1 Friday, 24 September 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the microphones, I must always remember

7 microphones. I had a word with Mr. Margetts, who is dealing with this

8 witness, and Mr. Tieger as well. Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Should we not first have the case called?

10 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry. I wasn't concentrating. I thought while

11 we were dealing with things, that had been done. I'll sit down

12 immediately, Your Honour.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus

14 Momcilo Krajisnik.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

16 Mr. Stewart.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, these time constraints -- I like to get

18 on with it, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour. We had a brief word before

19 the case was called to -- it would probably be helpful, it would save time

20 if we were just to take a minute before the witness comes in to -- it's a

21 sort of housekeeping matter in relation to this witness. Goodness,

22 there's an echo this morning somewhere. About 25 in me in Court talking

23 to myself. I'll manage, but I wonder if something could be done at some

24 point.

25 JUDGE ORIE: If it's simultaneous, it doesn't take extra time.

1 MR. STEWART: You're right, Your Honour, but if it isn't, it tends

2 to be repetitive. Your Honour, the position is that in the statements, as

3 Your Honour will recall, and I'm thinking particularly of the long

4 statement of this witness, the one that was signed in October 2002, he

5 refers to a number of documents which he calls document 1, document 2, and

6 so on. And in the interests of refining the matter, the position was

7 taken by the Prosecution, I think in response to indications or requests

8 from the Trial Chamber in relation to the 92 bis application and

9 direction, those were whittled down to a smaller number and a list was

10 given. But what we -- what we then have is a position where there are

11 passages of the witness's statement which refer to documents which are now

12 not being put in evidence. And in the discussion we had a few minutes

13 ago, there are two directions one can go in relation to those passages,

14 and I made it clear to the Prosecution, I'm not taking a particularly

15 strong position about which direction one goes in. Either some of the

16 passages linked to the, if you like, the missing documents have to be cut

17 out of the statement or to make sense of some of those passages in the

18 statement, some of those documents do in fact then have to be introduced.

19 But what we can't have, we submit, is an intermediate situation where

20 you've got bits of the statement referring to documents which are

21 themselves not in evidence.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, in preparing the list of exhibits that

24 we have now proposed to the Court, we were mindful to not include too many

25 documents. We tried to limit it to the most important documents.

1 Accordingly, in our review of the statement, we were mindful of that

2 factor, and the other factor being that the statements had been admitted

3 into evidence pursuant to the 92 bis ruling. So if we were to now proceed

4 on the basis that if the attachments are not presented as exhibits, that

5 the paragraph itself may be excised. We may need to review whether or not

6 we should in fact introduce further attachments and maintain those

7 paragraphs. So that would take us some time to conduct that review.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On the other hand, the witness will be here

9 only for a short period of time. Of course, I think that the Defence

10 might be interested to know which approach you choose, because that could

11 influence their cross-examination.

12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: If you add exhibits, of course, they have to consider

14 whether to put any additional questions on them, but of course, if you

15 excise parts of the statement, then of course it would not.

16 I think, as a matter of fact, since you've made your -- well, your

17 preliminary choice as far as exhibits are concerned, that perhaps cutting

18 those parts referring to exhibits not tendered at this moment would be the

19 most appropriate way. But how much time would you need to --

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we have a practical suggestion, which I

21 hope wouldn't be inconvenient either to the Trial Chamber or to the

22 Prosecution, which is that on our side, and we think subject to being able

23 to find Mr. Gaynor in the building, it shouldn't be too difficult to

24 proceed with the next witness, because I don't think Mr. Margetts is

25 involved directly with the next witness. If that would give him the

1 opportunity to do this exercise. Might I request, for example,

2 Your Honour, that if we were, this would, I confess, be helpful to me,

3 then if we were to designate, say, the beginning of one of the later

4 sessions this morning. Because I would finish easily within a session

5 with this witness. If, for example, we were able to bring him back at the

6 beginning of one of the later sessions, it might be interrupting the next

7 witness, but it would save time overall to do it that way.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, is that an acceptable suggestion?

9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I don't think it will take us that

10 long to make the decisions on which attachments we'd like to introduce.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible to do it this morning? I take

12 it that the witness doesn't -- that his flight will not depart before

13 12.00.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you later this morning what solution

16 you've chosen. And the witness is still in The Hague. And presumably, no

17 further questions might be needed, but if otherwise, then we always could

18 recall the witness either later today or --

19 MR. STEWART: Sorry, when Your Honour says no further questions.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I mean no further questions as a result of the choice

21 made later this morning on what parts to take out of the statement or --

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the position is this: I don't think,

23 and I say what I think at the moment is the right course because I'm

24 trying to assess the way it's going. I don't think that the choice is

25 made as to what should go in, what should stay out and so on. They're not

1 likely to affect the overall length of the cross-examination. They might

2 affect particularly which question I ask, as opposed to which question I

3 don't ask. But Your Honour, the position is this: May I request this,

4 that if I were able to start cross-examination at the latest at the very

5 beginning of the last --

6 JUDGE ORIE: You delay at this moment this witness. And ask the

7 next witness to be called --

8 MR. STEWART: That's what I had in mind, Your Honour, otherwise we

9 should get in a bit of a tangle. It's just a question of clarity. The

10 best course of all, Your Honour, because the last session is quite a short

11 one, may I say the best course of all I suggest is, given what

12 Mr. Margetts said about not needing much time, is if I could resume my

13 cross-examination of this witness at the beginning of the second session.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, Mr. Stewart has just raised this issue

16 this morning and so I've had to think rather quickly as to how much time

17 it will take us to make that review of the statement and determine whether

18 we wish to introduce further exhibits. On reflection, I think if the

19 Court adjourned for 10 minutes now, the Prosecution could respond to the

20 Court and give an indication as to which paragraphs they wish to maintain

21 and which paragraphs they're happy to excise.

22 MR. STEWART: That's -- Your Honour, I do suggest my suggestion is

23 preferable because I'm bound to need at least a few minutes to consider

24 the result of the ten minutes' work by the Prosecution. So it's going to

25 save time if we do it the way I suggest and begin at the beginning of the

1 next session.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The beginning of the next session. That would

3 be approximately 11.00. Would the Prosecution be in a position to call

4 its next witness and that we start examining the next witness, then

5 interrupt that for, well, say for approximately one hour, not more than

6 one and a half hours, and then continue with the present witness? Who is

7 going to take the next witness?

8 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Gaynor will be taking the

9 next witness and he is ready to proceed.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we expected to start perhaps in an hour

11 and he could start now?

12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, he could.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if you please would be so kind to invite

16 Mr. Gaynor to come to the courtroom and call your next witness. Which

17 would be? First of all, no protective measures, as far as I understand.

18 MR. MARGETTS: That's Mr. Fejzija Hadzic.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And could then someone explain to Mr. Dzambasovic the

20 reason why he is not called at this moment but that he'll appear at

21 approximately 11.00.

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I just ask, just a very simple

23 guideline. From what Mr. Margetts said about the time needed on a fairly

24 informal understanding, if the Prosecution could please let me know, say,

25 by 10.00 what their position is in relation to these matters and then I

1 shall be ready by 11.00 then to proceed. There shouldn't be any problem.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

3 MR. STEWART: And I hope Your Honours will forgive me if I do a

4 little noisy tidying up of my stuff as I leave Court. It will only take

5 me 30 seconds.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: The first thing we'll do is to check whether the next

8 witness has already arrived. And make as much noise as you want.

9 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. But there's only one of me,

10 I gather now the technical problem has been sorted out.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, you're on duty earlier than expected.

12 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, while we're waiting for this witness, I

13 might give you a little bit of information as to how the examination will

14 proceed.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Gaynor.

16 MR. GAYNOR: This witness is a Rule 89(F) witness. We will be

17 submitting three statements by him. One is an ICTY statement from 1991.

18 Another is a Bosnian statement --

19 JUDGE ORIE: 1991. ICTY. I have some difficulties in

20 understanding that the ICTY was already --

21 MR. GAYNOR: In fact there's a typo in the first page which we

22 will correct on the record. It's in 1999. And then there are two Bosnian

23 statements which we'll submit as part of one package. The witness's

24 evidence can really be divided into three parts in terms of time. The

25 first part are events in late 1991 and early 1992, until the witness's

1 arrest on the 25th of June. The second part of his testimony really

2 relates to the period of his detention from the 25th of June until the 5th

3 of August. And the third part of his testimony relates to the events of

4 the 5th of August.

5 Now, the Defence has informed us of objections in relation to four

6 parts of the ICTY witness statement which I can identify now briefly for

7 Your Honours.

8 Paragraph 4 in its entirety. Paragraph 9, the sentence beginning

9 with the words: "It is in my strong belief." Paragraph 25 in its

10 entirely. Paragraph 26, the sentence beginning: "This was the start of

11 the ethnic cleansing."

12 We propose to examine the witness about those four parts of his

13 statement in order to gather from him the facts which led him to form

14 those conclusions.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then in the statement that you'll tender,

16 you take those parts out, so we have only the viva voce evidence on that,

17 or -- because otherwise we get a bit confused, because then there

18 is -- there are parts of the statement which are dealt with in the viva

19 voce testimony. The objection is, as I understand, accepted by the

20 Prosecution to the extent that it will cover those issues in the viva voce

21 testimony rather than in the written statement. So therefore, we'd like

22 to have it quite clear what parts of the statement, apart from having to

23 look in the transcript what is admitted and what is not admitted as a

24 statement. So we'd very much like to receive then a copy with those parts

25 taken out to which the Defence objected and which objection has been

1 accepted.

2 MR. GAYNOR: Well, Your Honour, if I might clarify the position.

3 I informed the Defence that we did not consider that those paragraphs

4 consisted of inadmissible evidence. We consider that those paragraphs are

5 in fact admissible. Now, in respect of those paragraphs and indeed in

6 respect of several other statements in the ICTY and Bosnian statements,

7 there are expressions which require clarification and amplification by the

8 witness.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's just get started. I take it that on the

10 basis of the viva voce testimony, Ms. Loukas, you'll take a final position

11 whether or not this could be kept in or whether it has to be taken out.

12 Of course, if it's fully supported by viva voce testimony, one could

13 wonder whether it's worth the exercise to take it out. Perhaps we just

14 wait and see what happens in the examination and then give a final

15 decision.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour. I'm happy to adopt that

17 approach. At this stage I still maintain my objection to the matters that

18 I've outlined to the Prosecution. And also I have one further objection.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MS. LOUKAS: I will indicate, Your Honour. I've received a

21 supplemental information sheet yesterday from the Prosecution with

22 additional material from the witness, and which of course includes that

23 from a particular meeting that this Grujo Lalovic person indicated that he

24 had received orders from above, and referred to orders received from

25 Trebinje.

1 Now, and in addition to that, it's indicated that the additional

2 supplemental information sheet indicates that the witness has suffered

3 from PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. Now, Your Honour, of course,

4 in the circumstances, and this is happening rather often, that when the

5 witnesses come, there's this little addition, 12 years after the event, of

6 orders from above. When one looks, Your Honour, at section 89 of the

7 Rules, in terms of a Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value

8 is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial, that's

9 89(D), Your Honour, how probative a piece of evidence would be emerging 12

10 years after the event is, Your Honour, a matter of great conjecture,

11 firstly. And secondly, when one also takes into account the fact that the

12 Statute includes ensuring protection of witnesses under Article 22, this

13 is a witness for whom, Your Honour, there wouldn't be a great deal of

14 cross-examination on what I've seen thus far. But when we have the

15 additional - 12 years after the event - orders from above, I, as the

16 Defence, Your Honour, am placed in the situation of cross-examining a

17 witness with post-traumatic stress disorder about something that 12 years

18 after the event has emerged. So, Your Honour, in those circumstances, I

19 would be submitting that Your Honours would exercise your discretion to

20 not allow this additional bit of evidence that's contained in the

21 supplemental information sheet.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Would that also exclude, in the opinion of the

23 Defence, any viva voce examination of -- on that subject or just --

24 MS. LOUKAS: On this particular subject?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: So not only the statement but also to put questions

3 to the witness in that respect.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. When one considers the

5 balancing exercise that has to be performed by Your Honours in terms of

6 Rule 89(D), I would submit that it's not automatic that evidence of this

7 sort should go in, particularly 12 years after the event and particularly

8 considering a witness who has, it appears, suffered from post-traumatic

9 stress disorder.

10 [Trial Chamber confers].

11 JUDGE ORIE: We have considered your objection. Mr. Margetts --

12 Mr. Gaynor, I'm still in a situation five minutes ago. Mr. Gaynor, the

13 Chamber will allow you to examine the witness on that subject, but will

14 not accept the specific part mentioned by Ms. Loukas as a written

15 statement, not as written statement evidence. Ms. Loukas, one of the

16 reasons is that even if it emerges 12 years later, then that also could be

17 because certain aspects that had less relevance, perhaps, in the eyes of

18 who interviewed the witness at that time might be that they had no

19 specific idea on to use that evidence, in what case. So therefore, it

20 could well be a matter of relevance. And of course, the Chamber will pay

21 specific attention to what you told us about the post-traumatic stress

22 disorder in order to assess as good as we can whether the evidence is

23 influenced by any such stress disorder. Of course, the Chamber is also

24 aware that if a post-traumatic stress disorder would make a witness unfit

25 to testify, then we might lose a lot of witnesses in this Court. And this

1 is not to say that we ignore it, but the Chamber does not take the view

2 that a PTSD in itself would disqualify a witness.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Gaynor are you then ready to call your next

5 witness?

6 MR. GAYNOR: I am indeed, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the next witness

8 into the courtroom.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Hadzic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules of

13 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that

14 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The

15 text will be handed out to you now by the usher. I'd like to invite you

16 to make that solemn declaration.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

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

19 WITNESS: FEJZIJA HADZIC

20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Hadzic. I have to

22 inform you, first of all, that the counsel for the Prosecution will start

23 your examination this morning, but we'll then have an interruption for

24 approximately one hour, one hour and a half, where we have to finish the

25 testimony of another witness who had started already. So it will not be

1 uninterrupted, your testimony. It will be interrupted later this morning.

2 So you're prepared for that. You'll first be examined by Mr. Gaynor,

3 counsel for the Prosecution.

4 Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Examined by Mr. Gaynor:

7 Q. Mr. Hadzic, I'm going to ask you a few questions about your

8 background. I'll just read a few sentences and I'd just like you to

9 confirm that that information is correct with a yes or a no. You are from

10 the village of Mjehovina near Kalinovik town in Kalinovik municipality.

11 You served in the JNA in 1966 and 1967. In the spring of 1992 you were

12 the director of the public utilities commission in Kalinovik. You're now

13 retired and you have a wife and three adult children. Is that correct?

14 Sir, can you hear what I said to you?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hadzic, Madam Usher, could you perhaps please

16 check whether the witness receives -- whether he is on the right channel.

17 Is the witness on the right channel? MR. GAYNOR:

18 A. Sir, I'm going to ask you some information about yourself and if

19 you --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hadzic, do you now hear what Mr. Gaynor says in a

21 language you understand?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you. I understand

23 everything. Yes.

24 MR. GAYNOR:

25 Q. Mr. Hadzic --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, perhaps, since you might have read quite

2 quickly, that the translation took quite some extra time before it was

3 finished. So perhaps we should have some patience.

4 Did you follow what Mr. Gaynor told you, the information he

5 presented to you, that --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard everything. I'd just like

7 to correct something. I was director of the public utilities company.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Where it says public utilities commission you say it

9 was the public utilities company in Kalinovik.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, everything was correct, what

12 Mr. Gaynor said?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

15 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I would like to tender now the 89(F)

16 package, consisting of three statements by the witness.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Gaynor.

18 MR. GAYNOR: And I'd like that package to be given an exhibit

19 number, please.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number P285.

21 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I propose to read out now a summary of

22 the evidence of the witness.

23 This witness is from the municipality of Kalinovik. The

24 harmonious multi-ethnic way of life in the municipality began to change in

25 1990 and 1991, with the arrival of a large number of JNA soldiers to the

1 local artillery camp to prepare for deployment to Slovenia and Croatia.

2 At the same time, there was a gradual increase in Serb nationalism and

3 this began to filter into daily life.

4 Later, the witness noticed that the JNA soldiers began wearing new

5 uniforms bearing Serb insignia. At the municipality building, Serb flags

6 were flown.

7 When drunk, JNA soldiers began to fire their weapons into the sky

8 and to take random potshots at the mosques. The witness considered that

9 this behaviour was intended to intimidate the Muslims. The Muslims were

10 unarmed and were not in a position to challenge the behaviour of the JNA

11 soldiers.

12 The SDS began to dominate local politics, and the witness was

13 aware of several visits by Radovan Karadzic to the area. Relations

14 between the SDS and the SDA deteriorated. It became apparent to the

15 witness that the JNA had begun to arm local Serbs. The arming began as a

16 covert operation, but later JNA trucks would drive around Serb villages,

17 dropping off weapons at homes. Units of volunteers made up of local Serbs

18 were formed.

19 In April or May of 1992, the witness became aware that Serb

20 artillery guns had been positioned with the barrels directed at the Muslim

21 village of Golubici. A complaint was made to General Ratko Mladic, who

22 was from the village of Bozanovici, clear Kalinovik town. The witness

23 heard that General Mladic promised that the Muslim villagers would be

24 safe. The guns were moved away, but in August 1992, the same guns were

25 put back into the same positions and were used to bombard the village.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A Muslim police commander and his Muslim colleagues were

2 instructed to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Serbs. The Muslim

3 police officers refused to do so and were told to hand in their weapons,

4 which they did. Subsequently, the Serb police began to make arrests for

5 no reason.

6 The witness felt that life had become totally intolerable in

7 Kalinovik as a result of the campaign of Serb intimidation. Serb SDS

8 representatives would assure the non-Serbs that everything would be all

9 right; on the other hand, Serb authorities would continue arrests and

10 harassment.

11 On 25th of June, 1992, a large number of Muslims received written

12 notice to report for work duties. The witness and many other Muslims

13 responded to this summons and appeared before the Kalinovik Municipal

14 Assembly, where they were told to await the arrival of Grujo Lalovic,

15 president of the SDS in Kalinovik and president of the executive

16 committee. There was a strong police presence around the Municipal

17 Assembly building and police had blocked all surrounding roads. Those

18 Muslims who had responded to the summons, as well as some who had failed

19 to respond, were rounded up and taken by police to the Kalinovik

20 elementary school, where they were detained until the 6th of July, 1992.

21 Gojko Lalovic, chief of civilian defence for Kalinovik, came to the school

22 and told the Muslim detainees that they were being detained for their own

23 safety and would soon be released.

24 On the 6th of July, 1992, the detainees were moved under heavy

25 security to an empty gunpowder magazine at Jelasacko Polje where they were

1 detained under heavy guard. The witness was detained there for almost a

2 month.

3 On the 1st of August, 1992, detainees at the gunpowder magazine

4 heard automatic gunfire and saw through the doors of the gunpowder

5 magazine that Muslim houses were on fire in the hamlet of Karaula, in the

6 village of Jelasca [phoen]. The witness saw women, children, and the

7 elderly from the village being marched across Jelasacko Polje towards

8 Kalinovik. On the following day, the detainees saw that Muslim houses in

9 the village were continuing to be set afire. A man delivering water to

10 the detainees told them that all the Muslims from neighbouring villages

11 had been detained at Kalinovik elementary school.

12 On the 5th of August, 1992, a group of around 15 detainees were

13 called out from the gunpowder magazine and taken away. Later on the same

14 day, the witness and other detainees were told that they were going to be

15 exchanged. The guards took all valuables from the detainees, tied the

16 hands of the detainees behind their backs with wire, and severely beat

17 many of them. The detainees were loaded onto a vehicle, then unloaded,

18 beaten, and then reloaded onto the trucks. A convoy of three trucks

19 containing detainees, escorted by a police car, set off on a road towards

20 Foca. The first truck in the convoy was being driven by a Muslim and

21 contained no Serb guards, lest there be any land-mines on the road.

22 During the trip, detainees on the witness's truck were forced by Serb

23 guards to sing Serb nationalist songs. The convoy stopped at Ratine in

24 Foca municipality, where all the detainees except the witness were

25 executed. The witness will testify about that killing incident.

1 The witness's testimony is relevant to killing 9.1 of schedule B

2 to the indictment, to detention facilities 18.2, 18.3, and 18.4, mentioned

3 in schedule C to the indictment, and to the mosques 14.1.and 14.2 in

4 schedule D to the indictment.

5 Could the witness be shown the first exhibit, please. And I would

6 ask for an exhibit number for that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P286.

9 MR. GAYNOR:

10 Q. Sir, on your left, or on the screen in front of you, you have a

11 map, and on that map are marked two locations, A and B, as well as your

12 signature. Could you tell the Court what A is and what B is.

13 A. The A is where the gunpowder depot magazine was, and point B is

14 Ratine where they killed the people.

15 Q. Sir, I'd like to ask you about a statement you made in your

16 statement. There's no need to consult your statement.

17 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, this is paragraph 4 of the statement.

18 Q. Sir, in your statement, you said, and I quote: "It is my belief

19 that all of the actions carried out to the people of Kalinovik by the

20 Serbs were part of a greater plan controlled at a very high level --"

21 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just at this point, I might object.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You'd rather have this to be put to the witness

23 without reading his statement first, is that --

24 MS. LOUKAS: Exactly, Your Honour. If what the Prosecution seeks

25 to do is establish the basis for that particular paragraph, then it's for

1 the Prosecution to establish the basis rather than to read out the

2 impugned paragraph.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When I said that I expected the Prosecution to

4 deal with these elements in viva voce testimony, then of course first

5 reading that part of his statement might not be the appropriate way of

6 approaching the matter. Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

7 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour. In that case, I'll clarify

8 the objections by the Defence at the end of the examination.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to refer Your Honours to paragraph 23 of the

11 ICTY statement.

12 Q. Now, sir, in your ICTY -- in your statement to representatives of

13 the Office of the Prosecutor, you referred to a visit by a Chetnik group,

14 and you said that when that Chetnik group arrived in Kalinovik, you became

15 so frightened that you got ready to leave. But you were then

16 reassured by SDS representatives that the Chetniks were under SDS

17 control --

18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, to get to the point where the Prosecutor

19 wants to refer the witness to a particular aspect of his statement does

20 not require reading out the entire paragraph.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a matter of efficiency rather than, I

22 take it -- let me just see.

23 Yes, Mr. Gaynor. If you would -- if it is a subject that needs

24 further elaboration in viva voce testimony, of course it depends a bit on

25 what it is, whether it's a starting point where further details will be

1 asked, then it might be a correct way of repeating the statement of the

2 witness, because that's the starting point for the real questions. But,

3 of course, if it is -- if you want to deal with the statement itself, so

4 not seeking further details, but either seek a variation or -- then could

5 you please, very cautious. So I'm not instructing you not to read, but it

6 very much depends on -- if reading would provide the answer to the next

7 questions, then it might be inappropriate to read. If, however, reading

8 out part of his statement would be the introduction to what then follows,

9 you may read as you wish.

10 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour. In this case, there are

11 certain elements which are unclear from the statement, and so I'm trying

12 to draw very relevant --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's appropriate to read first and to ask of

14 certain parts of that statement. Please proceed.

15 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.

16 Q. So, Witness, as I was saying, there was a visit by what you

17 describe as a Chetnik group, and you were reassured by SDS representatives

18 that the Chetniks were under SDS control. My first question is: When was

19 this?

20 A. That occurred sometime around the 5th and 6th of May, 1992, when,

21 in Kalinovik, a group arrived. They were armed. Chetniks from Miljevina,

22 with Pero Elez. At the time we were in a panic and we tried to leave and

23 escape from the village. At that point in time Grujo Lalovic arrived, who

24 was president of the municipal SDS and president of the municipal board of

25 the local assembly and president of the Crisis Staff. Yes, I'll slow

1 down. And he told us that we would be safe. He guaranteed our safety and

2 security if we stayed. He said nothing would happen to us. And at that

3 meeting he drew our attention to the fact that we would have to give over

4 -- hand over all our weapons and that we will be even safer then.

5 Q. Sir, you referred there to a meeting with Mr. Lalovic. On what

6 date was that meeting?

7 A. I think that was the 5th of May, 1992, towards evening.

8 Otherwise, I had business relations with Lalovic, because he was in the

9 Executive Board and I was in the utilities company which came under the

10 municipality as a public company.

11 Q. Did you personally attend the meeting of the 5th of May, 1992,

12 with Mr. Lalovic?

13 A. Yes. And all the local inhabitants.

14 Q. Now, when you -- when he -- in your statement you said that you

15 were reassured that the Chetniks were under SDS control. Who made that

16 assurance to you?

17 A. Grujo Lalovic did.

18 Q. Did the Chetniks remain in Kalinovik after that date?

19 A. No. They went to Miljevina.

20 Q. Did you form the impression that Mr. Lalovic and the SDS did or

21 did not have control over that Chetnik group?

22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I would object to the formulation of the

23 question. The basic evidence that the Prosecution would seek to obtain

24 from the witness, of course, is based on what he saw, heard, and what he

25 witnessed. To ask a witness about his impressions is really not

1 particularly probative. It's best to have the evidence that he relies on

2 for his impressions and then the Trial Chamber can determine whether or

3 not there is a basis for the impression.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On the other hand, it's of no use to ask on the

5 basis for an impression if there's no impression at all. So I don't think

6 it's an inappropriate question. But it's certainly true that if the

7 witness would say yes or no, especially if he says yes, that it would need

8 further exploration to find out what the factual basis for that was.

9 MS. LOUKAS: But even in that format, Your Honour, I would argue

10 that it's leading. Even though it says tell me whether you got that

11 impression or not, Your Honour, it conveys the answer that the Prosecution

12 wants.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think it's inadmissable leading, but

14 Mr. Gaynor, you could have sought the approach to go first to the facts

15 and then some build-up so we would then understand whether the witness had

16 formed such an impression, yes or no. But I'm not disallowing you to put

17 the question in this way.

18 So the question is whether, apart from being told that the

19 Chetniks were under SDS control, whether you have observed any facts which

20 would support what was told to you in this respect.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it did go towards that

22 assertion, bearing it out, because that same day, the people left

23 Kalinovik and the next day there was nobody there. There were just the

24 uniformed people that we know from Kalinovik, but nobody from outside,

25 from other parts. So probably that was why I gained the impression that

1 they were under the control of the SDS and the Crisis Staff of the

2 Kalinovik municipality.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

4 MR. GAYNOR:

5 Q. Sir, could you tell the Court what precisely Mr. Lalovic said at

6 the meeting of 5th of May, 1992.

7 A. He said precisely that he guaranteed our personal safety and

8 security, that our lives would not come under threat or the lives of our

9 families or our property, that we could go to work quite normally, work

10 normally, and go about our business and implement the legal provisions

11 enacted by the Municipal Assembly. So I continued to do my job normally.

12 I continued to cooperate with people from the municipality and leadership.

13 And I gained the impression that the situation would be all right and that

14 nothing would happen to us. Because we had been given guarantees of that

15 kind for our safety and security.

16 Q. Did he say that he was speaking on behalf of himself, on behalf of

17 the SDS, or on whose behalf was he speaking?

18 A. He said that he was speaking on behalf of the body he represented,

19 the municipal board of the SDS and the Executive Board of the Municipal

20 Assembly of Kalinovik and all the institutions that come under the

21 Executive Board itself.

22 Q. Did he say whether, yes or no, those bodies were receiving

23 guidance from anywhere else?

24 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, again I would object on the basis that

25 this is being proposed in a leading format. Just to add yes or no does

1 not detract from leading, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: It's not inadmissible leading. The objection is

3 rejected. Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

4 MR. GAYNOR:

5 Q. Sir, I'll repeat my question to you. Did Mr. Grujo Lalovic say

6 whether, yes or no, those bodies were receiving guidance from anywhere

7 else?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. From where did he say?

10 A. Well, he said that he was receiving guidance and instructions as

11 Kalinovik belonged to the SAO of Trebinje at that time. That means from

12 that level of the autonomous region, from Trebinje, Mr. Vucurevic, they

13 were receiving all the orders.

14 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like the witness to be shown the next exhibit,

15 please, and I'd like that exhibit to be given an exhibit number.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number P287.

17 MR. GAYNOR:

18 Q. Sir, do you recognise the piece of paper in front of you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What is it?

21 A. This is a certificate dated the 8th of September, 1992, when I

22 handed over my personal weapons to the police of Kalinovik and everybody

23 received confirmation and a certificate of this kind once they had handed

24 in their weapons, their personal weapons.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any mistake --

1 THE INTERPRETER: Receipt.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- perhaps the witness said the 8th of September,

3 which causes me some problems to understand.

4 MR. GAYNOR:

5 Q. Sir, could you inspect the date of that receipt once again and

6 confirm the date on it.

7 A. I apologise. I misspoke. A slip of the tongue. It was the 9th

8 of May, 1992.

9 JUDGE ORIE: That solves the month, but not the day. Could you --

10 perhaps I have to look at the original in the --

11 MR. GAYNOR:

12 Q. Sir, could you once again inspect the date and clarify.

13 A. Well, I would say it was a 9 and not an 8. I have the original.

14 It's a poorer copy.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That will do. It's not a major issue.

16 MR. GAYNOR:

17 Q. Sir, from this receipt, it appears that you surrendered a pistol.

18 Did you keep any weapons that you did not surrender?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Among the Muslims in your village, did they give up their weapons

21 also?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you know of any Serbs who gave up their weapons?

24 A. No.

25 Q. During what period, approximately, did the Muslims give up their

1 weapons?

2 A. That was in the beginning of May 1992.

3 Q. Why did you all agree to give in your weapons?

4 A. Well, we agreed because it was said that they would search us,

5 look for weapons, and that would be safer for us if we surrendered our

6 weapons. Because it was obvious that with one pistol or one rifle, we

7 couldn't hurt anyone but could only deteriorate the situation that was

8 already tense.

9 Q. In your statement - I'd like to refer Your Honours to paragraph 16

10 of the ICTY statement - in your statement, sir, you refer to the arming of

11 the Serb population, and you say that JNA trucks would drive around Serb

12 villages, dropping off weapons at people's homes. My first question is:

13 Did you personally see JNA trucks driving around Serb villages, dropping

14 off weapons?

15 A. There was one occasion when I was going on tour to see the local

16 waterworks. In front of a house in a village, I saw a military vehicle

17 and I saw crates with ammunition and with weapons being unloaded in front

18 of that house. That house was about a hundred metres from where the water

19 pipes are.

20 Q. What was the ethnicity of the person living in that house?

21 A. Serbs.

22 Q. How do you know that they were Serbs?

23 A. I know because Kalinovik is a small town. I knew every house,

24 every owner of the house, and even every child living in each house.

25 Q. Were there any other incidents which caused you to believe that

1 the JNA was arming the Serb population?

2 A. Well, there were. But let me go back to the Serbian Christmas and

3 new year, when in the villages around Kalinovik, there were more rounds

4 shot than during some combat. They had so many weapons, and everybody was

5 using them in this celebratory shooting.

6 Q. Is that the Serbian Christmas and new year in early 1992?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, I'd like to refer you to paragraph 17

9 of the ICTY statement.

10 Q. Sir, in your statement, you said that you saw artillery directed

11 at the village of Golubici and that a complaint was made to

12 General Ratko Mladic. Who made that complaint to General Mladic?

13 A. We complained to him when he came to his birthplace. He arrived

14 in a helicopter and we learned that Velibor Ostojic was with him. He

15 invited the Muslim residents of the Golubici village, who were right next

16 to Bozanovici village and he talked to them and they complained directly

17 to him. On that same day, he ordered that the artillery weapons be

18 removed. However, the weapons, the anti-aircraft gun above my village

19 remained there. I did not attend that meeting, but I heard about it from

20 a lot of people, including my neighbours and the Orthodox Serbs who told

21 me that they had been at that meeting and that Mladic said that to these

22 people.

23 Q. Did you see any artillery trained on Serb villages or Serb houses?

24 A. No.

25 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honours, I'd like to direct you to paragraph 13

1 of the ICTY statement.

2 Q. Sir, you said that you were aware of visits to Kalinovik by

3 Radovan Karadzic. How were you made aware of these visits?

4 A. I heard about it from a member of the municipal council of the SDS

5 who had business contacts with me. He told me that he came during the

6 founding stage. And since I was in the utility company, I was involved in

7 all these preparations that needed to be carried out. I was involved in

8 all of that. And this man told me that on a few occasions Mr. Karadzic

9 came to Kalinovik to establish the municipal council -- the municipal

10 board of the SDS. However, I personally did not see him.

11 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like the witness to be shown the next exhibit,

12 please, and I'd request an exhibit number for that.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P288.

14 MR. GAYNOR:

15 Q. Sir, as you can see from this exhibit, this is a record of a

16 conclusion made by the war staff of the Kalinovik Municipal Assembly at a

17 session held on the 17th of May, 1992, to check up on military-aged men of

18 Muslim nationality resident in Kalinovik municipality. This document

19 states that they are to report to the secretariat for national defence

20 between the 20th of May, the 25th of May, 1992. Did you personally report

21 to the secretariat for national defence between the 20th and the 25th of

22 May, 1992?

23 A. As I did have my wartime assignment, I had a wartime obligation

24 which was to continue working at the utility company throughout the war,

25 did not report, because there was no need for me to report. But all other

1 Muslims who were there and who had different wartime assignments did

2 report to the municipal office of the secretariat for national defence.

3 Q. Sir, you see in the last paragraph of that document it says:

4 "After they have reported to the secretariat for national defence, they

5 shall be prohibited from leaving the municipality without permission and

6 they shall be obliged to report to the public security stations at

7 Kalinovik, Ulog and Dobro Polje twice a week."

8 Did you personally report to any public security stations?

9 A. I reported to the public security station in Kalinovik twice a

10 week.

11 MR. GAYNOR: I would request that the witness be shown the next

12 exhibit, please, and I'd request a number.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would that be 289, I take it. Thank

14 you.

15 MR. GAYNOR:

16 Q. Sir, in this document dated the 11th of June, 1992, you see that

17 Commander Colonel Ratko Bundalo states: "On the basis of the decision of

18 the staff of the command of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina," and he goes on to order, in paragraph 1: "The territory of

20 the municipalities of Kalinovik and Trnovo is declared a war zone."

21 In paragraph 3, he forbids the entry of civilians into the region

22 where combat activities are under way. My question is this, sir: On or

23 around the 11th of June, 1992, which parts of Kalinovik, in your

24 experience, were the locations of combat activities?

25 A. As far as I am aware, in Kalinovik municipality, there were no

1 combat operations. There were such operations in Trnovo municipality and

2 Nevesinje municipality, because this is where volunteers from Kalinovik

3 went. In the territory of Kalinovik, there were no combat operations.

4 Q. In paragraph 2 of that document, it states: "Movement of the

5 population on the territory in the zone of combat activities, without the

6 prior approval of the TG command, is restricted."

7 My question is: Were you personally free to move around Kalinovik

8 at this time, around the municipality?

9 A. As for the movement around Kalinovik, it was quite safe, and I

10 went around doing my work. However, it was not possible to go towards

11 Ljut, Konjic, and some others, because there were artillery positions and

12 defence positions along those roads. So these were the areas where

13 movement was barred. The Muslim population who wished to leave Kalinovik

14 could not receive a permit to leave it, and some people tried to go

15 through the forest and leave the place, whereas those that remained had a

16 different fate.

17 Q. You said there that the Muslim population who wished to leave

18 could not receive a permit to leave the municipality. What about the Serb

19 population?

20 A. Well, they lived there. There was no need for them to leave

21 Kalinovik and go in the directions in which the Muslims went. Normally

22 they went to Foca, Nevesinje, Gacko. Those were the directions that they

23 travelled in.

24 Q. You said that the Muslim population wished to leave Kalinovik.

25 Why did the Muslim population wish to leave Kalinovik?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Well, as I've already said, the situation had changed. There were

2 a lot of troops arriving into Kalinovik, and us Muslims, we could not

3 receive humanitarian aid. So we could feel that there was no life for us

4 there any more. Those who were afraid, they left the area, and those who

5 were less afraid remained there and met their death there.

6 Q. You said that Muslims were afraid. Why exactly were they afraid?

7 Was it merely the absence of humanitarian aid?

8 A. No. But there were no Muslim representatives in the authorities

9 who could ensure our protection. The public security station was

10 mono-ethnic. All other bodies within the municipality as well. All

11 Muslims who were employed in those organs and who had information from

12 above available to them were not allowed to continue working there any

13 more, not in the public accounting office, not in the secretariat for

14 national defence. All people who had weapons and who were employed as

15 security guards were informed that they should not report to work any

16 more, that they should be on stand-by. Therefore, people were losing

17 their jobs and it was everywhere. We could see it and we realised that

18 our life there was not safe any more.

19 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like the witness to be shown the next exhibit.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P290.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

23 MR. GAYNOR:

24 Q. Sir, this document is headed: "Serb Republic of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina, Kalinovik municipality, municipal secretariat for national

1 defence," and it's dated the 25th of June, 1992. Do you recognise this

2 document?

3 A. Yes. I received such a document myself, but I lost it during the

4 war. However, I did receive it myself.

5 Q. Was the document you received the same as this document, apart

6 from the name of the person?

7 A. Yes. Yes. Same documents were sent, and they were the same

8 documents and only names were entered manually.

9 Q. When did you receive the notification?

10 A. I received this notification on the 25th of June, 1992, at around

11 1.00 p.m., when I returned on that day home a bit earlier, I found this

12 notification waiting for me there to report to the secretariat for

13 national defence.

14 Q. Do you know who delivered it to your house?

15 A. I saw Gojko Lalovic taking this notification to other people. He

16 had a driver with him, Badnjar Mihajlo, called Miha.

17 Q. You said in your Bosnian statement of 1993, paragraph 1, that

18 after you received a summons bearing the signature of Nedzo Banjanin, you

19 reported to the municipal assembly building and that there was a strong

20 police presence around the Kalinovik Municipal Assembly building. Do you

21 remember what kind of insignia the police were wearing, if any?

22 A. On that occasion, active policemen had the regular uniform that

23 they all had before the war, whereas reserve policemen had a winter blue

24 uniform. They had blue berets with a tricolour flag on it. I knew all

25 those people, because we used to work together, we grew up together.

1 Q. What ethnicity were those policemen?

2 A. Serbs.

3 Q. You said that while you were detained at the Kalinovik elementary

4 school there were a number of police and other guards there. What

5 ethnicity were they?

6 A. Serbs.

7 Q. What ethnicity were the detainees?

8 A. Muslims.

9 Q. Were they all Muslims?

10 A. All of them were Muslims.

11 Q. Sir, in paragraph -- I'd like to direct Your Honours to paragraph

12 3 of the Bosnian statement of the 19th of February, 1993.

13 Sir, you said that on the 1st of August, 1992, while you were

14 being detained at the gunpowder magazine, you could see women, children,

15 and the elderly being marched from the village of Jelasca [phoen], across

16 Jelasacko Polje. How far away from those women, children, and the elderly

17 from you?

18 A. They were about 500 metres away from us. And when they approached

19 the depot itself, we didn't see them because they were on the other side.

20 But this is where they boarded the vehicles.

21 Q. What ethnicity were the women, children, and the elderly?

22 A. Muslims.

23 Q. How do you know that they were Muslims?

24 A. I know because my wife is from that village, and those people were

25 all my wife's relatives.

1 Q. Could you just say very briefly which relatives of your wife were

2 among those people.

3 A. There was my wife's mother, her two sisters, her aunt and their

4 families, aunts, uncles, their children, and so on.

5 Q. You said that on the 2nd of August, 1992, they continued setting

6 fire to Muslim houses in Jelasca [phoen]. Now, how did you know that

7 those were Muslim houses?

8 A. Well, I know that village. In addition to that, most of the

9 people imprisoned were from that village, so they would say, you know,

10 that house belongs to that person and that house belongs to that person.

11 I myself knew all of those houses. We could see that through the openings

12 in the steel door, through the bars, and also through the windows.

13 Q. Sir, I'd like to take you to the 5th of August of 1992. You've

14 described in some detail in your statements that you left in a convoy with

15 an escort of a police car, the ammunition magazine at Jelasacko Polje,

16 until you arrived at Ratine in Foca. Now, taking it up from the moment

17 that you arrived that the convoy stopped at Ratine what happened when that

18 convoy stopped?

19 A. When the convoy stopped, uniformed men who were in the convoy

20 escorting us got out and ordered us to descend the vehicles and not even

21 try to escape, otherwise they would shoot us. We were extremely exhausted

22 because we were not allowed to sit in the vehicle. We were just thrown

23 in. So we got off, and at that moment a soldier in a uniform came and

24 said that everything was ready. He had just gotten out of the stable.

25 And in front of that vehicle, I saw a relative of mine who was completely

1 bloody. He was not with us in a vehicle. He was in another vehicle. I

2 saw some prisoners there. I recognised some of them, and we headed

3 towards the stable in a column, one by one. When we got there, they

4 selected four young men and they told them to turn their backs to us, and

5 when they did that, they started shooting bursts of fire at us. I was hit

6 by a bullet below my knee and I fell down and pretended to be dead.

7 When they finished shooting, figuring that all of us were dead,

8 they untied the hands of those four young men and ordered them to throw us

9 into the stable and after that they would free them. The young men

10 started doing their job. They threw me into the stable. And since there

11 was some soil there on the ground, I was able to move as they were

12 throwing more people in, I was moving to the side so that these corpses

13 would not come on top of me.

14 When they finished throwing us dead people in there, they again

15 brought a man whom I believe to be that relative of mine whom I had seen

16 all bloody. They shot him, and then they killed three of the young men

17 who threw our bodies into the stable. And they left the fourth one alive.

18 They ordered him to pour petrol over our bodies. He refused to do that.

19 Then they shot him. And then they threw a rubber, burning rubber, into

20 the stable. And when they saw that the fire started, they left. They got

21 into their vehicles and left.

22 When I heard that they had left, I managed to get up, and I stayed

23 in the bottom of this stable, where there was an opening. And when I

24 figured out that I was safe, I escaped from the stable. I got to the

25 brook and I tried to untie my hands. I was unable to do that. But then I

1 found a branch, and with the help of that branch, I untied my hands. You

2 can still see the traces of wires around my wrists. I also had a wound on

3 my head, near my eyebrow. I managed to dress my wounds and then I

4 fainted. I don't know how long I remained unconscious, but after some

5 time, I came to. And knowing that there were still a lot of residents in

6 the villages around, I started moving in that direction. And in the

7 morning hours, I saw convoys of refugees, not knowing who they are. But

8 among them, I recognised a man and I approached him. And he helped me. I

9 had a lot of wounds, a lot of swellings on my face. I had burns. These

10 people took care of me. They treated my wounds. I spent some time there

11 and then they transferred me to the liberated territory. I met up with my

12 family there, continued treatment, and then after that went to Zenica.

13 Q. Approximately how many men were killed at Ratine?

14 A. On the truck, there were 24 people together with me, and then when

15 we add that another man, then that means 25. I managed to escape, and

16 that means that 24 people were killed. In mid-1999, they exhumed the area

17 around that stable and they managed to identify six bodies. They found a

18 lot of bullet casings. They found wire used to tie hands, and also

19 remains of those younger men who were throwing bodies in. So that means

20 that there were 24 people who were burned there and killed.

21 I don't know whether the OTP wants me to describe what happened

22 between the 1st and the 5th. Would you like me to describe that?

23 Q. No, that's not necessary. Thank you. That's in your statements.

24 Can I ask you: Of the men killed at Ratine, what was their

25 ethnicity?

1 A. Muslims.

2 Q. And what was the ethnicity of those who shot the Muslims?

3 A. Serbs.

4 Q. What kind of uniforms, if any, were they wearing?

5 A. They wore camouflage uniforms, and those people were led by

6 Pero Elez and Zeko Vukovic.

7 Q. How many men were detained with you while you were in the

8 gunpowder magazine?

9 A. There were 85 of us.

10 Q. And what ethnicity were they?

11 A. Muslims.

12 Q. How many of those 85 men are alive today?

13 A. Nothing is known about them. I think that I'm the only one who

14 survived.

15 Q. Sir, I'd just like to ask you a few general questions.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, it is -- if you think you could finish in

17 two minutes, fine, but if not, then perhaps we should first have the

18 break.

19 MR. GAYNOR: I think it would be best to have a break, then.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could I ask you to escort the witness.

21 We'll have a break for 25 minutes. But, as I indicated earlier to you, it

22 could be longer for you because we still have to hear the testimony of

23 another witness. So I assume that we'll resume later this morning, which

24 would be in approximately, I would say in approximately two hours, then,

25 it would be from now. Yes?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's fine.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Madam Usher, could you please escort the

3 witness out of the courtroom. And I'd like to turn into private session

4 just for a very brief moment before the break.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 [Private session]

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 [Open session]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Just before the break, in private session, I invited

6 the parties to see whether an agreement can be reached in terms of time.

7 If there's any information about that, I'd like to turn into private

8 session and hear that information. If there's no information, we don't

9 have to go into private session.

10 MR. HANNIS: I suggest we go into private session, Your Honour.

11 We do have some information.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then go for just one or two minutes into

13 private session.

14 [Private session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (Redacted)

2 (Redacted)

3 (Redacted)

4 (Redacted)

5 (Redacted)

6 (Redacted)

7 (Redacted)

8 (Redacted)

9 (Redacted)

10 (Redacted)

11 (Redacted)

12 (Redacted)

13 (Redacted)

14 (Redacted)

15 (Redacted)

16 (Redacted)

17 (Redacted)

18 (Redacted)

19 (Redacted)

20 (Redacted)

21 (Redacted)

22 (Redacted)

23 (Redacted)

24 (Redacted)

25 (Redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 [Open session]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's confirmed on our screen now that we are in

17 open session. Mr. Stewart.

18 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. We did indicate to -- I indicated

19 to Mr. Hannis a few minutes ago, we had a discussion that we would have a

20 distinct preference, if there is to be a five-day break, reserving our

21 position on everything else, Your Honour, we would have a distinct

22 preference for the same week that the Prosecution would prefer. But if

23 the difficulties are insurmountable, well the problem with insurmountable

24 difficulties is you can't surmount them. But we -- and this is not the

25 application which we've been talking about, but, Your Honour, immediately

1 we do make the practical suggestion, we wonder whether the Trial Chamber

2 would consider breaking for both those weeks, just on the basis that it is

3 absolutely clear, we suggest, that that would be helpful in all sorts of

4 ways. So we wonder whether the Trial Chamber would consider simply a

5 two-week break, regardless of everything else we have to sort out.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Then I think we have interrupted

7 the examination-in-chief of Mr. Hadzic, and is there any -- has the matter

8 been resolved as far as attachments are concerned in relation to the

9 previous witness, whose cross-examination has not yet been concluded?

10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, before Mr. Margetts answers that

11 question, we had a proposal. Mr. Gaynor indicates he only has 10 or 15

12 minutes to go to complete his direct exam of the witness he was working on

13 and we propose to do that and then resume with the other witness. That

14 would give Ms. Loukas additional time to prepare for cross-exam and we

15 would have a logical breaking point.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that agreeable for Defence.

17 MR. STEWART: Yes, it is. It has the drawback that it's going to

18 carry us over the next break.

19 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of your indication of yesterday, the

20 cross-examination will be concluded anyhow today.

21 MR. STEWART: Well, it's only Your Honour means that I've been

22 here all morning in the circumstances. But all right. Never mind. We

23 live with that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber agrees with Mr. Stewart. The other

25 witness has now been informed that he has to wait for two hours. We then

1 have to explain again why he would come back immediately. It would take

2 Mr. Stewart to be in court for two sessions, where we had more or less

3 arranged that he would be there only for one. So the Chamber would prefer

4 to resume the cross-examination of the previous witness, which is

5 Mr. Dzambasovic.

6 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. I'm very grateful for that.

7 Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, as there is a moment while the witness

10 is being fetched, may I just raise a couple of matters to use up the time.

11 One is this, Your Honour, that we delivered to the United Nations

12 Detention Unit last Friday a CD in relation to witness 608. There's no

13 mystery about Witness 608. In fact, this is the current witness,

14 Mr. Dzambasovic. Your Honour, it's not been delivered to Mr. Krajisnik

15 yet. It's -- I've made inquiries -- we've made follow-up inquiries. I

16 inquired of the unit yesterday to the deputy superintendent and I made a

17 further inquiry in the last half-hour. We don't know what happens but it

18 appears that one week later, almost, we're coming up to Friday afternoon,

19 material that we delivered for Mr. Krajisnik hasn't got to him. This

20 is --

21 JUDGE ORIE: I'll instruct the Registry to inquire into the matter

22 and to see. So whatever information you have, please give it -- about

23 dates of delivery, what it was, et cetera, and the Registry will -- well,

24 will give us the relevant information. So therefore, full notice is taken

25 of your observation.

1 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. We get all sorts of

2 very helpful cooperation from the UNDU, but occasionally we have these

3 quite serious --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You see there's no hesitation. It should be

5 inquired into.

6 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, could I also mention. I asked

7 Mr. Harmon by e-mail overnight sometime first thing this

8 morning -- frankly, I'm afraid I can't remember whether it's late last

9 night or first thing this morning, they tend to merge together sometimes.

10 But I asked him about an exhibit list in relation to next Monday's

11 witness, Mr. Kljuic. That's 526. He said he'd let me have it when he got

12 it and when he decided. But I would like to observe, we don't have a

13 preliminary list at the moment and with a witness such as him, where there

14 is potentially large amounts of material, we must, please, have an

15 indication. It's Friday and the witness is coming up on Monday.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that immediate attention is given to

17 the request.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Dzambasovic, please be seated.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzambasovic, I'd like to remind you that you're

24 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of

25 your testimony, and the Defence counsel will now resume the

1 cross-examination.

2 Mr. Stewart, please proceed.

3 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.

4 WITNESS: ASIM DZAMBASOVIC [Resumed]

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]

7 MR. STEWART: Sorry. Excuse me, Your Honour. In my attempt to

8 get the microphone suitably near I've eliminated the transcript from the

9 screen. We'll just sort that out. Thank you.

10 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, good morning. In your statement signed in

11 October 2002, that's the longer statement, this is at page 4, there's a

12 paragraph, you say: "As to who participated in this effort to block

13 mobilisation, I recall that the people doing this were part of the SDS and

14 SDA organisations in the municipalities. Also, I recall that all legal

15 authorities in the municipalities obstructed mobilisation."

16 Can you say what you mean by the phrase "all legal authorities in

17 the municipalities"? It's the "all legal authorities" phrase I'm

18 specifically asking about.

19 A. At the time, for the first time in history, in the history of the

20 former JNA, what happened was that the civilian authorities and the organs

21 of MUP were obstructing the mobilisation process. Up until that time, all

22 the mobilisation calls that were carried out enjoyed the full support of

23 the organs of power and authority, regardless of what it was about. But

24 at the time, we had the parties, the newly established parties after the

25 multi-party elections, coming to the fore and taking centre stage, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 instead of lending support, what happened was that there was obstruction

2 with respect to all aspects of mobilisation, from the official

3 authorities, the municipalities from which our brigade was to be

4 mobilised, et cetera. This was a precedent, and it was because of the

5 problems that ensued and the problems we had that we informed the superior

6 command of the 4th Corps in Sarajevo and the command of the 4th Corps in

7 Sarajevo informed the superior command in Belgrade, in turn. We didn't

8 know what was actually going on and what was happening, and for us

9 soldiers, professional soldiers, this took us by surprise.

10 Q. Later on in your statement, and this is at page 9, there's a

11 paragraph towards the bottom of that page, in English it begins: "Things

12 only became worse as time went on regarding the illegal removal of JNA and

13 TO weapons." Then you refer to chaos. And you say: "However, it's my

14 professional opinion that the removal was not done in an atmosphere of

15 chaos; rather, it was very well planned and organised by senior Serb

16 political and military officials."

17 Now, that's your assessment, Mr. Dzambasovic. But is the -- isn't

18 this the position: You actually don't know yourself of any particular

19 senior Serb political officials who were involved in that planning and

20 organisation, do you?

21 A. Well, it wasn't quite like that. At the time, that is to say

22 during that period, I did not officially know that this was organised from

23 the highest -- by the highest military leadership and political

24 leadership. Later on, I saw the documents for myself. So this assessment

25 on my part, I confirmed -- was confirmed by the documents I saw later on.

1 I don't know if you have the documents. I myself saw them. And I think

2 the investigators that I talked to also saw those documents. So

3 officially speaking, the military peaks, on the basis of the decision made

4 by the political leadership, wrote out an order, the corresponding order,

5 to the effect that all weapons and equipment and materiel from the centres

6 where the Muslims and Croats were in the majority should be dislocated,

7 should be moved. And there are official documents to bear that out.

8 As I say, at that time, during that particular period of time,

9 that is to say, 1991 and 1992, I didn't actually see those documents, nor

10 did I know of their existence. Later on, I learnt of their existence and

11 I actually saw the documents myself. But that's what actually happened in

12 practice It really did take place. So the implementation of the orders

13 that were given and the documents, on the basis of those documents, took

14 place in 1991 and 1992. And there are official documents to confirm that.

15 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, can we establish one thing. It seems clear, in

16 fact it's clear from especially from a paragraph which has come out of

17 your statement, nevertheless the point arises: Since the actual events in

18 the early 1990s, you have done a considerable amount of work and had a

19 considerable amount of discussion with others and have done a considerable

20 amount of research into documentation in relation to these events of 1991

21 and 1992, haven't you?

22 A. Yes. That's precisely it.

23 Q. And when I say "considerable," it's an elastic term, but really a

24 lot? That's right, isn't it? By any standards, a great deal of work?

25 A. I worked on the professional analyses of those documents, the

1 official documents, in relation to what I saw in practice, myself, and in

2 relation to matters that I was eyewitness to. I was eyewitness to the

3 events and activities. And also from what I had heard from my colleagues,

4 whether from my superior command or from my own level. So all this was

5 done taking into account all those various elements.

6 Q. But the answer to my question is yes, isn't it, by any standards,

7 a great deal of work?

8 A. Well, I have to say that the answer is in the affirmative, in a

9 way. That is to say, I did have occasion and I was asked by the powers

10 that be, by the Tribunal and my own defence ministry, to work on documents

11 of that kind, yes.

12 Q. In fact, you're engaged, employed, at the moment, aren't you, as

13 an investigator in another case before this Tribunal?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And that is a case where the defendant --

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MR. STEWART:

18 Q. Is it one defendant, Mr. Halilovic; correct?

19 A. Yes, that's right. Quite right.

20 Q. We've got enough to deal with this case without going deeply into

21 that case as well, Mr. Dzambasovic, but in a nutshell, how long have you

22 been employed as an investigator in relation to that case? By the way,

23 you're a Defence team investigator, aren't you, in that case?

24 A. Yes. Since September -- the 26th of September, 2003.

25 Q. Are you subject to the counsel, legal team, but are you

1 effectively in charge of the defence investigation in that case?

2 A. I was asked by the Registry of the Tribunal. I was appointed

3 officially as an investigator in the defence team for Sefer Halilovic, and

4 that mandate started from September last year.

5 Q. Yes. All I'm asking is in practical terms, of course you're

6 assigned that way, but for practical purposes, you are the lead

7 investigator; is that right?

8 A. Well, I don't know what the lawyers I work with think about that.

9 Q. All right. Well, let's not spend a huge amount of time on that,

10 Mr. Dzambasovic.

11 In two sentences, what's that case about?

12 A. Well, that case is linked to the events of 1993 in the Neretva

13 River Valley. They're linked to Grabovica and Uzdol, that is to say,

14 villages with a majority Croat population where, based on the indictment,

15 a crime had taken place and where it did in fact take place.

16 Q. And Mr. Sefer Halilovic, your client, again, in a sentence or two

17 sentences perhaps at the maximum, who is and was he?

18 A. Well, he was the commander of the army of the Republic of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in that specific case, for that period relevant to

20 the indictment, he was the chief of the Main Staff and the commander was

21 someone else. He was General Delic.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Dzambasovic, I should in fairness make it clear, this is

23 not in any way an attack on you, this next question, but it is a fair

24 summary, isn't it, to say that although there are things which you

25 obviously say you saw yourself firsthand, and it's clear in many cases

1 from your statement what you say you actually saw, you were there, but

2 otherwise, when you are expressing views about what happened in 1991 and

3 1992, by this time your views are a synthesis of what you saw and all the

4 very considerable amount of work which you have done since with others

5 over a number of years? That's a fair summary, isn't it?

6 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think you're attacking me,

7 and of course you couldn't attack me for what I wrote in the statement.

8 Because they are events and activities whose witness I was. So there's no

9 personality or any person -- even if Mr. Milosevic were here, I'm sure he

10 would confirm all my observations and statements, because they are

11 authentic, both the events and the allegations and observations. But of

12 course my opinions with respect to what I saw at the time there or what I

13 experienced at the time and heard at the time, have been coupled and borne

14 out by the documents and analyses that I conducted later on. That's

15 absolutely correct too. Or rather, they just serve to confirm what I saw

16 myself, what I heard and experienced at the time myself.

17 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, in your statement at page 11, you say: "I am

18 providing a document, document 2. This document is from the Assembly of

19 the Serb people and dated December 1991. It directed the SDS to form Serb

20 organisations and units."

21 Now, I should say, Your Honour, that's a paragraph which it was

22 indicated over the break, it was suggested should be cut out of the

23 statement. And in a sense, I'm happy for it to come out of the statement

24 except for this point, which I raised with Mr. Margetts, which is:

25 Now, witness, that document that you were talking about, dated

1 December 1991, which you described as a document from the Assembly of the

2 Serb People, is the document which is commonly and notoriously known as

3 variants A and B, isn't it?

4 A. Are you asking me?

5 Q. Yes, Mr. Dzambasovic. Please assume unless I make it clear that

6 anybody else is the person being asked, it will be you. You're the

7 witness.

8 A. That document and several others dating back to 1991, so one of

9 them I saw in 1991, actually, because for some reason, I don't know if

10 you've got it, but my colleague Major Krstovic was appointed Minister of

11 Defence of the SAO Krajina or the SAO, Serbian Autonomous Region of

12 Romanija. I was surprised by that and then later on I saw the documents

13 themselves. Some of them I saw earlier, some later. But where my

14 colleague was appointed minister of defence, I saw while I was still in

15 the JNA.

16 Q. Is that document -- and I'm happy for the Prosecution to assist on

17 this if it would speed things up.

18 But, Mr. Dzambasovic, is that document that you refer to there in

19 your statement, is that the document which is commonly known as variants A

20 and B or is it something else?

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, should we -- if it would be that

22 document, I don't know whether you're seeking confirmation or denial of

23 that --

24 MR. STEWART: Well, it's -- confirmation would be easier.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. STEWART: -- Your Honour, but I'll deal with whatever it is.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, is document 2 referred to on page 11, I

3 think it is, is that what is known here and what is already in evidence

4 the document -- the A and B variation?

5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. This is difficult for the

6 witness, obviously, to answer without the statement and the attachments

7 there.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Parties agree that reference is made here to the

9 Variant A and B document of December 1991.

10 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm happy. I did indicate to

11 Mr. Margetts over the break and he very helpfully agreed --

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear, then. Please proceed.

13 MR. STEWART: The reason I have to ask it in that way,

14 Mr. Dzambasovic, is because you do then later on in your statement in a

15 passage which remains in that statement, you do bring up the question of

16 variants A and B.

17 So, Your Honour, I wonder if the witness could, therefore, be

18 handed -- it's P66. Your Honour is quite right. It's long been in

19 evidence and it's P66.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you find P66.

21 MR. STEWART: Then they told me it isn't, but --

22 [Defence counsel confer]

23 MR. STEWART: No wonder I was confused. It's P65, but it is in

24 binder 6 - I think it's Mr. Treanor's binder - binder 6, document 66.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. STEWART: When you get all these 6s, it's a devil of a job to

2 keep the documents straight.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the B/C/S version will be presented to

4 the witness. Yes.

5 MR. STEWART: I think it is helpful if the witness has his

6 statement for these purposes, Your Honour. I'm talking about the longer

7 statement, October 2002.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have that already? I don't think so.

9 MR. STEWART: I mean his B/C/S version.

10 JUDGE ORIE: B/C/S version.

11 MR. STEWART: I can carry on a little bit, Your Honour.

12 Q. Witness, you've been handed the Variant A and B document already,

13 haven't you?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was handed to him.

15 MR. STEWART: Thank you.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 MR. STEWART:

18 Q. Witness, the first point is this and I believe I'm entitled to ask

19 this question even though the paragraph is supposedly coming out of your

20 statement. In your statement you describe this document as a document from

21 the Assembly of the Serb People. Now, would you agree, that's clearly not

22 right, or at least -- well, let's take it in stages. There is nothing on

23 the document itself to indicate that it came from the Assembly of the Serb

24 People, is there?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Dzambasovic, I see that you're --

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Please go ahead. I can hear

2 you.

3 MR. STEWART: I suspect His Honour was just interested,

4 Mr. Dzambasovic, in whether it was just sandwiches you were getting out of

5 your suitcase or briefcase or --

6 THE INTERPRETER: The witness said he was looking for a pen.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I thought ...

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no sandwiches in my bag.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I instruct you not to write on any

10 document that is in evidence, perhaps.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I'm not going to write

12 anything. Let me just inspect this.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you please put your question.

15 MR. STEWART:

16 Q. Yes, certainly. I was putting to you that there is -- in the

17 first place, there is nothing on that document itself to indicate that it

18 came from the Assembly of the Serb People, and I'm inviting your agreement

19 on that.

20 A. Based on what is stated here, this is the Main Board of the

21 Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So this is the party

22 Main Board. Perhaps in the statement, I said Assembly, or wrote Assembly,

23 because the Assembly is mentioned frequently in the text, to the effect

24 that the Assembly is to pass a decision and so on. But it's not a

25 contentious issue. You can see who authored the document, on the document

1 itself.

2 Q. Yes. Witness, in effect, you've answered my next question, which

3 is that your -- what you say about the source of this document is entirely

4 gained from the content of the document itself. And from nowhere else?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You refer in your statement -- do you have your statement now?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness has the statement.

8 MR. STEWART: Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't know what page it is

9 in the B/C/S version.

10 Q. But around halfway through, there's a passage where you list 23

11 items. It's not what we specifically want to look at; it's just so that

12 we can find the place. Do you see there's a page or so where you list 23

13 numbered items, assignments? Can you find that?

14 A. Yes, I've found that.

15 Q. Thank you. And then just two or three paragraphs down from that,

16 you refer to your diary, and then you talk about -- you say: "As to one

17 item, people should decide against using their holidays," and then you

18 make a note in your diary, and then you say you remember item 10 in the

19 SDS Serb Variant A and B plan states organise and inform all Serbian

20 personnel not to use their holidays in the coming period and not to

21 travel. And you say that you remember that item being briefed by

22 Colonel Milosevic. And then you say: "Next you can see the item 11

23 specifies which units should be brought up to JNA standards, manpower for

24 wartime strengths.

25 And do you have in mind there, if we look at item 11 in the

1 document, it's Variant A in English, first level, and then we've got a

2 number of items. It says: "11. Preparations are to be made.

3 Organisational and other conditions created for ..." And then the second

4 dashed item is: "Reinforcing war units according to the specialties in

5 the JNA." That's what you have in mind when you talk in your statement

6 about which units should be brought up to JNA standards, is it?

7 A. I have to clarify that. So these 23 assignments in my statement

8 were the original assignments conveyed to us by Commander Milosevic, which

9 he, in turn, received from General Kukanjac, commander of the 2nd Military

10 District. And then let us now compare these assignments with the

11 assignments mentioned in the statement. So these are original assignments

12 which we received from the commander of the 2nd Military District. And if

13 we compare these assignments to this document that you gave me concerning

14 the instructions on organising the Serbian people and so on, this is how I

15 came to the conclusion which I gave in the statement, which means that

16 these two are in accordance, meaning that political decisions of the

17 Serbian people were implemented in the army through the adequate orders of

18 the military commands.

19 Q. I was asking you specifically about item 11. In your statement,

20 you say that item 11 -- can we agree on this: When you talk about item 11

21 in your statement, you are meaning to talk about item 11 in this Variant A

22 and B document, are you?

23 A. No. In my statement, item 11 does not correspond to the other

24 one, to the item 11 in the other document. In my statement -- let me just

25 take a look which item pertains to that --

1 Q. Witness, can I help, please. Just -- I hope I will try and get to

2 the point here and indicate --

3 A. Please go ahead.

4 Q. Yes. Thank you. -- Why I want to get this clear. In your

5 statement, you say, as to one item, people should decide against using

6 their holidays, your diary, page 55, item 12, you say: "I remember item

7 10 in Variant A and B. I clearly remember this item being briefed by

8 Colonel Milosevic. Next you can see that item 11 specifies which units."

9 Now, on a simple reading, Witness, the problem is that it's not at all

10 clear then, having referred to an item in your diary and an item in

11 Variant A and B, we are then left a little bit in the dark when you refer

12 to a numbered item as to which document you're talking about. So that's

13 why I have to ask you there whether, when you talk about item 11, you are

14 talking about item 11 in the document Variant A and B or talking about

15 item 11 in the list in your diary. Now, do you need to have your diary

16 put in front of you for this purpose? I suspect you probably do now.

17 A. Here. I have it here.

18 Q. You've got it.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the diary is one of the exhibits that

21 we'll be presenting to the Court, so we could distribute that to the Court

22 now.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think, as a matter of fact, that it has been

24 distributed already. It's among the documents that were given to us.

25 MR. STEWART: Yes. There's a batch of stuff. And I have it in

1 English.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if that document could be given an

3 exhibit number.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, these were attachments to the statement.

6 The statements have not received exhibit numbers up until now. So if you

7 would not mind, I would rather deal with all the documents in its context.

8 But we all know now that we are looking at the diary of this witness,

9 which has not yet been granted -- attributed a number but which looks like

10 this in the original version. Yes.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed and we'll deal with the numbering at a

13 later stage.

14 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, I don't know what's the perfect

15 way to deal with this issue in future, but I think our experience here

16 indicates that it isn't the way we've all been dealing with it. We're

17 going to have to think about this a bit for the future. But never mind

18 today.

19 Q. Witness, you have your diary. Your page numbering will be

20 different, but the dates will be the same, we trust. This is at page 19

21 of 38 in the English printout, but I think it's page 54. But any way,

22 it's 5th of February, 1992 in your own Serbian diary. You're there at

23 that page, are you, with 24 -- it's at least 24, the 24 numbered items

24 that appear under the heading of: "Tasks of the commander of the

25 2nd Military District." Are we at the same page, point?

1 A. Yes. Yes. I've found it. I've found it in the original. And I

2 see that in the statement, there are some things that have not been

3 translated. Item 2, it says: "Unintelligible." The next item says:

4 "Prevent provocations and be prepared for a decisive attack."

5 Q. So --

6 A. You were interested in the item pertaining to leaves, annual

7 leaves.

8 Q. Yes. It looks as if -- has the numbering -- I don't -- well, I

9 don't think it has, actually. Item 12 is dealing with annual leave, but

10 actually, although I'm very interested in that, Mr. Dzambasovic, I'm more

11 interested even in that point where you refer to item 11, and I just want

12 to be clear. We're going back to where we were now. You've got the

13 documents. In your statement, when you refer -- you say you see that item

14 11 specifies which units should be brought up to JNA standards, manpower

15 for wartime strengths. Are you talking about an item in the various A and

16 B document or are you talking about an item in your diary? That's the

17 simple starting point for the question.

18 A. It's a simple item. So these 23 assignments listed in my diary

19 are the assignments received from the commander of the

20 2nd Military District. They have nothing to do with the documents which

21 you have shown to me, the instruction of the Main Board of the SDS. So

22 these 23 assignments have nothing to do with this instruction issued by

23 the Main Board of the SDS. These are the assignments given to the

24 subordinates by the commander of the 2nd Military District, issued to his

25 subordinates and subordinated units. But only upon analysing these

1 assignments can you reach the conclusion that these are in accordance with

2 the political decisions of the Serbian people. So what I stated earlier,

3 that the implementation of political decisions of the Serbian people was

4 practically implemented through the army, through commands and orders

5 issued to the relevant commanders.

6 Q. Witness, so to try and distil the essence of that: You are saying

7 that here in your statement, you have engaged in, in effect, a

8 retrospective matching of the Variant A and B document against the

9 briefing that you received in February 1992 to identify where they

10 correspond in substance? Is that a fair distillation?

11 A. It is. It is partially so. What I explained to you earlier, I

12 said as follows: I was an authentic witness. I was there. I saw and I

13 heard. Some of it I confirmed, I was able to confirm through the

14 documents that I saw later. And it is possible that in the future I will

15 come across some other documents that I haven't seen so far. And based on

16 that, perhaps I would be able to come up with other details. But your

17 statement is correct about what you just asked me.

18 Q. Just specifically, then, in that matching process, I do want to

19 just dwell on item 11 for a moment longer, please. You say in your

20 statement that item 11 specifies which units should be brought up to JNA

21 standards. So please, can you point out where in either of the documents

22 that you have in front of you, or indeed a general invitation to any other

23 document, where it specifies which units should be brought up to JNA

24 standards.

25 A. Look, you are not a soldier, and all units should have been

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 brought up to the standard. There was no exception there. Our main task,

2 our main focus, was always to establish combat readiness, in accordance

3 with the standards, and that pertained to all commands and to all units,

4 without exception. That was the most important task we had, to raise

5 combat readiness of a unit, which means to prepare the unit so that it can

6 carry out a combat assignment. With respect to all of the elements,

7 training, logistics, tactics, and so on.

8 Q. You're right, I'm not a soldier, Mr. Dzambasovic. But what I'm

9 inviting us all to do here in a legal environment is to stick to the

10 question and answer the question, please, Mr. Dzambasovic. I'm asking you

11 where in anything which could be regarded as an item 11, where you say it

12 specifies which -- specifies, it's got to say it in writing,

13 Mr. Dzambasovic. Where does it say that, which units should be brought up

14 to JNA standards? It's not a military question really, Mr. Dzambasovic.

15 Where does it say that?

16 A. It says here in the assignment, under item 5, just an

17 illustration, the reinforcement of war units in accordance with realistic

18 possibilities. And this is what I just told you about. There are many

19 examples of this nature, but I'm not prepared now -- I wasn't prepared for

20 that question, so I don't have them at my disposal right now. So it says

21 here: Reinforcement of the war units. I put down an abbreviation. RJ

22 stands for war units. In accordance with the realistic possibilities. So

23 that was one of the assignments.

24 And then it says here to decrease the use of mines and explosives

25 and ammunition, and then it says here to secure equipment for units for 45

1 days, meaning 45 days of war.

2 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, let's not go through the list unless I

3 specifically ask you. Item 5 on the list, it's item 5 in the English,

4 anyway, "remanning," it's been translated as or "reinforcing the war units

5 according to the realistic possibilities," that is not at all specifying

6 which units should be brought up to JNA standards, is it?

7 A. No. No. That is not written here. I've already said to you that

8 you're not going to find it written anywhere that this was the

9 216th Brigade of the 4th Corps. When the commander of the military

10 district addresses his units, he doesn't list individual units, he just

11 says it in general and we as soldiers, we know what combat readiness is.

12 It consists of six elements and it is enough for him to say, "raise the

13 level of combat readiness," and we will know what he had in mind. He

14 doesn't have to list individual units, because that order pertains to all

15 units in the 2nd Military District.

16 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, I'm going to try simply to shorten this issue,

17 because we can all -- and the Trial Chamber can read Variant A and B and

18 the Trial Chamber can read your diary and match or not match. So I'm not

19 going to take everybody's time on exploring it at length. But I want to

20 get this clear from you, then: This Variant A and B document at this time

21 to you, in February 1992, it was unknown to you as a document it didn't

22 come into the picture; it was actually -- you were just unaware of that

23 altogether when you received this briefing from your superior officer?

24 That's right, isn't it?

25 A. Yes. I said that I did not see this document at the time, but I

1 saw this other document in which my colleague Krstovic was appointed

2 minister of defence of the SAO Romanija. So later, when I see these

3 documents, I was able to see for myself that this was an implementation of

4 political decisions through the assignments issued to the army and

5 implemented by the army on the ground.

6 Q. And some features, without dwelling on it in detail, but a number

7 of features of what we see in Variant A and B, if they -- well, they

8 include just obvious things, don't they, which in any conflict or

9 potential conflict situation as a matter of common sense would have to be

10 done by any military organisation. They're just many of them blindingly

11 obvious, aren't they? For example, protection of material resources,

12 ensuring the continuation of production and services of vital importance

13 for defence. It's just all -- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with

14 it. It's just obvious, isn't it?

15 A. No, it isn't. I see many faults here. That is my assessment, and

16 I have already told you about that. Because secret warehouses were not

17 quite proper, because that means that Muslims and Croats should have also

18 had secret warehouses. All people should have had them. And in one of

19 the items of that document, it says establish secret warehouses. So this

20 is not a normal assignment, a normal situation. All of the nations should

21 have had these secret warehouses, not just one.

22 Q. The documents that you referred to generally a little while ago as

23 showing you that the removal of JNA and TO weapons and ammunitions was

24 very well planned and organised by senior Serb political and military

25 officials, and concentrating on political officials: Can you point to or

1 identify a document which shows a senior Serb political official being

2 involved in the planning and organisation?

3 A. I can't say specifically that the document was such-and-such, but

4 it is absolutely true that the Assembly of the Serb People, as the highest

5 political organ, did make decisions of that nature, like this set of

6 instructions referring to warehouses and depots, and in actual fact,

7 everything that was decided politically was put into practice in the army

8 through the orders of the top officials of the federal secretariat for

9 national defence in Belgrade, starting at the top there, and then down the

10 chain, towards the lower units. And that's absolutely true. I don't

11 think anybody challenges that. Everybody will be able to tell you the

12 same thing. That line, that chain, was established and implemented in

13 that way. The political organs would make the decisions, the federal

14 secretary would turn that into an order, the political ruling into an

15 order, and the order would be sent down from the top levels to the lowest

16 level of units and their commands, down the chain of command. That's the

17 usual chain and all the links in the chain. So it's not anything that one

18 would challenge. All politicians and soldiers would bear that out and

19 tell you that that was the way things worked. That was the customary

20 system according to which the whole system worked, functioned.

21 Q. I just want to make it clear, Mr. Dzambasovic: You're saying

22 then, are you, that so far as the involvement of senior Serb political

23 officials in this planning and organisation is concerned, that your

24 knowledge of documentary support for that is effectively public knowledge.

25 The documents that you're referring to are the publicly available

1 documents, such as minutes, reports of decisions of the Assembly; correct?

2 A. Yes. Yes. So that was public, they were public documents, and it

3 is on that basis that I say that they follow the military orders. I did

4 of course have the military orders. I saw those military orders. And

5 they were all formulated on the basis of the political decisions. So I

6 myself did not have any practical links with politicians, nor did I have

7 any dealings with them, because, as a professional soldier, that wasn't my

8 duty, it wasn't within my job description at all.

9 Q. I just want to ask you a point -- it's a self-contained point.

10 You say in your -- this longer statement that as to payment of volunteer

11 soldiers, "payment was not the practice before 1991 to 1992." And then

12 you say: "Now", you're talking about that period then, late 1991, early

13 1991: "Those soldiers that responded to mobilisation were being paid."

14 Now, just let me put this to you: In another statement - and we

15 needn't go back to it, because the question will be clear - you had

16 indicated that once reservists had been called up, they were treated

17 exactly the same. Is there a distinction you're drawing here between

18 reservists who were called up and volunteer soldiers? Can you reconcile

19 the two? Do you see what I'm saying? You indicated in an earlier

20 statement that once people had been called up, then they were all treated

21 exactly the same, presumably paid the same. How does this relate to what

22 you're saying, that payment of some soldiers before 1991, 1992, was not

23 the practice?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Well, that's an admirably short answer, Mr. Dzambasovic, in a

1 situation where I wouldn't mind a longer one. Could you please explain.

2 A. Yes. I'm quite clear on that, and I'll explain it to you simply.

3 In practice, up until then, up until 1991, all those who responded to the

4 call for mobilisation, the call-up, would receive remuneration in their

5 companies, in the companies they worked for. It was called a refund. So

6 the company, the firm they worked in, would, in an organised manner, send

7 a list to the military command, a list of the employees from that

8 particular firm who were called up on the basis of a mobilisation or for

9 exercise and training, and the army would refund those monies through the

10 firm's organisation or the organisation of the company. So that was

11 standard practice.

12 Now, in 1991 and later on, that is to say, after the first

13 mobilisation and the second mobilisation, that practice was violated, and

14 anybody who responded would be personally paid out his per diems and the

15 money owed him, regardless of whether the person was a member of the unit

16 or not. The essential point was that he had joined up in the unit. Now,

17 where he had come from, who had sent him, that didn't matter. But up

18 until then, that could not have happened. So in the second variant, they

19 were paid on the spot by the army, regardless of whether they were within

20 the frameworks of that unit or not.

21 So somebody could have come from the moon, for example. He would

22 be paid. And that was not the practice previously, and that's why I

23 stated that. It seems to be contradictory in the statement, but it isn't,

24 because that's what happened and how things stood.

25 Q. You described how TO commanders visited Colonel Milosevic, and you

1 said you tried to remain a professional officer throughout these events.

2 You were waiting for a political solution to be reached. "I don't know

3 what these people were talking about with Milosevic. Only in retrospect

4 can I say it seemed as they were preparing the Serbian side for

5 aggression. The goal was to prepare the condition of the creation of

6 Greater Serbia."

7 When you use the phrase "the creation of Greater Serbia," can you

8 describe what you have in mind in that description?

9 A. Yes, I can.

10 Q. Please do.

11 A. Of course, as a soldier myself, I worked on the elaboration of war

12 plans for my unit. As the chief of staff, I was the protagonist of the

13 elaboration of those war plans. And we elaborated those war plans and

14 devised them quite legally, in premises which were set aside for that

15 purpose, and they had a certain degree of confidentiality, of secrecy,

16 this elaboration and writing and compiling of war plans. All war plans up

17 until then I had worked on them. I was a participant working on the

18 writing of the war plans. One day, and you'll find this in my diary,

19 you'll have the date there, Colonel Milosevic, the then-colonel - he's a

20 general now - explained that there were some new war plans. Now, I became

21 worried. How could there be new war plans when I should be working on

22 them? So nobody could bypass the Chief of Staff there. But as I say new

23 war plans were compiled and written without the participation of the

24 officers who were not Serbs. So no non-Serbs could take part in the

25 elaboration of those new war plans. The new war plans themselves

1 contained elements which coincided -- we can't say that they were

2 identical, but they coincided with the borders of a Greater Serbia,

3 greatly. 90 per cent. They coincided 90 per cent with the borders of a

4 Greater Serbia and they contained combat activities and actions to go out

5 and take positions at those borders. So those war plans were compiled

6 without the participation of the soldiers, the officers who were not Serb

7 officers. It was only the Serbs, exclusively Serb soldiers and officers

8 worked on the compiling of those plans.

9 So that was that variation. All the other officers were excluded

10 from the process. We didn't even know about it until that particular day

11 when Colonel -- the colonel reported to us and said that there were new

12 war plans. So it was impossible for plans of that kind to have been

13 devised, because they are very unwieldy documents, they are documents

14 contained in ten files, ten binders, comprising the complete, entire war

15 plan.

16 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, what do you mean by "Greater Serbia"?

17 A. Well, in theory and practice, there is a map of that

18 Greater Serbia. I think you have the map. It is common knowledge. It is

19 well known. So that implies, and I imply the territory in which the Serb

20 people were expected to live, following that theory of -- the theory that

21 was developed in the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Belgrade and

22 which was publicly talked about in those days and during those years not

23 only in Bosnia but in the whole of the former Yugoslavia, saying that the

24 Serbs wanted to live in one state, that that would be the territory of a

25 Greater Serbia and that the borders and frontiers of that state would be

1 Virovitica, Karlovac, Karlobag, roughly speaking, that kind of line, that

2 kind of frontier and border. It doesn't matter whether I've left out some

3 particular place on that line. But that is what we had to work with. In

4 that piece of information that was given to us publicly and that we heard

5 about talked about very frequently and that's why I said that they were

6 planning to set up that kind of territory, which according to that theory

7 would belong to a Greater Serbia.

8 Q. And in your statement, and this is at page 27 of the English

9 version, you say: "As to why the army reorganised, the Serb senior

10 leaders did this to make sure that the republics did not have authority

11 and responsibility over the army on their soil."

12 So when you talk there about the Serb senior leaders, you're

13 talking about people in Serbia, in Belgrade, are you?

14 A. No. I'm talking about the military leadership and Serb leadership

15 in general in the former Yugoslavia. When the reorganisation of the army

16 took place in 1988, the reorganisation I've already spoken about, we as

17 soldiers were informed about that and we all supported it, in declarative

18 terms, of course, because the explanations we were given seemed to us to

19 be normal. Instead of having seven military districts, four military

20 districts were set out. The command was reduced. The army was being

21 rationalised. So if somebody were to present you something in that way,

22 of course you would say, and the times were such, that everything that

23 went towards rationalisation you thought was better, which means that the

24 number of links and chains were reduced, the commands were reduced, and so

25 on. So nobody gave much thought to the fact that this had some other

1 objectives, that there were some other objectives behind it.

2 So very few people even theoretically, that it occurred to anybody

3 even theoretically that there were other objectives. But what happened in

4 practice in 1991 and 1992 confirms this all. The military districts were

5 done away with, the Territorial Defence was done away with in the

6 republics, to stop the political leadership of the republic to command

7 units of the Territorial Defence. Because following the constitution,

8 this came under the competence of the republics and provinces. So with

9 this new reorganisation, this was done away with. This competence of

10 theirs was taken away from them, and of course that was an afterthought or

11 intelligence after hindsight, based on what came to pass later.

12 Q. At the time, in 1991 and early 1992, at the time, you had no

13 knowledge of any involvement of Serb senior leaders in any of this

14 process, did you, well, apart from anything that you could publicly read

15 and hear in the same way that anybody else could? That's right, isn't it?

16 A. Well, that is right. The federal secretary, and I have to explain

17 it to you, the federal secretary, Veljko Kadijevic, in 1993, wrote a very

18 nice book in which he set out everything that we experienced, saw, lived

19 through, or thought might be the reason. And he confirms that in 1993,

20 when he wrote his book entitled: "My vision of the dismantling of

21 Yugoslavia." Disintegration.

22 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, if one day Mr. Kadijevic or his book turn up to

23 give evidence, it's another matter.

24 MR. STEWART: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. That's why I said it,

1 precisely.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any need to re-examine the witness,

3 Mr. Margetts.

4 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. We have a couple of questions.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

6 Re-examined by Mr. Margetts:

7 Q. General Dzambasovic, you were asked about the Variant A and B

8 document, and the question was, in relation to the content of that

9 document, and it was stated to you that it included just obvious things,

10 which in any conflict or potential conflict situation, as a matter of

11 common sense, would have to be done by any military organisation. Was it

12 normal for political parties to produce documents such as Variant A and B?

13 A. No, it was not customary, nor was this the job of the organs of

14 power and authority ever. And if you will recall, I mentioned yesterday

15 that they were precedents and were major blows to us and took us

16 completely by surprise when we saw that the organs of power and authority

17 in politics had meddled in something that would never occur to you could

18 come under their competence and authority, because the army or rather the

19 ministry, the Ministry of Defence would always see to matters of that kind

20 and that was a first.

21 Q. General Dzambasovic, you were asked whether you could point to a

22 document that shows a senior political figure involved in planning and

23 organisation. Did the document Variant A and B refer to the involvement

24 of the senior organ of the SDS party in planning and organisation?

25 A. Well, the Main Board of the SDS is mentioned. Now, as to

1 hierarchy, the hierarchy of the SDS, I don't want to go into that, but the

2 Main Board of the SDS means Bosnia-Herzegovina. It wasn't a local

3 community. It wasn't the municipality. It was the top level at the

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina level.

5 Q. You were asked whether your information in relation to the

6 involvement of political figures in planning and organisation was

7 restricted to public documents. Was Variant A and B a public document in

8 1991 and 1992?

9 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, don't really see how that

10 question can really reasonably be asked because the witness has made it

11 quite clear that he did not himself see that document, so the question

12 simply doesn't arise.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts. Isn't it true that the questions by

14 the Defence were about the knowledge of the witness at that time?

15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I'll withdraw the question.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

17 MR. MARGETTS:

18 Q. You were asked about the formation of Greater Serbia, and you

19 stated that the war plans that you subsequently learnt of approximated the

20 plan to form Greater Serbia to approximately 90 per cent. To what extent

21 did these war plans correspond with what was eventually to become

22 Republika Srpska?

23 A. Well, it was like this: These war plans, the ones that were

24 compiled at top level - I don't know if you have them - but they did

25 coincide, for the most part, with the borders of the so-called

1 Greater Serbia. At lower levels, lower down, that is to say, from that

2 top level, the war plans were also devised lower down the chain. Now, how

3 far they coincided with the territory of Republika Srpska in concrete

4 terms, I really can't say. I don't know. I didn't see the plans myself,

5 the plans for all these units. I didn't have access to those plans, so I

6 really can't say specifically and answer your question. However, in

7 practice, what was done in practical terms in 1991, in the preparations to

8 war, can be assessed and evaluated on the basis of the positions set up in

9 1991, by where the artillery was located, where the tanks were located,

10 and so on and so forth, what it looked like. You can gain a picture of

11 what it looked like on the basis of that and that is the only way I can

12 base my conclusions or assessments, but I don't think I can do now.

13 Q. You were asked about your knowledge of the involvement of Serb

14 senior leaders in this planning and organisation. Was Rajko Dukic

15 involved?

16 A. Rajko Dukic did take part in that, and I had occasion, or rather,

17 all the municipal leaderships met -- I met them many times, from the

18 Rogatica, Sokolac, Olovo, Han Pijesak municipalities, Vlasenica

19 municipality, and in my statement, I think I give the names that I happen

20 to remember, people that delved in politics, people who worked in the

21 municipal organs of the Territorial Defence, and those who worked in the

22 SDS as well. So from those municipalities. I saw those people on a

23 number of occasions. They would come many times. And what I stress,

24 which is an absurdity, if you ask me, once again, was that -- and it was

25 so absurd, in actual fact, that the political power and those organs of

1 political power had taken over all the army's functions and we were

2 practically left without the most normal functions. They would meddle in

3 everything, at all levels, the political powers that be. That was a

4 situation that was not tenable. It was completely absurd. And even in

5 the documents I showed you, you can see, precisely defined, what it says.

6 It doesn't say JNA units. It says SDS units, from the Commander of the

7 2nd Military District Kukanjac down the line. So this was done by the

8 organs of power and authority, and that was the absurdity that happened

9 and that had never happened before to the army.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we have no further questions.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Margetts.

12 Judge El Mahdi has a question for you.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like to seek

16 clarification from you on one point, and it concerns the two appeals for

17 mobilisation, the two call-ups for mobilisation. The first was dated the

18 30th of June, I believe, 1991; and the second mobilisation call came in

19 September.

20 Now, you say that the two political parties reacted in the sense

21 that when the people responded to the first call-up, and you quoted the

22 two parties, the SDS and the SDA, however, you also said that with respect

23 to the second mobilisation call, which came approximately one month after

24 the first mobilisation, that the people who responded to the mobilisation

25 call were Serbs in the majority. The overwhelming majority were Serbs.

1 Now, to your knowledge, and you have -- do you have an answer to

2 that? Was it that the party had changed? Was it that the Serbs who

3 responded were responding, in fact, to directives? Or was it a general

4 response to the mobilisation call, that all citizens should respond? What

5 would you say? What was the reason for that overwhelming Serb majority?

6 A. Well, thank you for that question. It's a very good one. Your

7 observation is quite true. For the first time, the political -- both

8 political parties in power tried to obstruct the mobilisation call, and

9 that is absolutely correct and true and it is not in dispute. Now, what

10 happened when the second mobilisation was called up? For the second

11 mobilisation, there was a turning point that took place in the former JNA.

12 On that occasion, the JNA, in all practical terms, became the army of just

13 one ethnic group, and that was the Serb ethnic group, the Serb

14 nationality. And I have to refer back once again, although I didn't know

15 that at the time, to the fact that the army, to all intents and purposes,

16 had become the army of just one ethnic groups, the Serbs, and once again

17 Veljko Kadijevic says this in his books. He says in practical terms the

18 JNA surrendered on the 31st of July, 1991. I think that's what he says in

19 his books. Which means --

20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Excuse me. My question was quite

21 precise. Do you know the attitude of the parties, that the SDS party

22 took, specifically speaking, with respect to the mobilisation and to that

23 matter?

24 A. Yes. Specifically, in concrete terms, up until then, that is to

25 say, during the first mobilisation, the attitude of the SDS was not

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 defined when it came to the army. They had no definite position. When it

2 came to the second mobilisation, the SDS did have a clear-cut stand

3 towards the army, and all -- everybody endeavoured to have as many people

4 respond as possible. And this was different to the first mobilisation,

5 because the second time round, the weapons distribution had started, the

6 units were being displaced and moved, as was ammunition and equipment to

7 places with a Serb majority. So the SDS joined the army, joined up with

8 the army, and that is why in the second mobilisation it was only the Serbs

9 who responded in such an overwhelming majority, and that's why the units

10 became mono-ethnic, basically.

11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the information that

12 you've been giving us, where were you able to learn about that and to gain

13 your opinions? Do you have any tangible arguments to bear that out, to

14 support your claims?

15 A. Of course I do, and that is why, because it was such a sensitive

16 question I complained twice to the commander of the 4th Corps, for

17 instance, my superior command, General Djurdjevac, what was being done in

18 practice. Each unit has its own position and place in the mobilisation

19 near the barracks, and it is usually 10 to 12 square kilometres in area.

20 Now what was happening was something quite abnormal. Instead of having a

21 mobilisation in Han Pijesak, what happened was that the mobilising took

22 place in Rogatica, Sokolovic [phoen] and Milici, under the auspices and

23 leadership of the leaders of the SDS in actual facts, the activists as

24 they called themselves. And I saw all that with my own eyes.

25 Don't you think it was absurd? I myself was not able to attend

1 the establishment of a unit and in my own municipality, that of Rogatica,

2 for example, I could not see what was going on. I didn't have access to

3 what was going on, for instance. That was quite absurd. So this is

4 something that I experienced myself and saw for myself. And now the SDS

5 officials, whom I know to this day, could not say anything other than what

6 I have told you. They would not be able to assert anything different.

7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions for you at this moment.

9 Is there any need to put further questions to the witness, Mr. Margetts?

10 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, there's just a tiny point to clear up,

13 because His Honour Judge El Mahdi asked about the mobilisations.

14 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stewart:

15 Q. Witness, you give just ever-so-slightly different dates in

16 relation to the first mobilisation. You say in an earlier statement that

17 it was the 29th of June and then in a later statement you say it was the

18 30th of July and Judge El Mahdi, perhaps understandably, synthesised those

19 and said it was the 30th of June. Which date is it? You seem to have

20 knowledge of specific dates. Can we just get the date clear.

21 A. You can check the date out. It was a Saturday. Now, whether it

22 was the 29th or 30th of June, don't hold me to the exact date. But it was

23 a Saturday. I know that for sure, because I went off on holiday. It was

24 the first day of my leave.

25 Q. It was the end of June.

1 A. But I wasn't able actually to go on holiday.

2 Q. It was the end of June rather than the end of July?

3 A. Yes. On the 31st of July, I mentioned that in my answer to His

4 Honour the Judge, I said that on the 31st of July, Veljko Kadijevic in his

5 book wrote that to all intents and purposes the army had surrendered.

6 Perhaps you mixed those two up, otherwise mobilisation was --

7 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic all it was to get the date straight. You say it

8 was the end of June rather than the end of July, and it was a Saturday. It

9 will probably turn out that the date that Judge El Mahdi put to you is

10 that Saturday, so --

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. All right.

13 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you.

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would have one further question in that

16 respect. All the events that you describe, well, let's say on pages 10,

17 11, that is, the involvement of the SDS in creating special formations, et

18 cetera, that was all after the September mobilisation, call for

19 mobilisation; is that correct?

20 A. Yes. Mostly. 90 per cent of those activities. There were some

21 activities that went on before, but the obvious ones and the ones that I

22 saw myself and experienced myself took place after the 17th of September.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Milici, that's the empowerment of Mr. Dukic, that's

24 the -- these events, that's all after I think at a certain moment you

25 referred to March.

1 A. Yes, that's right. Yes. That's correct.

2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, on a point of information, the 29th of

3 June was a Saturday. Ms. Cmeric tells me that and I'm certainly not going

4 to argue with her on that point.

5 JUDGE ORIE: We usually go to holiday on a Saturday.

6 MR. STEWART: It's not unknown, Your Honour, yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzambasovic, this concludes your testimony in

8 this court. I'd like to thank you very much for having come to The Hague.

9 And I heard that you have other activities as well, but if you return

10 home, I wish you a safe trip home.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and my greetings to one

12 and all.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

14 [The witness withdrew]

15 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00, and then

16 we'll resume the examination of the witness we started with. Yes,

17 Mr. Margetts.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just one matter in respect of the 92

19 bis package. We need to move for the admission.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could do that now, before ...

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, about the bundle: I do understand that

23 some kind of an agreement exists between the parties on what parts are

24 still in the statements, what parts are not in the statements. Of course

25 we have not been fully informed about that, but the Chamber would really

1 prefer to receive that material in such a way that we don't have to search

2 for the whole of the transcript to see what part of written statements are

3 in evidence, what parts are not. So if you could prepare that and then

4 we'll deal with the attachments to that at the same time so that we have

5 it all together in its context. Yes?

6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. We are prepared in regard to

7 that. Counsel and I have agreed on what paragraphs will be excised from

8 the statement, so we're in a position to proceed now if you'd like us to.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the Chamber would like to receive those

10 statements amended according to you, because otherwise we have the

11 statements, we read them, and of course we do not always have in the back

12 of our mind that at a certain day someone said that we should not read

13 paragraph 6. So we'd like to receive that material. Perhaps a version in

14 one language would do; we usually do not read the B/C/S version. So if

15 that would be done on the English version, indication of what is taken out

16 and what is still there, that would be of sufficient guidance for the

17 Chamber. But I do not know whether that would be agreeable for the

18 Defence as well.

19 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I certainly endorse, with

20 respect, Your Honour's suggestion. The echo has come back. We shall

21 prepare, agree a marked-up final version. But we do suggest, Your Honour,

22 that it would be appropriate for the extra work to be done to make sure

23 the two language versions match.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Perhaps that is better. I'm just aware

25 of what work it takes to prepare that. But we really want to prevent a

1 situation where we are reading materials, not knowing exactly what is in

2 and what is not in.

3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.

5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I say I'm not proposing to come

6 back and I appreciate the timing this morning enabling me to escape the

7 last session. It's not going to be a holiday, but at least I can be

8 somewhere else. Thank you very much.

9 --- Recess taken at 12.36 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, are you ready to continue the

12 examination-in-chief of Mr. Hadzic?

13 MR. GAYNOR: I am, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Usher, could I ask you to escort the

15 witness into the courtroom.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 MR. GAYNOR:

18 Q. Mr. Hadzic, how many mosques were there in Kalinovik in 1992?

19 A. Four. Three were used and one was not used before the war.

20 Q. Were any of those mosques damaged or destroyed in any way?

21 A. Before the war, no. During the war, all of them were destroyed.

22 Q. Could you name those mosques which were destroyed, please.

23 A. The mosque in Jelasica village was destroyed, in Ulog, in Hotovle,

24 and in Kutina from the village where Ratko Mladic is from.

25 Q. Did you personally witness the destruction of those mosques?

1 A. No. But I heard from the residents of those villages who used to

2 come over. Later, after the war, I was able to see it for myself as well.

3 Q. Sir, in your evidence this morning, you spoke about a meeting on

4 the 5th of May, 1992, attended by Grujo Lalovic, at which he gave an

5 assurance that the Muslims of Kalinovik would be protected, their lives

6 and their property would be protected. You went on to say, and in your

7 statements, you said that the Muslims were subjected to imprisonment,

8 killings, and their property was burnt. Why did you trust Grujo Lalovic's

9 assurance that you and your property would not be harmed?

10 A. Well, see, at the time, when we met with Grujo Lalovic, no

11 property was damaged or destroyed. All of that started happening later

12 on, in late May/early June. And I was reminiscing about these events, and

13 I remembered that I had another meeting with Lalovic and Colonel Bundalo,

14 and they invited to the Municipal Assembly building representatives of all

15 Muslim villages where they discussed how to organise life. The commander

16 of the town and president of the Executive Council gave us guarantees to

17 the effect that nothing would happen to us, and then after that there was

18 another meeting with Ratko Bundalo in the village and another meeting with

19 the representatives of the neighbouring Serbian village. All guarantees

20 were given there to us, to the effect that nothing would happen to us or

21 to our property. This is why we decided to remain in our towns and

22 villages.

23 Q. Could you identify the dates on which the subsequent meetings took

24 place?

25 A. I couldn't remember the date, but I know it was in late May,

1 before the conflict started in Trnovo, neighbouring municipality.

2 Q. Now, in your statements and in your evidence, you described the

3 arming the Serbs, the disarming of Muslims, the detention of Muslims, the

4 burning of Muslim property, and the killing of Muslim civilians. The

5 first question is this, and please answer with a simple yes or no: Did

6 you form any view as to whether those activities were planned in any way?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And what was your view?

9 A. In Kalinovik, we had discussions with the relevant people, with

10 the people in power, who were influential, and at least the way they

11 portrayed it to us was that they received all orders from relevant

12 authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the SAO Trebinje and so on.

13 Because Grujo Lalovic was also a member of the Assembly of Republika

14 Srpska. So my opinion is that all of that had been planned. Ratko Mladic

15 gave guarantees to his neighbours, and he used his authority to remove the

16 guns, and later on, those guns were used again. So that means that

17 somebody was issuing orders for things to happen or for things not to

18 happen. The authorities, the Serbian authorities in Kalinovik, were not

19 kept abreast.

20 Q. In your answer, you said: "In Kalinovik we had discussions with

21 the relevant people, with the people in power who were influential."

22 Could you identify which people you're referring to there.

23 A. I've referred to Grujo Lalovic, who held the post that I've

24 already enumerated. I also referred to Ratko Bundalo, commander of the

25 town, and also the then-commander of the JNA barracks, Rade Pavlovic. And

1 there were other prominent people, residents of our town. Those were

2 prominent citizens, and they gave us these guarantees.

3 Q. In your previous answer, you also said: "The Serbian authorities

4 in Kalinovik were not kept abreast." What was it that led you to that

5 belief?

6 A. On one -- they told us one thing, and then in the end something

7 else was implemented. And we think that it was done either because they

8 were not informed or that they purposely tried to portray things one way,

9 where in fact it was actually the other way. They were playing the good

10 cop-bad cop game, one group was protecting us and the other one was

11 beating us.

12 Q. Now, could you tell the Court whether, as a result of your

13 experiences during 1992, you were diagnosed with any form of trauma or

14 anything of that kind.

15 A. Yes. I have post-traumatic stress disorder and I still have

16 treatment. My right kidney had to be removed as a result of injuries I

17 received during the war, because it wasn't functional any more.

18 Q. You said your right kidney had to be removed as a result of

19 injuries. What specific injuries are you referring to there?

20 A. Well, I had injuries from the blows I received on the right side,

21 and after that I always had pain in that area, and I don't know whether

22 this is what caused the kidney to become dysfunctional. But later on it

23 had to be removed. I also have a scar right here on my head. It is a

24 permanent scar. I also had two fingers broken. I have a gunfire wound to

25 my leg. So this is something that will stay as a permanent reminder of

1 the injuries I received, the blows I received. When I do something with

2 my hand, I take a look at my hand and see that my fingers are deformed.

3 So this is a constant reminder of my traumas.

4 Q. Do you continue to receive treatment for post-traumatic stress

5 disorder?

6 A. Yes. I'm under supervision. I see neuropsychiatrist every two

7 months. My condition is currently stable. I take medicine.

8 Q. Do you continue to experience physical pain of any kind as a

9 result of your experiences during 1992?

10 A. I do. I do experience physical pain. If I just remember 68

11 people, neighbours, with whom I worked together, with whom I lived, and

12 who are gone now, and another 17 people from Trnovo municipality who are

13 gone as well now, killed in the most atrocious way, so that their remains

14 cannot be found to this day, this is quite enough to remind me of the

15 terrible events I experienced and to create further pain in my soul.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Gaynor, it seems that the witness has not

17 perhaps fully understood the physical pain you were asking him. Could you

18 please clarify that issue.

19 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mr. Hadzic, do you experience, apart from the mental suffering

21 which you've described, any physical pain, recurrent physical pain of any

22 kind?

23 A. Yes. When the weather is about to change, I have headaches,

24 because I received blows to my head. So this is the kind of physical pain

25 that I have.

1 Q. Has your post-traumatic stress disorder had any noticeable

2 negative effect on your ability to remember what happened or on your

3 ability to testify about what happened?

4 A. No. No. It doesn't have that effect. I never forget what I say,

5 regardless of how I feel mentally, I always have these events before me.

6 Nothing would make me forget that. Nothing would make me diminish the

7 memory of that, especially since I want the truth to triumph. This is my

8 main motive. I want the truth to triumph. The fate of these people, not

9 only the 85 that I've mentioned, but additional 30 that were killed in our

10 village. And when you remember that there was an 18-year-old boy waiting

11 in line for execution with me, and that another 15-year-old was killed

12 with his father, I think that I have to keep it all in mind and always

13 tell the truth.

14 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I have --

15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just before we proceed, I will make one

16 point. If there are going to be any more questions in what is basically

17 an area of medical expertise as to whether post-traumatic stress disorder

18 has any noticeable negative effect on your ability to remember, I would

19 submit it's inappropriate to ask any medical, expert medical questions of

20 that nature of the witness.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, will there be any further questions on

22 that subject?

23 MR. GAYNOR: No, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it that you have at the same time drawn

25 the attention of the Chamber to what had happened already.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: That you have also drawn the attention of the Chamber

3 to the questions already put and already answered by the witness. Yes.

4 MR. GAYNOR: Indeed, Your Honour, I have no further questions of

5 the witness. I have just one minor procedural point which I'll identify

6 now, relating to Exhibit P286.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the map.

8 MR. GAYNOR: That's right.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you gave us the wrong map and you

10 want to present another one?

11 MR. GAYNOR: That's not quite the case. The map is the same.

12 Following the witness's identification on the place of his detention and

13 the place of the execution, the evidence had changed, so a new ERN was

14 given for the map. So the substituted version which the Registrar has

15 bears the new ERN.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we had the right one and we get another

17 right one, which is a different one, because this one is in colour. No.

18 MR. GAYNOR: The difference, Your Honour, is --

19 JUDGE ORIE: It's just the ERN number. I see.

20 MR. GAYNOR: It's as a result of the witness's identification of A

21 and B.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, as a matter of fact, the A and the B are

23 exactly in the same place.

24 MR. GAYNOR: Absolutely, Your Honour. The map without A and B and

25 without the witness's signature --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. GAYNOR: -- is the original ERN. That's the only reason.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's then on the record. Any

4 further --

5 MR. GAYNOR: No further questions, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 Ms. Loukas, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I am, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be any chance, I'm just asking you,

10 looking at the clock, it's the end of the week, that we could finish by

11 today?

12 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. I better put my headphones back

13 on.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be any chance that we could finish by

15 today, do you think? You've still got half on hour. It's Friday, so if

16 that would be possible, it would be fine.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can assure the Trial Chamber and

18 the witness that I'm anxious to ensure that we can finish within the

19 half-hour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's start and let's see how far we come.

21 Please proceed.

22 You'll now be examined by Ms. Loukas, who is counsel for the

23 Defence.

24 MS. LOUKAS: If I might just have a moment, Your Honour.

25 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:

1 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hadzic.

2 A. Good afternoon.

3 Q. Now, Mr. Hadzic, I want to indicate two points to you. Firstly, I

4 don't propose to ask you any questions about the traumatic events you've

5 given evidence of in relation to the detention or the killings, but I'm

6 interested in some of the earlier evidence you gave. Do you understand

7 that?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. And the other aspect is this: I would imagine you're

10 understandably anxious to ensure that you don't have to stay in The Hague

11 for the weekend, and I'm just as anxious to ensure that we finish the

12 cross-examination as soon as possible. So if I ask you a question that

13 you can give a short answer to, if a question is capable of a yes or no,

14 please give a yes or no; if you think it requires explanation, please give

15 that explanation, but try and keep your answers as short as possible so

16 that we can finish within the time allowed this afternoon. Are you with

17 me on that?

18 A. Yes. But I do not want to rush. Even though it's Friday, I don't

19 want to rush, and I want to give a bit more detailed answers than just a

20 yes or no.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep it as good as we can to the point, and

22 we'll see how it happens.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Hadzic, in your paragraph 7 of your statement -- do you

25 have your statement before you? It might be useful if you have that

1 before you.

2 A. I don't have it.

3 JUDGE ORIE: ICTY statement?

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, the ICTY statement, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That's 285A.

6 MS. LOUKAS:

7 Q. You should have paragraph 7 before you, Mr. Hadzic.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, you refer there to your being a director of a local utility

10 company and having to send all your invoices to Kraljevo in Serbia. Can

11 you please tell the Trial Chamber what kind of invoices you're talking

12 about there.

13 A. You see, this is how it was. In late November of 1991, a large

14 group of reservists came to Kalinovik, led by a first-class captain whose

15 name I can't remember, captain of the JNA. They were housed in the

16 barracks in the north of Kalinovik, and we used to supply water to them

17 through our waterworks company. So we would invoice through the federal

18 secretariat for national defence, through the military post in Kraljevo,

19 all of the water they used, and these funds were transferred to the

20 account of my company. So these were the services that we provided to

21 them.

22 I, being in the post that I was, was able to have contacts with

23 them in the encampment. I had contacts with the first-class captain, who

24 was their commander there. There were --

25 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, but my question was: What were the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 invoices -- what invoices were you talking about? So again, this is an

2 example of you really don't have to go into this level of detail.

3 Otherwise, this could take a very long time.

4 JUDGE ORIE: It's not only for you for the weekend, Mr. Hadzic;

5 it's also because these trials take a lot of time, and the parties know

6 exactly what details they would like to know. So, for example, if you

7 would say these were invoices for delivery of water, then that would be

8 fine. And Ms. Loukas will know whether it's important to know whether

9 they were ever paid or not. So if further details -- if we need further

10 details, she'll certainly ask you. Yes?

11 MS. LOUKAS:

12 Q. Now, you've indicated that --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 MS. LOUKAS:

15 Q. Now, Mr. Hadzic, you've also indicated in paragraph 7 there that

16 you say you know that these were Serbian units because you sent these

17 invoices for water to Kraljevo. So you've -- just to clarify this: You've

18 based your opinion that these were Serbian units on the delivery of these

19 invoices for the water to Kraljevo; correct?

20 A. And also based on the contacts I had with people, with the members

21 of that group who told me that they were from Serbia, and almost all of

22 them were of Serbian ethnicity.

23 Q. So they weren't all of Serbian ethnicity; correct?

24 A. I don't know. They told me that most of them were. I met only

25 one who was a Muslim.

1 Q. Okay. Now, just going on to paragraph 9. You've indicated there

2 that you noticed that the uniforms and insignia that they wore were not

3 the usual JNA style. When do you say you noticed this?

4 A. I noticed that, that in addition to the five-pointed star, these

5 soldiers also had a two-headed eagle and other insignia. And they didn't

6 wear the caps with that insignia very often.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you again. The question was when

8 you noticed that. And of course, you should not forget, we read your

9 whole statement, so we have a lot of information about what you already

10 said during interviews. But Ms. Loukas specifically would like to know

11 when you noticed it.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I noticed that at that moment, when

13 those units arrived, and later on as well.

14 MS. LOUKAS:

15 Q. Okay. When did you first notice it?

16 A. When those units arrived in Kalinovik in 1991. I think that it

17 was November, or perhaps October. I know that snow was on the ground in

18 Kalinovik.

19 Q. You've referred in your statement to the usual JNA style. What do

20 you say is the usual JNA style?

21 A. The usual JNA insignia was a five-pointed star, and the officers

22 also had their rank insignia, and later on they would have emblems

23 indicating that on their shirts and so on.

24 Q. Now, these new uniforms, you say, as far back as 1991, had

25 double-headed eagles on them; is that what you're saying?

1 A. Yes. Yes. These people who came, they had that, and also on

2 their chest.

3 Q. Now, in relation to paragraph 14 of your statement, you've

4 referred there to the SDS and the SDA clashing. Now, is that information

5 you've heard from other people or is that information that you were able

6 to witness yourself personally?

7 A. See, these conflicts that came about started taking place in 1992,

8 when they voted in the Assembly that Kalinovik should belong to SAO

9 Trebinje. Then the Muslim and other members left that session and this is

10 where the split occurred between the SDS and the SDA concerning this

11 transfer of the territory under the jurisdiction of Trebinje.

12 Q. Now, if you could just answer my question, Mr. Hadzic. Is that

13 information that's contained there in relation to paragraph 14 information

14 that you witnessed yourself, information you're giving from witnessing it

15 yourself, or information that you heard from other people?

16 A. I did not attend that meeting, so I didn't see it, but I heard

17 about it from the SDA leadership or the SDS leadership, that they had a

18 disagreement. And then later on, various citizens' associations started

19 getting involved in that as well.

20 Q. Okay. Now, going on to paragraph 16, Mr. Hadzic. You indicate

21 there that -- you give some evidence in relation to the arming of the Serb

22 population, and you were asked some questions about that earlier today by

23 Mr. Gaynor. And it would be correct to state that the basis of what you

24 say in paragraph 16 is that you saw a military truck go to a house a

25 hundred metres from a water pipe, and that house was a house in which

1 Serbs lived, and that there were also a lot of weapons around, being shot

2 into the air by Serbians around the period of Serbian Christmas and new

3 year in early 1992; correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. Now, moving on to paragraph 21, you've indicated there that

6 the Serb police were making arrests for no reason whatsoever, and you've

7 given an example there that two of your friends, Tahir Panjeta and

8 Paso Mrzic were detained at the police station for about 15 days and then

9 released without charge. Now, are you aware of what the reason was given

10 at the time to your friends for their detention at the police station?

11 A. I'm not aware of the reason, nor did they know a reason for their

12 detention at the police station.

13 Q. Okay: Are you able to give the Trial Chamber examples of -- or

14 names of other people who were arrested, other than the two of your

15 friends that you've indicated in your statement?

16 A. See, at the time, they also took me in for an interview prior to

17 that, and then released me. So up until the 5th of June -- do you want me

18 to give you the names of the people who were imprisoned on the 25th of

19 June?

20 Q. You can give me a number, if you like, a number of people.

21 A. Well, I can also give you the names of the people from my village,

22 Hadzic Hasan, Hadzic Enes with two brothers, Hadzic Selim, Hadzic Edhem,

23 with brothers Hadzic Edin. The brothers Smail Hadzic, Ahmo, Jusuf, Nasuf

24 and Vejiz Hadzic. From Kalinovik: Jasarevic Hilmo, Hatic Adil,

25 Vranovic Salko, Musanovic Safet, Bajric Ibro, Redzovic Rasid,

1 Salcic Muzaref --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Witness, please slow down.

3 A. From Vihovici [phoen] village, the following were imprisoned.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hadzic, I think Ms. Loukas indicated that she'd

5 like to know approximately the number of people that were detained on the

6 25th of June. I do understand that you know them all, but you'll

7 understand that having all their names is not of great importance for us,

8 although of course this Chamber is well aware that these were all

9 individuals you knew that were then arrested. So if you could indicate a

10 number, not because these persons as such are not of any importance, but

11 because here the number is rather important than the exact names of them.

12 A. On the 25th of June, about 71 of us were taken prisoner. One was

13 released that same day. One escaped. One was released for health

14 reasons. And on the 31st of July, they brought 11 new people in, amongst

15 whom there was Dr. Abdurahman Filipovic, who worked in the health centre

16 in Kalinovik as a doctor, which means that there were, on the 1st of

17 August, 1992, in the camp, 85 inmates. At that time, in the primary

18 school building, we came across another 14 people who had been taken into

19 custody in Trnovo and there were some post office-workers there who were

20 Muslims.

21 MS. LOUKAS:

22 Q. Okay. Now, you also indicate in that paragraph that you were

23 interrogated and released. At about what time period are we talking about

24 there?

25 A. It was sometime in May. I can't remember the exact date, but I do

1 know that Visnjevac came to get me. I can't remember his first name. He

2 was in the crime department and he took me from my office in my company

3 for interrogation, and they said that I had had contacts with the Green

4 Berets, which I never did have. And had I had those kinds of contacts, I

5 wouldn't have left Kalinovik and survived.

6 JUDGE ORIE: And still Ms. Loukas does not know how long

7 approximately you were there for interrogation.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About half an hour. That's how long

9 I was interrogated for.

10 MS. LOUKAS:

11 Q. Now, you refer in that paragraph to being shouted at and having

12 stupid questions asked of you. What questions did they ask you? You've

13 already indicated that they were questions in relation to your involvement

14 with the Green Berets. Was anything else asked of you?

15 A. Well, he asked me why people were meeting in my house, why my

16 neighbours came to my house, why my relatives -- one of my relatives came

17 to sit around in the evening, that kind of thing.

18 Q. Okay.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Now, Your Honour, I'm just looking at the time. I'm

20 anxious to ensure, working in conjunction with the witness, the

21 Trial Chamber, and what have you, that I do finish this afternoon, and I

22 think it's potentially possible, but I don't think it's possible in ten

23 minutes, in view of the nature of the way that the questions are taking a

24 little longer to be answered.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, I'm also looking at the technicians

1 and the interpreters whether we could take a bit more time, but we have

2 not reserved the courtroom for this afternoon. So we should then be

3 within the limits, and with the cooperation of all those assisting us. So

4 if you'd please keep that in mind, and I hardly dare to ask the

5 interpreters, but I have not heard any no until now.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Hadzic, let's go to paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 of your

10 statement. And in particular, 25. You basically set out there, do you

11 agree with me, your theory of what occurred? Correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Correct?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. And of course, you would tell the Trial Chamber, that is, that is

16 in essence your opinion?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you base that on what occurred to you in Kalinovik; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, obviously, you'd be prepared to concede that there are

21 potentially other theories than the one you hold.

22 A. Everything is possible.

23 Q. Now, moving on to -- in fact, moving back to paragraph 9. You've

24 indicated there that it is your strong belief that these units were there

25 to deliberately intimidate. Do you see that? Have you got that before

1 you, Mr. Hadzic?

2 A. Yes. We gained the impression that they were there to intimidate

3 us, because they had no reason to be in Kalinovik, in actual fact.

4 Q. Now, being absolutely fair, of course, Mr. Hadzic, you would

5 concede that there are other possible interpretations than the units being

6 there to deliberately intimidate; correct?

7 A. Well, time did tell that the units were actually there to

8 intimidate us, because they said that they had come there to protect the

9 Serb people in Kalinovik, and several villages around Kalinovik, where

10 there are about 500 Muslims. And from that it would emerge that they had

11 really come to instil fear in us, because they said they came to defend

12 the Serb people.

13 Q. I understand that, Mr. Hadzic. But you would tell the

14 Trial Chamber basically that your opinion is, based on what you saw, that

15 that's what -- that's how you formed your opinion?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, just going to your paragraph 4 in your statement. Do you

18 have that before you, Mr. Hadzic?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, again, that's an expression of opinion from you.

21 A. Yes. It is based on what happened.

22 Q. And of course, you would have to fairly concede that you don't

23 have any specific knowledge of events at a very high level; correct?

24 A. No. But I do know what happened to those people.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, in general terms, if the words in the

1 statements are used like "I believe" without any further support in facts,

2 then the Chamber of course would evaluate that as such.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And not as a hidden -- not as a belief with a lot of

5 hidden facts supporting it. It would be considered to be a personal

6 impression based on the kind of things the witness tells us. So that's a

7 starting point. It's not always necessary to verify that with the

8 witness, because that will be the starting point for the Chamber.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Absolutely, Your Honour, but I do like to underline

10 these things for the transcript.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.

12 MS. LOUKAS:

13 Q. Okay. And also that basically -- well, in fact I'll move on to

14 another topic, Your Honour. In view of Your Honour's intervention, I

15 don't think I need to ask any further questions on that issue. And I'll

16 in fact move on to some -- in relation to the question of the supplemental

17 information.

18 Now, of course, Mr. Hadzic, you gave your statement to the

19 International Criminal Tribunal over five years ago now; correct?

20 A. Yes, in 1999.

21 Q. And, of course, you knew that when the Prosecution came to speak

22 to you, they were, of course, anxious to find the people responsible for

23 what had occurred in Kalinovik?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And obviously, they told you to tell them everything that you

1 knew; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And of course, they took down everything you said?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And of course, in relation to your ICTY statement, you indicated

6 that you'd dealt with a lot of matters, of course, in your previous

7 Bosnian statement, but that you were able to add certain information that

8 you have additionally recalled since making it; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, obviously, the people from the Prosecution, when they were

11 interviewing you, were interested in knowing exactly what had occurred to

12 you; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And they were obviously interested in the time -- at the time in

15 obtaining from you whether you had any information about connections to a

16 higher level; correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you were, of course, careful to ensure that you told them

19 everything you knew?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it wasn't just a question of answering their specific

22 questions; whenever you could, you gave them all additional information

23 you had. Correct?

24 A. Yes. And the information that I gave to the Bosnian authorities

25 as well.

1 Q. Indeed, Mr. Hadzic. Now, Mr. Hadzic, you've supplied the

2 Prosecution with additional information yesterday; correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that additional information included that Grujo Lalovic also

5 said at this meeting that he had received "orders from above" and referred

6 to order from Trebinje; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So the situation is, of course, that you now supply this

9 additional information in relation to orders from above, 12 years after

10 the events in question; correct?

11 A. No. I gave that information about those events to the Bosnian

12 authorities already in 1992. And yesterday I saw that the Prosecution had

13 that statement of mine, and that's when I mentioned Grujo Lalovic, Nikola

14 Kovac, Bosko Govedarica, head of the SUP, et cetera. So I thought that

15 those statements were a component part of the overall statement, and I

16 substantiated that talking to the Prosecution yesterday about the people

17 who were there at the time and held those posts.

18 Q. There's no dispute, Mr. Hadzic, that there are two Bosnian

19 statements that incorporate -- are incorporated within your material for

20 the ICTY statement. My question is this: That you did not in those three

21 documents refer to Grujo Lalovic saying that he had received orders from

22 above and referring to orders from Trebinje. You'd agree with me on that

23 proposition?

24 A. No. At the meeting, when we handed over the weapons, that's when

25 he told us that the order had come from Trebinje level, that they wouldn't

1 take away our weapons but that they had received the order from Trebinje

2 and had to do so. I think that that's what was said.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I stop you. Ms. Loukas would like to know

4 whether you agree that a statement to that extent, that is, that he told

5 that during that meeting, does not appear in your previous statements. So

6 that this is the first time you tell this. That's what she'd like to

7 verify.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. All right. Probably I

9 didn't say then, that then.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

11 MS. LOUKAS:

12 Q. Now, Mr. Hadzic, so you've conceded that you now say it for the

13 first time, 12 years after the event, and of course that you didn't

14 mention it in your statement five years ago either; correct?

15 A. Well, that's what it would seem. But I gave -- if you take the

16 other commission I gave a report to the authorities, to the investigations

17 commission, I have an item saying that I blamed Grujo Lalovic for it all.

18 All right. I didn't say that he had received the order from Trebinje. I

19 didn't mention that. But, you know, it was all a situation of trauma, a

20 traumatic situation when I was giving those statements. So I didn't

21 actually mention that then, but I say so now.

22 Q. I appreciate that, Mr. Hadzic, but of course you've had an

23 opportunity to give a number of those statements and you've never

24 mentioned it in any of those statements; correct?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, that's clear.

1 MS. LOUKAS: That's clear.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We have the statements. You can ask the witness five

3 times whether he agrees that it's not in the statement, but it really

4 makes no -- it really doesn't assist the Chamber. The point is entirely

5 clear that you draw the attention of this Chamber to the fact that this

6 new element that arose yesterday does not appear in his earlier

7 statements. That's perfectly clear to us. So if there's any further

8 question, then please proceed.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, one -- perhaps the process is most

10 easily short circuited by a concession from the Prosecution that it does

11 not appear in the earlier statements, the "order from above" aspect.

12 MR. GAYNOR: As His Honour has pointed out, that is in fact the

13 case.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.

15 Well, Your Honour, in view of that, and I also notice the clock,

16 the areas that I need to cover have been covered and I think that the

17 witness, unless there are any further questions from the Bench, I think

18 we're going to come within time.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor, is there any need to put further

20 questions to the witness?

21 MR. GAYNOR: No need at all. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hadzic, since the Chamber has no further

23 questions to you, this concludes your testimony in this court. First of

24 all, I'd like to thank you for coming from quite a distance to The Hague

25 and to answer all the questions that have been put to you by the

1 Prosecution, by the Defence, because the Chamber is well aware that from

2 the content of your testimony in all respects, that is, what happened then

3 and what you're still suffering, as you told us, at this very moment, that

4 it certainly would not have been easy to do that. We highly appreciate

5 that you came, and we wish you a safe trip home again.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to add to that that if there were a few

8 moments where you could have told us far more, it's not due to any lack of

9 interest that we didn't hear further details. But first of all, we have

10 read your statement, and of course there are other witnesses who come, so

11 this Chamber has other information as well. And I can imagine that if you

12 went through this, that you could talk for hours, if not for days or

13 weeks, on the events that have taken place at that time. The Chamber is

14 aware of that.

15 So, as I said, I wish you a safe trip home again.

16 Madam Usher, would you please, then, escort the witness out of the

17 courtroom.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 [The witness withdrew]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any urgent procedural matters to be dealt

21 with at this moment?

22 MR. GAYNOR: Just the admission of the exhibits, whenever

23 Your Honour wishes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's a relatively easy one for this

25 witness. So we could do that. Ms. Loukas.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Do you want to do that now, Your Honour, or on Monday

2 morning?

3 JUDGE ORIE: We have the issue -- we could do it now, but of

4 course there was one complication, isn't it?

5 MS. LOUKAS: There is, Your Honour, yes. There was the question

6 of the objection that I'd made to relevant sections of the statement.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that, Mr. Gaynor, of course in the

8 statement -- well, the matter has been dealt with in court and you

9 referred to what is in the additional part. So would it be taken out or

10 would you leave it in? I don't think that it makes that much of a

11 difference, finally, but ...

12 MR. GAYNOR: Well, I agree, Your Honour. Ms. Loukas referred to

13 the varied paragraphs in her examination, so it might make sense to leave

14 them in there.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So just as a matter of reference, then, because you

16 asked questions about it.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, but they were the matters that

18 of course the Prosecution had referred to, the actual evidence.

19 So -- well, I don't suppose it matters at this point. I think it's

20 probably six of one, half-dozen of the other at this point, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar, could you guide us through the

22 documents.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number P285A, the witness

24 statement dated 31 January 1999, and P285A.1, the B/C/S translation;

25 P285B, the witness statement dated 19 February 1993, and P285B.1, the

1 English translation; P285C, the handwritten witness statement, and

2 P285C.1, the English translation; P286, the map of Kalinovik; P287,

3 receipt dated 08/05/1992, confirming confiscation of weapon; P287.1,

4 English translation; P288, conclusion of 17 May 1992 session of the war

5 staff of the Kalinovik SO; P288.1, English translation; P289, order from

6 the commander of the Tactical Group, dated 11 June 1992; P289.1, English

7 translation; P290, notification from Serb Republic of BiH, dated

8 25/06/1992; and P290.1, English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Since I hear no objections, these exhibits are

10 admitted into evidence. I'd like to ask the parties whether they're

11 available for communication, especially in view of the week not sitting,

12 because the Chamber will further pay attention to them. I'm not saying

13 that insurmountable suddenly has changed, but we'll certainly check

14 whether it's as insurmountable as it looked.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I will just indicate that this afternoon

16 Mr. Stewart, Ms. Cmeric and myself have a conference at the United Nations

17 Detention Unit.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Where you're not allowed to take your mobile.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Where we're not allowed to take our mobile phones.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any indication -- but you put them on

21 again once you leave?

22 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed we do, Your Honour. Our conference will be

23 from 3.00 until a quarter to 5.00.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's good to know.

25 MS. LOUKAS: So we'll be allowed access to our mobile phones again

1 after that. I will just indicate one thing very quickly, Your Honour.

2 There was one other aspect of a matter that wasn't covered in the

3 statement that I did not go on to, in view of the fact that there was a

4 concession from the Prosecution, and I will just perhaps confirm that with

5 the Prosecution. We can present that on Monday morning. But in view of

6 the time constraints and Your Honour's indicating the situation, I decided

7 not to proceed on another aspect that was not covered in the statement.

8 But it's fairly self-evident that it didn't require any further

9 elaboration.

10 JUDGE ORIE: In general, the Chamber will accept submissions by

11 the parties to indicate that certain elements were not in earlier

12 statements, et cetera. Of course, if you want to pursue the matter in

13 view of the credibility or the reliability of the witness, then of course

14 it's a different matter. But if it's mainly to establish that it isn't

15 there and then the whole questioning that whether the witness intended to

16 tell everything he knew.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Which of course is impossible anyhow, but --

19 everything, you know. But that's not necessary for us.

20 MS. LOUKAS: No. That's of course a different issue of course

21 Your Honour and that's an issue of ascertaining what might be considered

22 to be important at the time from the perspective of the witness and the

23 interviewers and what have you. And that's a matter for submissions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I wish you all a good weekend and we'll

25 adjourn until next Monday, 9.00 in the morning, this same courtroom,

1 number 1.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.00 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day of

4 September 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25