deronjic admits his guilt to what has

21 happened. This is something that the parties are not disputing. I don't

22 know what else could be under dispute, and I ask you to please help us to

23 elucidate that.

24 Just one more thing, Your Honour. I apologise. In the

25 introduction, I still -- when I spoke about the Second Amended Indictment

1 and the other Indictment, I would like to say just one more thing which I

2 didn't say. It is not incidental that in the Second Amended Indictment a

3 part has been left out which refers to the alleged presence of Miroslav

4 Deronjic when the corpses were thrown into the river. While we were

5 coordinating our position, we told the Prosecution, we presented to them

6 irrevocable evidence that this is not true and that at the time he was

7 not present. We can do that again at a closed session for the Trial

8 Chamber, although we believe that this is unnecessary, because we are

9 discussing the Second Amended Indictment in which this paragraph does not

10 exist.

11 This is as much as I wanted to say for the time being.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe -- of course, the Trial Chamber in its

13 entirety has to discuss how to proceed. We still are in the same

14 situation that once in the Sentencing Hearing Mr. Deronjic testified that

15 he took into account and accepted that the killing of 65 Bosnian Muslims

16 was a foreseeable result of the attack and that he accepted that this

17 might happen.

18 There would be no problem at all if there wouldn't be the

19 Krajisnik transcripts, and once again I refer to Krajisnik transcript,

20 page 1105 to 1106 where Mr. Deronjic stated: "I agreed to certain things

21 which I did. But I never agreed to that, nor did I ever order or wish

22 that people were killed in that period or during the war. I never agreed

23 to anything like this."

24 And then of course paraphrasing in other parts, in the Blagojevic

25 trial and also in Krajisnik, he stated that he not even knew about the

1 facts, about these facts. And in order to support this testify -- this

2 testimony, for example in Blagojevic when he said: "I didn't know of

3 these events." He said: "I was several kilometres away from Glogova at

4 that time fulfilling a specific task." That's transcript page 6365

5 through 6366. Whereas in his testimony in the Sentencing Hearing, he

6 stated that it was about one kilometre away.

7 We are now in the difficulty, and therefore -- in another

8 testimony he stated that it was possible to hear what happened in the

9 town because they were that close to the town, and he heard shooting in

10 the town.

11 But I know that counsel, of course, can't testify on this, so we

12 must consider during the next break what now to do with this, whether it

13 can be clarified by a -- by an unequivocal statement on the mens rea not

14 in legal terms but in a way Mr. Deronjic likes to express his state of

15 mind at that time.

16 I am afraid we can't go further with this right now, and -- yes.

17 Mr. Harmon, you have the floor.

18 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, again I'm -- Your Honour is citing

19 for the first time various cites in the various transcripts. We haven't

20 had time to look at those before coming into Court, so it's difficult for

21 us to respond in an effective way. But I will -- I did take the first

22 portion of the citation that you gave us, pages 1105 and 1106. When I

23 examined Mr. Deronjic on the 18th of February, Mr. Deronjic said in his

24 testimony, and I'm quoting in part what you quoted: "I believe, even

25 though I ordered the action of Glogova, even though I participated in it

1 in the way that I described, I agreed to certain things which I did, but

2 I never agreed to that, nor did I ever order or wish that people are

3 killed."

4 We have no evidence that Mr. Deronjic ordered people killed, and

5 indeed in the Factual Basis that is before Your Honours to support this

6 plea, there is no suggestion that Mr. Deronjic, in fact, ordered those

7 killings. The contrary is what is contained in the Factual Basis.

8 So again in respect of this particular transcript, I do not see

9 any inconsistency with the Factual Basis, and that's what causes me some

10 concern in terms of this particular concern of the Trial Chamber.

11 If the Court wishes, and if the Court would give us the

12 opportunity and identify for us the various transcripts of the -- that it

13 is concerned about and finds differences in, we, both parties, I on

14 behalf of the Prosecution, my colleagues from the Defence, can address

15 these in a systematic and coherent way that will be quite expeditious.

16 But -- I can make that suggestion in desiring really to help Your Honours

17 with the problems it has identified.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, if I may. The Defence completely

19 agrees with what Mr. Harmon has said. Actually, when I'm looking at the

20 transcript, the portion of the transcript that Your Honour cited that, I

21 see that it is completely out of the context in which you are referring

22 right now to us, because the question that was posed to Mr. Deronjic

23 was -- I'm citing the Krajisnik 18th of February, 2004, page 1105. The

24 question was: "In respect of the Muslim civilians from Glogova in your

25 testimony, you described they were put on various forms of transportation

1 and moved to Kladanj, which was Bosnian Muslim-held territory. My

2 question, Mr. Deronjic, is: Why weren't these 400 detainees put on a bus

3 and sent to Kladanj? Why were they sent to Pale?"

4 And then Mr. Deronjic gives the answer that you cited.

5 So what they are talking about is actually the incident in

6 hangar, the 400 people that has been transported to Pale in order to be

7 saved from the hands of the volunteers.

8 And in reference to that question is the answer of our client.

9 Thank you, Your Honour. I mean, in that respect, I fully agree

10 that we should be given the opportunity to give our presentation in order

11 to assist effectively this Trial Chamber. I mean, to put the

12 discrepancies in a context where they appear.

13 Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to clarify your own quote, and I quote now

15 from page 1106, line 3: "I believed even though I ordered the action on

16 Glogova, and even though I participated and so on, I agreed to certain

17 things, but I never agreed to anything like that," and here he referred

18 to the killings.

19 So would you yourself establish a link between the events and the

20 hangar and in the stadium of Bratunac and the events in Glogova? Because

21 here it clearly states: "Only I ordered the action on Glogova." And

22 then the question remains -- we have to see everything in context. When

23 your client has then declared, when he was aware what happened in the

24 other surrounding municipalities and this ended up finally with killings,

25 and previously I quoted that from the beginning -- already in the

1 beginning of 1992, the use of power meant expulsion, killing, et cetera.

2 Milosevic transcript.

3 Is it absolutely clear that when ordering such an attack that it

4 was foreseeable that people would not only be expelled but also some of

5 them killed as your client himself confessed?

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, it is not intention, of course, to --

7 of the Defence to connect the two. I'm just referring to the context of

8 the question and the answer, nothing else. I'm not making any

9 connections between any other events but the event which we are talking

10 about and that is the attack on Glogova on the 9th of May. That is the

11 issue as we are concerned and as we understand.

12 In order to -- to answer your question, I can only revoke the

13 contents of the Factual Basis, paragraph 42, which my colleague already

14 cited.

15 Thank you, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. We will discuss this issue later if

17 not Mr. Harmon has an immediate solution.

18 MR. HARMON: I which I did have an immediate solution, Your

19 Honour, but I do -- I would like to put that particular answer on page

20 1106 indeed into context, because if you start at page 1101 of the

21 transcript, this whole discussion between 1101 and 1106 deals with

22 killings in the Vuk Karadzic school, and that's the context in which

23 Mr. Deronjic, the way I read this at least, Mr. Deronjic says, "Look, I

24 ordered the action on Glogova and even though I participated, I agreed to

25 certain things." You know, he goes on to say, "Nor did I --" and he

1 says, But I never agreed to that, nor did I order or wish that people are

2 killed." And this was in the context of killings in -- for a period of

3 days that took place of people who were detained in the Vuk Karadzic

4 school. That's where I see a selected reference to a sentence out of

5 context.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Out of context. This is the word I just wanted

7 o use myself, because the problem in this case emanates from the fact

8 that the Prosecution, and the Prosecution no doubt in a party-driven

9 procedure is free to decide what they charge and what they don't. The

10 problem is that we have before us the plan to take over the municipality

11 of Bratunac, and then the Indictment is limited to only the first events

12 in Glogova and only to the 9th of May, and this causes really problems,

13 because when you go into details, we will find out that it's very

14 difficult to identify why you just stopped immediately after the events

15 in Glogova, whereas the more serious crimes apparently and according to

16 the testimony of Mr. Deronjic himself were committed later in -- in

17 Bratunac and that there is indeed a link between these events. For

18 example, when you read the list of the detainees brought from the stadium

19 to Pale, that n this list you identify persons coming from Glogova. And

20 therefore, our problem is here that we are seized with Glogova only, but

21 the events of course continue, and we don't have the slightest gist on

22 what happened with the population of Glogova in its entirety. Were they

23 all brought to Kladanj? Were they brought in part to Bratunac? So this

24 remains open.

25 And I could come back. We have several contradicting statements

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 also on this point, but I wanted -- or at least I try to focus on the

2 core issue, and this is the mens rea for killing. And let's see how we

3 can resolve this problem.

4 MR. HARMON: I can answer two of your concerns, Your Honour. The

5 first concern is this -- this is indeed a limited Indictment. It was

6 purposefully done so because, among other things, this institution has

7 had trials that have lasted more than two years. Indeed, I participated

8 in one of those trials, and we could have a huge trial on a case that can

9 be resolved very quickly on facts that are clearly provable in this case.

10 So a decision was made by me to limit this Indictment for

11 purposes of resolving this case quickly in order to fulfil the mandate of

12 this institution. The choice being we could have a 25-month trial on

13 this, which would consume huge resources and limit the number of cases

14 that are heard before this institution, or the Prosecutor using her

15 discretion can limit the case to very serious cases, I might add, that

16 are provable and can be resolved expeditiously. That is why that choice

17 was made in this case.

18 In respect of what happened to the people in Glogova, that is

19 mentioned in the Indictment itself and/or in the Factual Basis. Now, if

20 you give me one moment, I will find it. But result of the attack on

21 Glogova, it's either in the Factual Basis or in the Indictment, was that

22 no Muslims remained in Glogova after the 9th of May. They were

23 ethnically cleansed from Glogova. A substantial number of the buildings

24 were destroyed by fire. The mosque was destroyed by fire. 65 Muslims

25 were killed. And indeed as Mr. Deronjic -- as this Plea Agreement says

1 and the Indictment says, that if the attack on Glogova was successful,

2 there was going to be additional ethnic cleansing in the villages of Suha

3 and one other village, and that evidence has been presented to you in the

4 form of a list of people that include people from Glogova who were

5 ethnically cleansed. It includes people from Suha, from Voljavica, the

6 other municipalities that have been identified in this Indictment.

7 Our proof in this case is that at the conclusion of the events on

8 -- following the attack, there was nothing virtually left of the village

9 of Glogova. It was gone. It was no longer for all intents and purposes

10 -- it was not a Muslim village any more because the Muslim villagers had

11 been removed. So in terms of what happened there, this attack resulted

12 in the elimination of that village as a viable community.

13 So those are two answers I hope will help you understand why this

14 is a limited Indictment and will assist you in understanding the

15 consequences of this attack that are not, by the way, in dispute.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As I said before, and it's of course only up to

17 the Prosecution to decide where the limits of an Indictment are, and I

18 don't want to go into further details. I only wanted to explain the

19 difficulties when confronted with only a part -- when you have the entire

20 plan being part of the Indictment and then the consequences only limited

21 to Glogova and reading in all testimonies that this was continued later.

22 We are not seized with that what happened later save the meeting in Pale.

23 However, it creates problems when we identify that citizens of Glogova

24 were not in its entirety brought to Kladanj but in part to -- first to

25 Bratunac and then later to Pale.

1 But I think it's now the time and the appropriate time that we

2 have a break for one hour. This leaves us the possibility that we can

3 conclude today only for a better explanation when we have twice 90

4 minutes, we could then conclude at 5.00 o'clock today, hopefully finally

5 conclude. Let's try to do our very best.

6 The trial stays adjourned until half past 1.00.

7 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: After having conferred, may I ask the parties,

10 can we take it as an agreed fact that the accused stands by his guilty

11 plea and his confession, or admitting the Factual Basis, and the -- his

12 testimony in Krajisnik and his prior statements given to the Office of

13 the Prosecutor have no impact on this; and therefore, for both parties,

14 there is nothing equivocal in these statements.

15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes. It is just

16 that we are going to add a testimony that was heard before this Chamber

17 on the 27th of January this year.

18 MR. HARMON: I agree with Your Honours' proposition.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Thank you.

20 Then the direct thread of the now-following issues is more or

21 less a question of the mutual responsibility of Mr. Zekic, Mr. Reljic,

22 and Mr. Deronjic. Let me start with the question of the disarmament of

23 the population in Glogova. In his witness statement of 25 November 2003,

24 Mr. Deronjic stated: "Between the 28th of April and early May, they" -

25 in the meaning Reljic JNA unit - "started planning and implementing the

1 campaign of disarming Muslim villages in Bratunac. In one such

2 operation, Miroslav Deronjic took part "as an ordinary soldier when the

3 suburb... Podcaus was disarmed. These operations... were conducted until

4 the 6th of May and they included the villages of Glogova, Konjevic Polje,

5 Voljavica."

6 And then in the indictment and in the Factual Basis, it reads:

7 "An effort to disarm was completed by the end of April 1992." That's

8 paragraph 20. "And the disarming continued until 6 May 1992." That's

9 the Factual Basis, paragraph 22. This is only a minor issue. What was

10 it now? Was it completed by the end of April 1992, as it reads in the

11 Indictment, paragraph 20, or continued until 6 May 1992, as it reads in

12 the Factual Basis, para 22? I think this can be easily resolved.

13 MR. HARMON: I believe what is more accurate is the factual

14 basis, paragraph 22.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Agreed, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is an agreed fact that the disarmament took

17 place on the 6th of May 1992.

18 Then, one more-difficult issue is the issue of participation of

19 volunteers. In the statements given to the OTP between June and July

20 2003 - I refer to page 913 [sic] - it reads: "Army participated and they

21 had their commander. The TO participated with their detachments and they

22 had their commander. The police participated as well, Chief of Police

23 Milutin Milosevic was their superior. Volunteers participated and they

24 had their commander of their unit. I said that I would coordinate the

25 operation, that I would monitor and coordinate the operation."

1 In the testimony at the sentencing hearing, 27 January this year,

2 Mr. Deronjic testified, transcript page 144: "I gave the order to attack

3 the Bratunac TO, including the police forces in Bratunac. I was unable

4 to command the JNA units." Continuing on page 144 to 145: "None of

5 these volunteers attended the Crisis Staff meeting, and my decision

6 stands in relation to them. I don't know to what extent. I don't know

7 what they did participate in this action in Glogova." In the Indictment

8 and in the Factual Basis accepted by the accused, it reads: "Later the

9 same day [8 May], at 2200 hours, the Bratunac Crisis Staff met the

10 principally about the events surrounding the death of Zekic and the

11 operation to attack Glogova. Miroslav Deronjic presided over this

12 meeting. The portion of the meeting dealing with the attack on Glogova

13 was attended by members of the Crisis Staff, Reljic, Rasa Milosevic,

14 Commander of the Kravica Detachment of the TO, and another individual who

15 was a member of the State Security of Serbia." That's Factual Basis

16 paragraph 28.

17 So the first question would be, did now the volunteers

18 participate in the meeting of the Crisis Staff at that very 8th of May or

19 not?

20 MR. HARMON: I believe the Factual Basis, again, accurately

21 reflects what happened. They did not participate in the meeting of the

22 Crisis Staff. That is the information that I have.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Agreed, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Take it as an agreed fact.

25 Then in the Krajisnik transcript it reads, testimony of

1 Mr. Deronjic: "I came to a decision that the village of Glogova, that

2 is, that the population of the village of Glogova, should be forcibly

3 resettled from the area. I made this decision on that night at the

4 Crisis Staff without having received prior directives to that effect. I

5 likewise never asked any guidelines for the implementation of this

6 directive, save for the consultations that I had with Goran Zekic and

7 also with Predrag Spasojevic. I received the approval from Mr. Zekic."

8 This brings me to the question, what is now the relationship between

9 Mr. Zekic and Mr. Deronjic, who was, in principle, superior?

10 MR. HARMON: Mr. Zekic at the time of the -- prior to his death

11 and at the time of the meeting that he had with Mr. Deronjic on the 5th

12 of May in the Hotel Fontana was a member of the Bosnian-Serb Assembly and

13 a member of the SDS Main Board. He was the link to Mr. Deronjic, who was

14 a leader in the Bratunac municipality. That is the relationship between

15 the two.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was the first question. The second

17 question, we had it already, was a question on the issue of disarmament.

18 In the testimony on the Sentencing Hearing, as well as in the Indictment,

19 it reads: "I gave the order to attack the Bratunac -- to the Bratunac

20 TO, including police forces in Bratunac." "I gave the order." Whereas

21 in Krajisnik, it reads: "We just gave our approval at the meeting."

22 Transcript page 1244 through 1245.

23 MR. HARMON: The issue, Your Honour, I think is addressed in

24 paragraph 29 of the Factual Basis, the last sentence. And it indicates

25 that following the introductory marks, again, at this particular meeting,

1 in a discussion of the Glogova plan, the Bratunac Crisis Staff adopted

2 the plan. That is what occurred.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour. We agree to that.

5 And even more, in the transcript which you cited, it says: "Yes, one

6 final question for you: The preparation for the attack on Glogova, as

7 far as logistics were concerned, was that prepared prior to the decision

8 taken, or was it organised on all the same evening?"

9 "It was prepared before. The army carried out the preparation.

10 We just gave our approval at the meeting."

11 So it refers to the logistics preparation of the attack.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it doesn't disturb --

13 MR. ZECEVIC: The order.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- the fact that Mr. Deronjic gave the order.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, as the President of the Crisis Staff, yes.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

17 Then it has to be one minor issue, as I already mentioned before

18 in Blagojevic, at earlier transcript, it reads on page 6365 through 6366

19 that -- what we already discussed, I didn't know of those events, and so

20 on. But then, I quote: "'If you mean the village of Glogova, when you

21 say the scene, that's not quite true. I was several kilometres away from

22 Glogova for fulfilling a specific task.'" Was it now several kilometres

23 away or was it 1 to 2 kilometres away?

24 Maybe we can avoid testimony by Mr. Deronjic himself when the

25 parties agree in pointing on the map being now on the ELMO where exactly

1 Mr. Deronjic stood at this point in time.

2 If the usher could be so kind, and if there is another copy of

3 the map. I'm afraid Mr. Deronjic has no map, so if you could be so kind.

4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I can assist with

5 a clarification. We introduced this map into evidence that was reduced

6 by the Prosecution to an acceptable format. And we compared yesterday

7 this military map that was now placed on the ELMO. On the military map

8 that we are looking at now, the old road going through Glogova village

9 was drawn in. If we place this map onto the old photo, then you see that

10 it doesn't coincide. There is a discrepancy and it goes 90 degrees

11 towards the old road. Mr. Deronjic said he spent the night on that day

12 near the old field and you can get a picture if you compare these two

13 maps. This road is an old macadam road that is no longer being used

14 because a new asphalt road has been built since then. And Mr. Harmon

15 drew a line to mark it in a nice pen. We can get an answer by comparing

16 the two maps briefly.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you could please continue that we have now a

18 map before us. I take it that when -- according to his testimony, once

19 he said "several kilometres, once he said "1 to 2 kilometres," then it

20 should be on this map we have before us. Correct? And if you could be

21 kind enough --

22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I can assist you

23 here because I walked that entire road that was covered by his unit back

24 then. Let me just tell you. The distance from Glogova village is

25 different because that road is winding. In spots, you are only 1

1 kilometre away from Glogova, but in other places, the distance is 3

2 kilometres. I walked the entire road, and the distance varies. But I

3 measured the distance from Glogova at the place where he came out. It's

4 5 kilometres. So our answer is that we can stipulate an average distance

5 but we can never say exactly whether it's a kilometre or three, because

6 the distance varies due to the winding nature of the road.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Absolutely. But could you please cross-mark on

8 the map the place where Mr. Deronjic stood at -- in the morning time of

9 the 9th of May 1992, that we -- unfortunately, we are not under -- have

10 not the possibility to be on the crime site to see whether and what he

11 was able to see. But if you could mark it, please, on the map.

12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, then I would kindly

13 ask to be given DS20. And on that map from 1990 we can show you the

14 position of the road. Because this map that we have now is an old one,

15 and it no longer reflects the exact situation.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Registrar, please, to present

17 this map.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, how do you want it

19 done, physically? Do you want me to place it on the ELMO?

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please. Thank you.

21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In yellow -- I'm not sure the

22 Judges can hear me -- in orange actually, we see the marking of the new

23 road. Above it, you can distinguish this line white line and that is the

24 old road you can see on the military map. Can you see it? That's the

25 old road seen on the military map.

1 The orange line represents the new road, the current situation.

2 Miroslav Deronjic was above this old road. I'm showing the position

3 here. And in the morning, he went down to the old road and moved along

4 the old road to Avdagina field.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please cross-mark --

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I haven't got my

7 headphones on. I can hear you now.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please cross-mark the place where

9 Mr. Deronjic stood.

10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will also mark the place where

11 he emerged on to the road. In the morning hours, he went down to the old

12 road. I marked it with an arrow. Can you see it now? He spent the

13 night where the cross is. In the morning, he went down to the road and

14 moved down the road to the place which I marked with an X. And generally

15 speaking, I followed this road before Glogova. Here is where the two

16 join. There is a marking. He went to the hilly, wooden part, and came

17 out on the road towards noon.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.

19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] As he explained.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Harmon, can we take this as an agreed fact?

21 MR. HARMON: Yes, that's satisfactory.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then let's admit this document with the

23 marks on it as DS20/A-1. Thereby admitted into evidence. Thank you for

24 this assistance and clarification.

25 To continue with the overall role of Mr. Deronjic. In the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Indictment and in the Factual Basis it reads: "Mr. Deronjic coordinated

2 and monitored the attack." "Mr. Deronjic urged Captain Reljic to fire a

3 tank shell into a house."

4 Then later, in the testimony at the Sentencing Hearing,

5 Mr. Deronjic stated on page 147 and 154: "I did not issue an order. I

6 made a recommendation" -- that's now in relation to torching. But my

7 first question would be on the one-hand side, it reads in the Factual

8 Basis, paragraph 35, that "Mr. Deronjic urged Captain Reljic to fire a

9 tank shell." On the other hand, in the Krajisnik transcript, it reads on

10 page 1.047: "Reljic claimed himself commander of the town. After he,

11 Reljic, took over control, from that point on he was issuing commands to

12 the TO for the mobilisation," and so on and so forth.

13 May I take it that the accused stands by that what he has pleaded

14 guilty to and what he confessed in relation to the Factual Basis, that he

15 urged Captain Reljic to fire a tank shell into a house? Of course, you

16 can't testify about the role but it serves as an indicia on the question

17 who, in fact, had power in town.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we can assist.

19 What is written in the Factual Basis, we accept as both accurate and as

20 the explanation that Miroslav Deronjic gave on the 27th of January before

21 this Trial Chamber. If this is not enough for the Trial Chamber to make

22 a conclusion, then we can discuss it further, although we believe what is

23 written is precise enough.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the Prosecution also agrees with this

25 explanation that we have it as an agreed fact?

1 MR. HARMON: Yes.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then let me turn immediately to the

3 meeting in Pale. I don't want to go into details --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone, please.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The meeting in Pale, the 10th, 11th, or 12th of

6 May we have it in part in the Indictment, in part in the Factual Basis.

7 In the Indictment, it reads that it was held either the 10th or the 11th

8 of May 1992. In the Witness Statement of 25 November 2003, on the one

9 hand it reads about a meeting held on 12th May in Pale, "when I explained

10 the events on Glogova." That's paragraph 67. And then, "What I saw when

11 I returned from Pale, which was either the 11th or the 12th of May." But

12 then on the other hand, it reads in paragraph 106, "On either the 10th or

13 11th of May 1992, I travelled to Pale to attend a meeting to report about

14 the events in Bratunac municipality."

15 I don't want to confuse this, but I only want to highlight first

16 the statement as 12th of May and reporting about the events in Glogova,

17 and then 10th or 11th of May, reporting about the events in the Bratunac

18 municipality. If I take the testimony of Mr. Deronjic at the Sentencing

19 Hearing then it's very difficult to understand how it's possible to

20 report already on the 10th of May about the events in the Bratunac

21 Municipality in its entirety.

22 So may I hear the parties on this question. What was the report?

23 Was it the report on Glogova, and then the 12th, or was it the report on

24 Bratunac, the 12th? And finally, and in this context already, in order

25 not to come back to this, that finally it was said by Mr. Ostojic, "Now

1 we can paint Bratunac blue." This would mean the Bratunac municipality.

2 Then at least the 10th would be excluded as the concrete day. Because

3 according to the testimony of Mr. Deronjic during the Sentencing Hearing,

4 it seems to be absolutely impossible what he told us about all the events

5 happening going to -- several times to Bratunac, back, the funeral,

6 looking about -- looking on the crime sites and so on.

7 So the question remains: What was the day and was the report on

8 Glogova or was it the report on Bratunac municipality? Can we resolve it

9 also by the way of having agreed facts?

10 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, as to the exact date, whether it was

11 the 11th or the 12th, I can't say for certain. I don't think

12 Mr. Deronjic knows for certain. I accept the fact there was such a

13 meeting.

14 In respect of what was reported, I refer Your Honours to the

15 testimony in the Krajisnik case, page 1199 starting at line 24. And

16 there is a summary of what the report was, specifically, the summary that

17 is described by Mr. Deronjic in that testimony -- I'll read his answer:

18 "I said that the population of the village of Glogova had been forcibly

19 moved out. I'm not sure I used the exact expression, but it was

20 perfectly clear that they had not left on their own, of their own free

21 will, that the village by and large had been burned down, that there had

22 been a lot of destruction in Glogova as well, that the operation of the

23 forcible removal of the Muslim population would continue the next day in

24 Bratunac and the neighbouring villages. That was the essence of my

25 statement."

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. And this creates the confusion.

2 Because no doubt when he reported already about the events in the entire

3 municipality, then I think all of you can agree that the 10th is not

4 possible as the date. And I wonder how it is possible that in the

5 accurately drafted statement of 25 November 2003 it clearly reads "the

6 12th of May in Pale."

7 MR. HARMON: I can't give Your Honours any precise date. I think

8 Mr. Deronjic gave an estimation as to the approximate date. He gave that

9 in his Factual Basis in paragraph 45. He's given a range obviously, with

10 the other testimonies, he says the 10th or the 11th and in other

11 testimony he says the 12th. I make no excuses for Mr. Deronjic, I merely

12 point to the human factor of trying to account for a particular event

13 that took place in 1992. When asked about it in 2004, it's difficult to

14 precisely identify the date. I don't have any dispute nor do I think

15 Mr. Deronjic disputes that this meeting took place. I think there is a

16 question as to the exact date, and I can't shed any additional light on

17 it, Your Honour. I have no additional documents that can help the Court

18 in that regard.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we take it that the Witness Statement of

20 25 November 2003 where it reads "the 12th of May in Pale" signed in B/C/S

21 by Mr. Deronjic, that might be a mistake. And we take it as agreed facts

22 and the accused stands by his guilty plea in relation to the Indictment

23 and his confession to the Factual Basis. Can this be seen as an agreed

24 fact?

25 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. The paragraph 45 of the Factual

1 Basis is what we stand by.

2 Let me just briefly explain in two words. If Your Honours

3 remember, Mr. Deronjic testified before this Trial Chamber and in other

4 cases also that he was summoned to the meeting. So it wasn't him who

5 chose when to go, but was summoned to go to Pale to report on the

6 situation in Bratunac municipality, as it stands in paragraph 45 of the

7 Factual Basis. Thank you.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you. The final point I wanted to

9 address relating to certain discrepancies was already discussed this

10 morning and we agreed already that there in fact is a document dated the

11 13th of May on the expulsion of volunteers from Bratunac.

12 In the statements to the OTP of June, July 2003, it reads: "We

13 decided in mid-May to expel him from Bratunac." This was in accordance

14 with two documents of the beginning of May or mid-May we have admitted

15 into evidence this morning. Then in continues on page 1172: "He was

16 informed about this" decision to expel "so he escaped from Bratunac." So

17 the question, once again: Does this statement given to the OTP that he

18 escaped has any impact casting doubt on his own testimony that he

19 expelled all volunteers from Bratunac? And also a decision to expel

20 Reljic, that was the testimony of Mr. Deronjic, page 164 to 165 the 27th

21 of January, 2004.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour. It doesn't contradict. If I

23 would just briefly explain. The passage -- the part of the statement

24 which you just read explaining the escape, "he escaped" refers to Captain

25 Reljic, not to the volunteers. And therefore, there is no discrepancy.

1 They expelled the volunteers as one measure; they expelled Captain

2 Reljic. But they couldn't expel him because he fled because he found out

3 that he has been expelled. That is the explanation, yes.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So one should read the testimony in the

5 hearing, because there is a reference to a decision to expel Reljic --

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, as a second decision. There is the first

7 decision to expel the volunteers, and then the decision to expel Reljic

8 as well, yes.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it was not possible because he escaped.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: That's exactly right.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we take this as an agreed fact?

12 MR. HARMON: You can, Your Honour. Thank you.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you.

14 Are there any additional questions from your side?

15 So, then, may I ask the parties, are there any additional

16 submissions to maybe discrepancies? I guess that there are none. You

17 assisted us in -- please, Mr. Harmon.

18 MR. HARMON: Sorry, Your Honour. This morning Your Honours had a

19 question about the War Commission and whether Mr. Deronjic was a

20 president or a commissioner, and I have two documents which I referred to

21 I can now pass up to Your Honours as exhibits.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We already discuss it in the meantime, and we

23 take it as an agreed fact that he was a member.

24 MR. HARMON: All right.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Accepted by the Defence as well?

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, exactly.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before I have formally to give you the

3 possibility of adding some submissions - but only if you so want, of

4 course - let me only summarise one question that personally still

5 concerns me, and this is the question when we come to the question what

6 can we really take into account as mitigating factors. And of course,

7 advantages the accused has already received during the plea agreement

8 can't serve as a mitigating factor. So please, only for my own

9 clarification, is it correct that one advantage was that during the

10 eleven testimonies or statements given to the Prosecution, it was for

11 reasons -- understandable -- it was guaranteed that nothing that he would

12 testify on, no facts he would give to the Prosecution, all this would

13 never be held against him and would never be used for the preparation of

14 an indictment against him? Is this correct that this is one proposal

15 made to him and guarantee given to him?

16 Second, is it correct that when the amendment based on the plea

17 agreement was changed and accepted, that the cumulative conviction or --

18 all the charges on murder were withdrawn in part as it's in relation to

19 Article 5, intra article 5 -- it's a legal question because it's a

20 question of cumulative convictions. But am I correct in assuming that

21 the charge based on Article 3, murder, was dropped in a give-and-take way

22 as part of the plea agreement? You already explained this morning why

23 and for what purpose not the entire takeover of the Bratunac municipality

24 formed part of this Indictment so that it's limited to Glogova only.

25 And finally, that you stand by your submission. I read carefully

1 once again Mr. Deronjic's testimony in Krstic, that it was not in a

2 give-and-take way as you stated last week, that there was no promise that

3 there would be no indictment in relation to the events in Glogova -- in

4 Srebrenica in 1995. And there's no link between this Indictment, there's

5 no packet solution, including the promise to the accused that he would

6 never be held responsible before this Tribunal based on his participation

7 in the events in Srebrenica in 1995. Are these assumptions correct,

8 Mr. Harmon?

9 MR. HARMON: Starting with your latter question, I stand by what

10 I said earlier in respect of Srebrenica 1995 and what I said in respect

11 of the Krstic case.

12 In respect of the first proposition you raised, you said during

13 his eleven testimonies, and what I would like to clarify with Your

14 Honours is the following: When you say "testimonies" do you mean

15 testimonies under oath before the Tribunal or statements to the Office of

16 the Prosecutor?

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The statements.

18 MR. HARMON: In respect of the statements that he made to the

19 Office of the Prosecutor, and I think there are nine or ten of them in

20 June and July, there is a memorandum of understanding which has been

21 filed with the Court, and that precisely lays out what the agreement was.

22 So in respect of whether or not when he later testified at a trial under

23 oath, whether he could be prosecuted, of course he could. That's not

24 contained within the memorandum of understanding. But what is understood

25 was when Mr. Deronjic was talking to the Office of the Prosecutor for

1 those ten or eleven sessions, that anything he said would not and could

2 not be used against him.

3 In respect of the Amended Indictment, it was our belief that the

4 persecution count would fully and more completely collect the events and

5 describe the events that took place in Glogova and in -- on that

6 particular day. And that's why we took the larger charge of persecution,

7 and you will see subsumed in the persecution count the various acts that

8 included the burning of personal property, the forcible movement of

9 people, the killings. These are all subsumed in what we consider to be a

10 more serious charge of persecution. And that's why we arrived at the

11 conclusion that persecutions would be a more appropriate count in this

12 case.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification.

14 For procedural reasons, I have only -- because we continued with

15 the Sentencing Hearing, I have to give the opportunity, if the parties so

16 want, to give a final statement. Mr. Harmon, do you want to make a final

17 statement or just refer to your previous one?

18 MR. HARMON: Well, I would refer to my previous statement. And

19 for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, I led Mr. Deronjic's examination in

20 the Krajisnik case and I am lead counsel in that particular case. I

21 would like to say to Your Honours that the testimony that was provided by

22 Mr. Deronjic in that case, in my opinion, was very solid testimony that

23 was corroborated in many respects by documents, and will be corroborated

24 in the future with other evidence. My conclusion was Mr. Deronjic's

25 testimony was very helpful in illuminating events not only in eastern

1 Bosnia, but to some degree in respect of relationships between people and

2 the way matters were communicated.

3 In addition to which, Mr. Deronjic's testimony was helpful in

4 terms of illuminating as well elements of the joint criminal enterprise;

5 his description, for example, of meetings that took place in Belgrade,

6 and particular in relation to arming, was very helpful. And again, that

7 testimony was corroborated by independent evidence in that particular

8 part of his testimony by a diary that was from an individual by the name

9 of -- as I recall, Mr. Jankovic, who was the head of the SDS in a

10 different municipality. That diary was never seen by Mr. Deronjic

11 before. You know, he was -- he gave the Office of the Prosecutor

12 evidence about the arming and the arming operation and he saw that diary

13 for the first time two or three days before he actually testified in the

14 case. That independent evidence corroborates that there was an arming

15 activity going on. It identified by name, coincidentally, many of the

16 same people who Mr. Deronjic had previously told us were responsible for

17 the arming operation.

18 In addition, in respect of the arming operation, we had an

19 intercept, an intercepted communication between Mr. Karadzic and

20 Mr. Kertes, Mr. Kertes being one of the people with whom Mr. Deronjic met

21 I think in late April 1991 along with Mr. Zekic to discuss the arming

22 operation. So in the final analysis, from the Prosecutor's point of

23 view, the testimony of Mr. Deronjic was very, very helpful to us in the

24 Krajisnik case.

25 That's my final submission in this case, Your Honour. Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We thank you. And Defence, please.

2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence of course

3 abides fully by its closing statement which we made on the 28th of

4 January 2004 during the Sentencing Hearing.

5 In the meantime, nothing has occurred which might influence the

6 standpoint of the Defence, which might change it, and especially not

7 something that might change the proposal made by the Defence as to the

8 sentence that is recommended.

9 Certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements made

10 by the accused, if such discrepancies still exist -- we don't think they

11 do, but if they do, they only confirm his credibility because, like all

12 of us, he is only a human being with only one body and one mind. And he

13 cannot be expected to remember every small detail, the least detail from

14 a time in which events occurred very fast and followed fast on one

15 another's heels. Should the Chamber be in any dilemma, I ask you to

16 apply the old Latin rule in dubio pro reo. This is a simply way for the

17 Trial Chamber to resolve any such doubts by resolving them in favour of

18 the accused. The Chamber should be assured that the accused has not put

19 forward any false facts or evidence, nor has he speculated with the

20 evidence he gave.

21 This Trial Chamber accepted the accused's confession of guilt,

22 the Factual Basis which flesh out his admission of guilt, and of course

23 the Second Amended Indictment because it has already established that all

24 these acts meet the requirements from Rule 62 bis of the Rules of

25 Procedure and Evidence. In the view of the Defence, these acts as well

1 as the testimony of Miroslav Deronjic on the 27th of January 2004 before

2 this Trial Chamber can be the only basis and should be the only basis for

3 reaching a decision on the degree of his culpability and the basis for

4 sentencing.

5 However, in the meantime, circumstances have arisen which only go

6 to confirm the view of the Defence and its final submission as to the

7 sentence recommended. The accused, even after the sentencing hearing,

8 continued his substantial cooperation with the Prosecution and the

9 Tribunal by testifying in the case Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

10 The extent of this testimony and the length of time exceeds all his

11 previous testimonies. It lasted two weeks, and the accused spent over 20

12 hours altogether in the courtroom. The evidence adduced through the

13 testimony of the accused corroborated, among other things, all his

14 previous testimonies. The scope, quality, and importance of this

15 testimony has already been mentioned by Mr. Mark Harmon, so the Defence

16 will not add anything to this.

17 With his testimony, the accused confirmed his standpoint which is

18 that substantial cooperation is something that he's motivated towards

19 only by the truth. And the accused is still at the disposal of this

20 Tribunal for this reason. The accused, as a witness, was duty-bound to

21 put forward all the facts and all the evidence he knows about. He did

22 this. The facts are what they are, whatever they might mean.

23 Considering that the accused has all the mitigating circumstances

24 that are taken as such in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, we wish to

25 draw attention now to the fact that the substantial cooperation of the

1 accused as the most important mitigating circumstance has only grown in

2 quality and significance with this last testimony. The Defence is even

3 more firmly convinced that even a far milder sentence in the case of this

4 accused would serve to achieve the purpose of punishment in all its

5 essential elements.

6 Therefore, Your Honours, there is nothing else left for me to do

7 but to repeat the final submission of the Defence, which is that in

8 finding the accused guilty the Chamber in our view should not impose a

9 sentence exceeding six years. Thank you, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you. Before I have, in the narrowest

11 sense of the word, to give the final word to the accused, I only wanted

12 to come back to one technical issue. It would be of assistance for the

13 preparation of the judgement if the Document S20/A, the A3 aerial view

14 could be brought in a printable version. I know that the Prosecution

15 opposed to the Chamber has these technical possibilities. And therefore,

16 I would appreciate if you could assist us in doing so, but not today, not

17 tomorrow. We have first to write the judgement. I already announced -

18 maybe it was a little bit premature - that the judgement would be handed

19 down the 30th of March. We'll try our very best that we can achieve this

20 in the remaining time. But please don't be surprised if we can't manage

21 it in this period of time.

22 Mr. Harmon.

23 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I'm informed that the quality of the

24 document that we gave you was the best quality we could produce because

25 it was -- we received only a paper copy of it ourselves. If we have a

1 better copy, of course, we can give you a better copy. But what we had

2 is our initial, large copy. We reproduced, I'm told, the best that we

3 could do. So I'm not sure that we can improve any more on that unless

4 the Defence has at its disposal a better copy they can provide us. And

5 then we will be glad to take this through the necessary steps and get a

6 better copy for Your Honours.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm not that familiarised with the technical

8 possibilities of today, but I was learned that the best way would be to

9 scan the appropriate parts in and have, then, the document in an

10 electronic version and then it could be printed. That's what I learned.

11 MR. HARMON: I'm told that we can try, Your Honour. And we will.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you so much.

13 And then, Mr. Deronjic, as it is the final word, do you want to

14 address the Chamber once more, or do you want just to stick to your words

15 you have given to us the last time?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to adhere to my

17 earlier statement. I believe I have nothing to add to it except to thank

18 you and everyone else in the courtroom because you had to invest

19 additional effort in clarifying certain inconsistencies, and I'm sorry

20 that it was due to my mistake that you had to work longer. Thank you.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I thank you. And I thank everybody for the

22 cooperation today. The trial stays adjourned until further notice.

23 --- Whereupon the Sentencing Hearing adjourned

24 at 2.38 p.m.

25