1 Friday, 19 October 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. The registrar please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav

9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, can I just very briefly

11 raise one very small matter?

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: That's the order of witnesses. I want to let the

14 Defence know. I mentioned to you earlier this week, I mean to the Chamber

15 earlier this week, the order, and I think I said that Muhamed Bicic would

16 be called, then Hasan Bicic, then Ibrahim Salkic. They're all witnesses

17 that give general evidence but also concern the defendant Milan Simic in

18 particular.

19 The order will have to be changed, and I now propose to call Hasan

20 Bicic first, followed by Muhamed and then Ibrahim. So I thought I'd let

21 the Defence know that.

22 That's been occasioned by the fact that Muhamed Bicic has got this

23 American court commitment, and they're arranging some sort of videolink

24 for him to testify in the American case from here, in fact, and so that

25 means he's going to be -- have his mind occupied with that and attending

1 to that. So for that reason I've altered the order, and I just want the

2 Defence to know.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may have the floor for just one

5 short comment. Only two days ago, I have asked the Prosecutor, because I

6 knew that the session in the American court is scheduled for the 22nd of

7 October. I asked them loud and clearly whether Muhamed Bicic will be here

8 or not and whether Muhamed Bicic will be the first witness. They said

9 Muhamed Bicic will be the first witness.

10 On the eve of the witness coming into the court, we have been

11 notified that there is another change. This is the fourth time they've

12 changed it from Muhamed to Hasan. I mean, with all due respect, I really

13 believe this is -- I mean, this is really not something that should be

14 happen before this Tribunal.

15 The order of this Honourable Trial Chamber was that we have a week

16 in advance programme how the witnesses are coming so we can prepare

17 ourselves for the cross-examination, and, therefore, in this case, we

18 really are brought into the position where we have prepared everything for

19 Muhamed Bicic, then Muhamed Bicic is exchanged for another witness. And

20 this might go on forever with that. Because we cannot really prepare

21 within one day. Okay. In this particular case, we have a whole week -- a

22 whole weekend so that we can prepare, but I mean as a matter of principle,

23 I believe this is not acceptable. Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It is the experience of the Tribunal that

25 there arises incidents which make it impossible for the Prosecutor to

1 stick to their order of calling witnesses.

2 What the Trial Chambers in the past have done is that at least

3 within the week the same witnesses are called regardless of the order, and

4 we have always accepted the changes in practice because of various

5 problems.

6 Now, in this case, as you rightly pointed out, it would be ideal

7 to have the order retained as was first agreed upon, but there is an

8 intervening incident and then the witness has to come later on, more or

9 less later on but within the same week, hopefully. But at least you have

10 the weekend, as you said, to prepare for this one alteration. And the

11 Tribunal does expect counsel to work on Saturdays and Sundays during the

12 trial proceedings so that we go ahead with our trials.

13 That is understood, and we do -- you wanted to say something?

14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Of course we understand, and we agree a

15 hundred per cent with you, Your Honour. The point is that -- the point I

16 was trying to make was that only 48 hours ago, I insisted whether it's

17 going to be Muhammed Bicic, because I know that he is committed to go into

18 the American court, and I have told my learned colleagues that. And they

19 said, "No problem. He's not going over there." And that is the point

20 which I am trying to make, because we were brought into the position that

21 we know for sure that it's Muhammed Bicic on this week and the beginning

22 of next week, whatever commitments he has. Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. di Fazio, you understand that he had

24 insisted whether or not you were sure, because according to him, he was

25 sure that this witness would be giving testimony in the other case.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, I appreciate that and I understand my

2 learned friend's concerns about that. I'm not suggesting that he should

3 not be concerned about that, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused

4 to him. But there are intervening causes that have necessitated this

5 change, and it's not the sort of matter that can't be rectified by the

6 Defence. After all, both witnesses give fairly brief statements. In

7 comparison, for instance, to the statements of Mr. Izetbegovic or

8 Mr. Dragan Lukic or Mr. Sulejman Tihic, they are positively minuscule.

9 It's a question of -- I can't even --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is understood that there was an

11 intervening problem --

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Eleven pages of statement, that's all.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: -- but as much as possible, let's stick to the

14 order.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll endeavour to do that, but the problem arose

16 because of the late development of this videolink conference idea.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: And it would mean, probably, having to stop

19 Muhammed's evidence, Muhammed Bicic's evidence, halfway through so he can

20 go off and attend to this other court commitment, and that would be

21 undesirable from his point of view and from the Chamber's point of view.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Notwithstanding that we all know the primacy

23 of the Tribunal.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, of course.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let's go ahead.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let's go ahead.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: -- making any comment about that. And I take on

4 board what Mr. Zecevic has said, and every effort will be made to stick to

5 the order that's announced --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: -- whenever and wherever possible. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we continue with our cross-examination of

9 the witness, Mr. Pantelic?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Good morning, Your Honours.

11 WITNESS: IZET IZETBEGOVIC [Resumed]

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Izetbegovic. After analysing

15 your testimony so far, I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Izetbegovic,

16 that I have to remind you of a number of facts. The first fact is that

17 before the International Criminal Tribunal -- that you are before this

18 Tribunal. The second fact is that you have taken a solemn declaration

19 that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

20 truth. And a third fact is one that my learned friends from the

21 Prosecution may not have informed you of, as well as the Witness and

22 Victims Unit, that it is possible to institute criminal proceedings

23 against a witness in this Tribunal for perjury.

24 Yesterday I was very correct when I asked you about a particular

25 fact and gave you the opportunity to correct yourself, when I asked you

1 whether you were a hundred per cent sure about a certain fact. I will

2 continue to be correct, and I shall give you another chance.

3 We agreed yesterday that there were unintentional lies due to --

4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I object to this.

5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] -- memory faults or something like

6 that.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I object to this. I don't recall any

9 agreement about unintentional lies yesterday, and if the question is to be

10 asked, a question by Mr. Pantelic is to be asked, let him ask a question,

11 not make a speech. Let's get to it and let's ask the question.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Actually, I was about to ask Mr. Pantelic why

13 he finds it necessary, as counsel, to start warning the witness, because

14 that's the duty of the Trial Chamber, Mr. Pantelic. You are given

15 permission to cross-examine.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: And I hope you will stick to that.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: You are way out of your obligations under the Rules

20 of the Defence counsel.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: I hope so, because you will be ordered out of this

23 trial.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Madam President, for your directions.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: And the co-counsel will take over and the trial will

1 continue.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I know there is a lot of possibilities, but

3 let's go to the issue.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Izetbegovic, on the 16th of October, on page

5 2360 of the transcript, lines 16 to 20, said the following. I will read

6 it in English, as I don't have a transcript in your language: [In

7 English] "I saw on the coffin the surname Zurovac."

8 This is a moment that I want to clarify this name.

9 Who is Zurovac?

10 A. I assume he is Zarko Zurovac's son, who was technical director in

11 Mehanika.

12 Q. Tell me, Mr. Izetbegovic, do you know Zarko Zurovac?

13 A. Very well.

14 Q. Do you know the name of his son?

15 A. I've forgotten that. When he was little, we moved away. We were

16 no longer neighbours. He grew up in the meantime. I know his mother's

17 name, Vasa, and I know his sisters too, but we didn't meet each other for

18 a long time after that. It is the only Zurovac family that lived there.

19 MR. PANTELIC: The witness said -- intervention for the

20 transcript, for the interpretation. The witness said the only Zurovac

21 family that live in Orasje, O-r-a-s-j-e?

22 A. That I knew, of course.

23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Thank you. You lived close by. In fact, you were next-door

25 neighbours, were you not? That's what you said.

1 A. Not next door. Orasje's a small place, so even a hundred metres

2 can be considered a neighbouring house. But we did socialise. We visited

3 each other at home.

4 Q. So you lived in Orasje, not in Samac?

5 A. A long time ago. In 1966 until 1968.

6 Q. And you celebrated when Zarko Zurovac's son was born, whose name

7 you don't know. You celebrated his birth?

8 A. Yes, I did. He had two little girls. I can't remember exactly

9 whether it was the birth of one of the girls - it was a long time ago -

10 but I know that we did celebrate the birth of one of them.

11 Q. Because on the 16th of October, you said that you remembered the

12 event. So do you remember or do you not remember?

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Which event?

14 MR. PANTELIC: The same event, Madam President. I'm referring to

15 his statement from page 2360, line 16.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes. I just want to know, is it the event

17 surrounding the birth or the death?

18 MR. PANTELIC: No, of the birth, of the birth of son of this

19 neighbour.

20 Q. [Interpretation] On the 16th of October, you said you remembered

21 the event. Now you're telling us that you don't remember. So please make

22 up your mind so that we can move on.

23 A. I told you a long time ago that -- not to hold me to the dates. I

24 said I attended some celebrations. I don't know how it's gone down. How

25 could I have said that I knew exactly when he was born, on the 16th?

1 Q. So, Mr. Izetbegovic, you do not seem to understand me. When I'm

2 saying the 16th of October, 2001, I'm relying on the transcript of your

3 testimony here. I'm not saying that he was born then. So let me remind

4 you. You said then, and that is on the 16th of October, here before this

5 Trial Chamber: [In English] "As we were neighbours, next-door neighbours,

6 we celebrated when he was born. I remember that."

7 [Interpretation] I'm asking you now, do you remember when his son

8 was born and the fact that you celebrated the event or do you not

9 remember? I'm not asking you for the date.

10 A. I celebrated many events. I remember that I celebrated the birth

11 of two children with him. I can't remember exactly which one now. So if

12 it is so important which birth it was and when he was born, I moved out,

13 so I didn't know the boy well after that.

14 Q. Yes, but we are now talking about the event when you entered the

15 military helicopter at Pelagicevo. And bearing in mind everything that

16 you said, that you knew his father and that you were family friends, do

17 you still abide by what you said earlier, and that is that the surname

18 Zurovac was written on the coffin and that it was the coffin of the son of

19 your friend whose name was Zarko Zurovac? Yes or no.

20 A. It was written -- the word "Zurovac" was written on the coffin. I

21 cannot claim I remember the first name. But it did say "Zurovac" 100 per

22 cent, and I assumed it was the son of Zarko Zurovac, because I didn't know

23 any other Zurovac family in Orasje, and I know there weren't any other

24 Zurovac families there.

25 Q. In your testimony on the 16th of October before this Trial

1 Chamber, you said the following [in English] inter alia --

2 MR. PANTELIC: He's speaking about this person in the coffin.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, how important is this?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Very important, Madam President, because I want to

5 establish whether we hear the truth here or not truth. So then --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness has explained that he saw a coffin with

7 the name "Zurovac." He remembers that. He has said that so many times.

8 He assumed that the person in the coffin must be the son of Zurovac,

9 because according to him, he knew the Zurovac family in Orasje and it was

10 the only family then. So what is the problem?

11 MR. PANTELIC: The problem is, Madam President, that he said

12 something which I just want to read on 16th of October, and I want to

13 clarify that thing.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I hope it is an important issue to your defence,

15 because what is important here is that there was a coffin.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And also what is important for Defence, Madam

17 President, is whether we have reliable witnesses here or not, or whether

18 we have the truth or not.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: I know you have to deal with credibility, but this

20 is not the way to deal with it.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I just want to finish this line of

22 questioning.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: I hope you're finishing this particular point --

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: -- because it doesn't carry any importance at all.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour pleases, I understand when

2 Mr. Pantelic started this line of questioning about the coffin what he was

3 trying to achieve, and with all due respect, he has achieved that. This

4 witness has said now twice that he's 100 per cent sure of the identity of

5 the person who was in the coffin, and we can contrast that with other

6 evidence that we have heard and we can all draw our own conclusions. It's

7 like trying to draw blood out of a stone. You can't get any better than

8 100 per cent certainty by this witness. The point's made, isn't it?.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And usually it's important to remember that

10 you have your closing arguments --

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: -- and you can deal on the contradictions if you see

13 they are contradictions. All right.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. There is some other contradiction and

15 I just want to clarify that. So if you permit me, Madam President.

16 Q. [Interpretation] So in your statement of the 16th of October, you

17 said, among other things, the following - I will read it in English - and

18 this relates to the son of Zarko Zurovac, who was allegedly inside this

19 coffin. You said he [Previous translation continues]...

20 So that means you saw his face. How did you know how he was

21 dressed? Was the coffin open? Did it have a glass cover or what? How

22 could you establish that he was dressed? Please answer that for me and

23 then we can move on.

24 A. I never said any such thing. The coffin was closed and carried

25 inside, and I don't know who could have written any such thing.

1 Q. Very well. So we've cleared that up. It must be an error in the

2 interpretation, which is quite possible, and we've cleared that up. But I

3 would like to know who could have added any such thing.

4 A. I'm not retarded to have said anything like that. The coffin was

5 closed. So how could I say that he was dressed? There's no logic there.

6 So I think something is being planted there for me.

7 Q. I was just reading the official transcript of these proceedings.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: You can get that correction through the audio unit.

9 I hope this time it will be done so that we get a written transcript as

10 corrected.

11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Let us go back, Mr. Izetbegovic, but really, to be efficient,

13 please say yes or no in answer to my questions regarding this event that

14 we were discussing yesterday.

15 The Prosecutor seemed to indicate that there were some false death

16 sentences which were threatening you, and this is something that the

17 President of this Chamber accepted, so this is a very serious issue, and

18 that is why I wish to clear it up.

19 My first question, Mr. Izetbegovic, is: In your statement to the

20 investigators in 1994 and 1995, you said the following:

21 "On one occasion the death sentence was read out for Tihic and

22 myself. The guard brought in a newspaper, Vecernje Novosti, a Belgrade

23 newspaper. Tihic read out that we had been sentenced to death and that we

24 had been sentenced to death by our own party as traitors."

25 Something to that effect was stated by Mr. Tihic, too, in this

1 courtroom.

2 A. I apologise. Please be brief in your questions, because by the

3 time you come to the end of your statement, I forget what you were going

4 to say. I have a feeling that you are trying to mislead me.

5 Q. I cannot shorten your own statement. It is my duty to read it out

6 in extenso. My question now is --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ... you can read it

8 slowly, especially slowly.

9 MR. PANTELIC: I just did it. I just did it.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Izetbegovic: This statement that

11 you gave to the investigator, do you agree with it? Is it correct?

12 A. Will you please read it out once again which was this statement

13 and ask me to comment on it alone, and then move forward.

14 MR. PANTELIC: With your permission, maybe it would be better that

15 I can give this -- his own statement. Maybe he can read it. Maybe it's

16 better for him.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: In Serbo-Croat.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry? In Serbo-Croat, yes.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: In Serbo-Croat?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Just indicate the paragraph to the usher. Then he

22 can indicate it to the witness.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I already made the line here.

24 Q. [Interpretation] So please read that, Mr. Izetbegovic, slowly, and

25 tell us whether you confirm what you said or not.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: And the witness should read it aloud so that we have

2 it on record, since --

3 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: You want the witness to read it out loud?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: In Serbo-Croat.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Into the microphone, you mean?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps the usher could -- perhaps --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought the microphone was on.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: It is. He's intent on reading it. Perhaps if

12 Mr. Pantelic could ask him to re-read it out loud.

13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, will you please read out aloud, because the Court

15 and the Prosecutor think that would be a good idea. Read out the

16 highlighted lines.

17 A. But it's been read out already. It's been read out once, the

18 death sentence for Tihic and me.

19 "The guard brought a newspaper, the Vecernje Novosti, a Belgrade

20 newspaper. Tihic read out that we had been sentenced to death and that we

21 had been sentenced to death by our own party as traitors."

22 Q. If you don't mind, read out the next sentence, too.

23 A. But it hasn't been underlined.

24 Q. Never mind.

25 A. "One of the guards asked why I didn't react, and I answered that I

1 had never heard of a political party condemning people to death."

2 Q. Next sentence, please.

3 A. Why didn't you underline it?

4 "Later on, in Sarajevo, I found a newspaper in which it was said

5 that I had actually been executed, that the death sentence had been

6 carried out."

7 I don't know what's unclear there.

8 Q. Everything is clear to me too. So you still abide by what you

9 said then?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. We now have to clear up something that you said before

12 this Court on the 16th of October, because there are some things that are

13 not clear, and this is partially reflected on the understanding of the

14 Trial Chamber of that particular fact.

15 You said in this Court that on the basis of certain evidence and

16 proof, which might have been false, and because of the procedure from

17 Samac and at Batajnica, were sentenced [as interpreted] to death by the

18 Yugoslav authorities, and that then Tihic read out that sentence to you at

19 Batajnica. I think, on the basis of all these facts, that in fact it was

20 in the Belgrade papers that the news item was published and printed that

21 you had been sentenced to death by your party in Sarajevo, and that that

22 was read out to you, the newspaper article, and not an official sentencing

23 act of any kind. Could you clarify that for me, please?

24 A. Thank you for being so persistent. I shall try and answer.

25 Mr. Attorney, I think that you will recall, and I think I remember very

1 well, that I said that I didn't see an act of any kind, that it was read

2 out from the newspapers, and that there was a document, but that I did not

3 see it; I did not have it in my hands. Perhaps Mr. Tihic will be able to

4 answer that better when you see him here, because I didn't have the actual

5 act or document in my hands. I saw that he was just holding a piece of

6 paper in his hand. He wasn't near me for me to see, nor did I dare ask to

7 see the piece of paper.

8 Q. Yes. I understand that. Thank you for your answer. So what the

9 Prosecutor asked you re: the 16th of October is, to all intents and

10 purposes, incorrect, and the answer you gave him is not correct. I am

11 speaking about the fact that -- actually, what I mean is that the

12 Prosecutor probably misunderstood the whole episode, which led him to ask

13 you the questions he did.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You can't make that conclusion.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Just go ahead with your questions. You are dealing

17 with the witness --

18 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: -- not the Prosecutor.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, absolutely.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: And stick to your cross-examination, please.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Yes, sorry, Judge.

23 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, may I just interpose with a

24 clarification from the witness.

25 Mr. Izetbegovic, can you clarify how many times were you told,

1 were you told, that you were sentenced to death? Was it once or twice?

2 And where was this done: in a park or in an office?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At Batajnica, in a cell, in the cell

4 we were sitting in. We were told once, and that was not repeated.

5 JUDGE SINGH: And was Tihic there?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Tihic was reading it out.

7 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Unfortunately, Your Honours, in spite of your

10 instructions and directions, the Defence were not provided by

11 the, actually, sort of official transcript, so I have to read from my

12 draft version, and the pages are not corresponding to the regular pages.

13 So that's a problem. It's a rough version.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic [sic], the Prosecutor asked you on the

15 16th of October:

16 [In English] "On this occasion when you were lined up and told

17 that the death sentence has been passed upon you, were you informed for

18 what it was for? In other words, was there some connection between the

19 imposition of this death sentence and overthrowing the system or whatever

20 that you had been informed about in Bosanski Samac?"

21 [Interpretation] That is what the Prosecutor asked you, and this

22 is your answer. Listen to me carefully, please:

23 "It was mostly based on everything from Bosanski Samac, and they

24 kept talking about the undermining and overthrowing of the system and the

25 failure to report for the mobilisation of the army, that he hadn't

1 responded to the call-up. Then I was seen as a deserter and I said,

2 'Well, it is no longer my army. It was once, but it is no longer my

3 army. It is a different country altogether, a different state

4 altogether.' That was my defend [sic]. I defended myself in that way."

5 [Interpretation] You see, Mr. Izetbegovic, you make no mention of

6 a newspaper article here at all or that somebody had fabricated your death

7 sentence from Sarajevo. You are building up your case in direct response

8 to the Prosecutor's question, that on the basis of certain facts from

9 Samac and from Belgrade, you were sentenced to death, and that is what

10 this Trial Chamber understood, that it was a sort of psychological

11 duress. And I'm taking you back to your statements of 1994 and 1995 and

12 I'm reminding you of Tihic's statement. And I state - and this is my

13 thesis, and please put me right if I'm wrong - that Tihic read out

14 something from some newspaper, or explained this to you, and that it was a

15 newspaper article and not an official sentencing document. Am I right or

16 am I not? Please answer so we can move on.

17 A. I have already said it all. Do I have to repeat ad infinitum,

18 until I go mad? I think it should be clear to you by now.

19 Q. Would you please answer my question, Mr. Izetbegovic, and the

20 question is the following: Did you on that occasion have knowledge of the

21 fact that your party in Sarajevo brought a death sentence of any kind

22 against you and Tihic and that that was read out to you by Tihic? Yes or

23 no?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. You mentioned - and we're still in Batajnica. Let's

1 stay in Batajnica. You mentioned in your statement that -- you referred

2 to a certain General Tumanov in a situation in which you were having

3 problems with the investigations and the proceedings against you, and you

4 asked them to call General Tumanov. You wanted to see General Tumanov.

5 Is that correct?

6 A. Of course I asked to see him, because they didn't believe anything

7 I was saying.

8 Q. Just a moment, please. Let's pause. Can you explain to me

9 briefly your relationship with General Tumanov?

10 A. I don't think it is my duty to give you information of that kind.

11 I don't think I need do so, especially as I don't think this is the

12 subject we are dealing with in this Trial Chamber.

13 MR. PANTELIC: First of all intervention for the transcript. It's

14 T-U-M-A-N-O-V instead of "O", Tumanov.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the name.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. The name of this General.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Izetbegovic. I'm not quite certain that

18 we do not have the right to learn of the nature of your relationship with

19 the general. We have several ways open to us. If you have anything

20 confidential, we can move into a private or closed session, but at all

21 events, we do have the right to learn about everything -- learn everything

22 about something that is mentioned in the proceedings and if it has any

23 bearing on this trial.

24 So I'm asking you once again, and I should like you to answer me

25 briefly, what is your relationship with General Tumanov? You said that

1 you didn't wish to answer that question, but I'm asking you to do so now.

2 A. Well, as you were so nice about it, let me try. The nature of our

3 relationship or how we came to know each other was through business, the

4 business that we did with each other with respect to the exchange of

5 Vukovar citizens, nothing else. That's how we came to know each other, on

6 the basis of that exchange. We had lunch together. We talked during

7 lunch. He left a very good impression on me. I thought he was a fine

8 man, and I thought that in that difficult period for me that it would --

9 he come in handy. And as you know, somebody drowning catches at straws.

10 Q. Yes. I understand that situation fully. Tell me, please. How

11 many times did you meet with General Tumanov approximately?

12 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, where is that going to take us? I

13 mean, where are you going from there? Please go on to the ingredients of

14 the charge and the elements which your client is facing.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will follow that direction.

16 It is only one question. I want to establish the nature of this relation

17 and then to make some checking on the field, because this name was appear

18 for the first time in these proceedings, not in his previous statement.

19 So probably because it's related to the process of exchanges on the

20 territory of Bosanski Samac in 1991 and as well as 1992 to some extent, we

21 don't know yet, I just want to establish some facts, because this is

22 opportunity for this witness to tell us. Just the last question, Your

23 Honour.

24 Q. [Interpretation] General Tumanov is which branch of the armed

25 forces, the infantry, the navy, or the air force? Tell me that and we can

1 move on.

2 A. I wasn't able to notice that on the uniform that he wore. It

3 wasn't marked, except for his rank, of course.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izetbegovic.

5 A. You're welcome.

6 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, in your statement, the one you gave to the

7 Prosecutor, when you spoke about certain political activities in Samac,

8 you said that you relatively frequently had contacts with the other

9 parties, the SDS party and the HDZ, in order to transcend the problems and

10 to try and find a peaceful solution to events in 1992. Is that right?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. You said that about a week prior to the attack, the SDS organised

13 a meeting in the municipality. Now, if the attack was on the 17th, this

14 would mean that it might have been around the 10th of April, that meeting

15 in the municipality. Is that right?

16 A. I keep saying that I don't remember dates. I'm very bad with

17 dates. That is one of my faults. I remember dates very poorly, even

18 telephone numbers. But approximately, taken broadly and as there was no

19 time to hold a second meeting, I can conclude that it might have been

20 around about that date.

21 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, I understand your situation. These are criminal

22 proceedings. Places, dates, descriptions are very important matters, and

23 that is the crux of my cross-examination. But if you say you don't

24 remember, well and fine. That's another matter. And bearing the mind the

25 fact that your memory was fresher in 1994 and 1995 and that you said,

1 "Approximately one week prior to the attack I was at a meeting convened

2 by the SDS and chaired by Blagoje Simic." Do you still stand by that time

3 category? Was it at that period? And that's why I'm trying to refresh

4 your memory, as indeed my learned friend of the Prosecution did before me,

5 because you're now talking several years after -- you were talking several

6 years after the event.

7 A. Yes, but so -- I needed a lot of time to become stable, to

8 stabilise myself. I can't remember the date.

9 Q. Thank you. You told us yesterday that with members of your own

10 party and with members of other parties, you followed the efforts of the

11 International Community diligently with respect to solving the problems in

12 Bosnia. That's true, is it not?

13 A. Yes, it's true.

14 Q. You also told us that certain topics linked to delineation in

15 Bosnia, demarcation on an ethnic basis, and certain constitutional

16 solutions at that time were the overriding topic elsewhere and in Samac as

17 well by the same token. Is that -- would that be correct to say?

18 A. Yes, but I think that a lot of things began in Samac as well. I

19 do not exclude the HDZ when I say that.

20 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, in your statement, you said that you were present

21 in the municipality, going about your business, and you were the

22 vice-president of the executive board at the time, and that you came to

23 the meeting where the representatives of other municipalities and parties

24 were present; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Excuse me, counsel. When you say "in your

2 statement," do you mean the statement that he gave to the Prosecutors?

3 MR. PANTELIC: No, here.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: His testimony.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, his testimony. Sorry.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: It would be easier to follow.

7 MR. PANTELIC: I have to make reference, yes.

8 JUDGE SINGH: When you refer to the statement here in the Court,

9 just refer to it as the transcript. I think that will differentiate it

10 from the other statement.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Counsel can go ahead.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Sorry, Your Honours. Just for your

15 reference, it was quite extensive way of -- line of questioning, so it's

16 between page 2221 and 2248. So this is a part of this particular meeting

17 that was called.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Therefore, Mr. Izetbegovic, nobody called you to

19 attend the meeting; is that right?

20 A. No. I received no invitation.

21 Q. You were the vice-president of the executive board of the

22 municipality; is that correct?

23 A. Correct, Mr. Lawyer.

24 Q. You were the vice-president of the SDA party in Bosanski Samac;

25 correct?

1 A. Yes, correct.

2 Q. And on that day - we don't know when because of your memory - came

3 to the municipal hall where you encountered the representatives of various

4 parties from the surrounding areas and various political leaders of the

5 different parties; is that right?

6 A. Right. And there were military structures as well.

7 Q. On the occasion, you said -- that is to say, in your testimony

8 before this Trial Chamber, you said that they were the representatives of

9 Odzak; is that right?

10 A. Yes. I enumerated some of the ones I knew.

11 Q. Let's just move forward. Answer my questions. Odzak; is that

12 right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Orasje, Gradacac, Bosanski Samac?

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. Those were the presidents of the municipalities, because you said

17 that by hierarchy they were automatically the presidents of their parties

18 as well.

19 A. Well, I assume so, yes. The mayors or presidents of the municipal

20 assembly were there. I knew them, yes.

21 Q. Among other things, you said that your party president was not --

22 did not attend.

23 A. I don't think he was present. I don't remember exactly. He

24 tended to steer clear of meetings, political meetings.

25 Q. Yes. You say that on page 228 -- 2228, lines 14 and 15, that he

1 was not present.

2 Mr. Izetbegovic, would you agree with me that in fact the topic of

3 the meeting was one of the activities, inter-party activities in the

4 region in order to discuss certain solutions of the International

5 Community about the peaceful solutions to the situation in Bosnia and the

6 different divisions therein? Yes or no?

7 A. No. We did not have any --

8 Q. No. Just a moment. No. That will do.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the witness --

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. di Fazio.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness must be permitted to finish his answer,

12 and this is a very important area of evidence, as we know. So I don't see

13 that it's fair on the witness for his answer to be -- to be cut off. The

14 witness started -- started to say, "We did not have any" and then was just

15 cut off by Mr. Pantelic.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes, I see. I see the transcript.

17 MR. PANTELIC: But, Madam President, that was, you know, occasion

18 for the examination-in-chief. I mean, this is cross-examination. If you

19 want to mix, you know, principles from examination-in-chief --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Mr. Pantelic, don't waste time.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Let the witness complete his answer, and he's going

23 to complete the answer.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you.

25 A. You said an attempt to divide up Bosnia. Now, why are you

1 constantly leading me to the terrain of the entire republic? I have said

2 umpteen times here that I am talking only about the events in Bosanski

3 Samac itself, and that is the only subject that I am qualified to talk

4 about. So very often in your questions you tend to lead in some state

5 qualities, and I don't want to enter into the realm of the state. So

6 please don't do that. It wouldn't be fair towards me. I consider that I

7 have been fair and said everything I know so far.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Witness, witness --

9 A. Perhaps not everything --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Stick to answers. You and counsel are not to

11 lecture each other. Stick to the answers, give your answer as correctly

12 as you can, and if you have to add that, "I'm limiting my answer to

13 Bosanski Samac," say so. All right?

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

15 clear, and I do apologise.

16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Therefore, Mr. Izetbegovic, we cannot avoid or sidestep the

18 influence of the International Community on Samac and the region, can we?

19 I ask you to take a look at the map.

20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, please, would you assist

21 us? It is the map linked to the -- showing the municipalities of Bosanski

22 Samac, Odzak, Gradacac, and Orasje.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ... exhibit number,

24 unless it's a new map.

25 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour. I don't want to tender it in

1 evidence. This is just for the purposes of identification about the

2 general geographic area. It's a map from the Prosecutor, actually,

3 witness expert who should appear here, just in order to clarify some

4 things. I don't want to tender that in evidence, not yet, I mean.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: We can't use the maps which are already an exhibit?

6 MR. PANTELIC: No, because this is a very good map with the good

7 lines of the borders of Dayton Peace Accord, so just to facilitate the

8 explanation of this particular witness. That was my --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just wanted to be clear whether we can have

10 it as your exhibit, because you are using it.

11 MR. PANTELIC: It's not necessary. It's just illustration.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: I think counsel is referring to a map from the

14 report of Ewa Tabeau, who is proposed to be called as an expert witness in

15 this case. If that is so, then I have no objection to that map being

16 shown to the witness and then marked for identification. The report will

17 subsequently be produced into evidence.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Right.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Yes, we can proceed along those lines.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. Just to --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: The map is from the report of the witness who is yet

23 to come, and it will be produced by the Prosecution.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Please. You can put it on the ELMO, if you would

25 be so kind, and then ...

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Izetbegovic, please take the pointer. If you

2 prefer to look at the map directly, please do so, whichever you prefer.

3 Do you prefer to look at the screen or the document itself?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, please, we would like to have a map by

5 itself. Can you zoom it, but -- we have the larger -- the whole map,

6 please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Izetbegovic, what do you prefer: to look at

8 the screen or the map itself?

9 A. I don't know what you're interested in.

10 Q. I'm interested in you pointing to the red line. You're a person

11 who understands maps. You were involved in construction and town

12 planning. Show us the top and the bottom red line, which we will agree, I

13 think, is the dividing line on the basis of the Dayton agreements.

14 A. This red line.

15 Q. Yes, that's fine.

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. So those are the dividing lines on the basis of Dayton?

18 A. I don't know. This is the first time I see this map.

19 Q. Very well. On the left-hand side, please point out the

20 municipality of Odzak.

21 A. [Indicates]

22 Q. Please point to Bosanski Samac, the municipality of Bosanski

23 Samac.

24 A. [Indicates]

25 Q. Orasje, please.

1 A. [Indicates]

2 Q. Modrica.

3 A. [Indicates]

4 Q. And Gradacac.

5 A. [Indicates]

6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: So the witness pointed out the areas asked, as shown

8 on the map.

9 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Izetbegovic. Could you please

11 tell me now: Do you have any knowledge that Odzak municipality was

12 divided according to Dayton?

13 A. What I learnt from the newspapers, that's all.

14 Q. So your answer is yes, you do know that it was divided. Will you

15 tell us aloud, please, not just nodding.

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the wrong conclusion, because the witness has

18 said what he learnt from the newspapers. It's important to differentiate

19 that, what we learn from newspapers and what is a fact.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. He made a nodding by his head, Your

21 Honour, and therefore --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because it's possible to mislead him.

23 MR. PANTELIC: And then I just tried to clarify this thing,

24 because --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no.

1 MR. PANTELIC: -- it is not on the transcript.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Once he answers according to the way he

3 understands, you leave it there. You don't make a conclusion. You are

4 the same people -- I think the Defence raised that motion, I remember.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Izetbegovic, you probably know from the media

7 or from some other source that the municipality of Bosanski Samac has also

8 been divided according to Dayton, if we look at this map.

9 A. Also from the press.

10 Q. I see. From the press. But the press can sometimes be a good

11 source of information. Was the Orasje municipality also divided according

12 to Dayton?

13 A. I suppose everything was based on Dayton. I don't know. I don't

14 know much about these things.

15 Q. Was the municipality of Gradacac also divided according to Dayton?

16 A. I don't know why we're talking at length about Dayton. I can't

17 discuss it. I had no functions, I had no involvement. Please let me free

18 of Dayton.

19 Q. Yes, Mr. Izetbegovic. I just wish to see how much you know about

20 what was happening in Bosnia, in your country. You're an educated man.

21 Nothing more than that.

22 A. Yes, but you have no right to exploit that. That is my private

23 affair.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: And in addition to that, we stick to the indictment,

25 Mr. Pantelic.

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: I know it's very tempting to go into other matters,

3 but we have a trial here.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. This is very much related to the

5 issue that I just raised, I mean the meeting in the municipality,

6 obviously, because of the dividing of the municipalities.

7 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, this map is self-explanatory. You

8 have got in the legend to the Dayton line, and I don't see your need to

9 ask this witness questions on the division of these areas. It's

10 self-explanatory.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, you're right. But still, this

12 witness is trying to - I don't know for which reason - to avoid direct

13 answers, you know, because this is obviously a fact of common knowledge.

14 So it was just that I might try to establish some facts with regard to the

15 events in 1992 and with the actual situation.

16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Izetbegovic, do you remember, since your

17 party president did not attend the meeting, could you mention some other

18 names and personalities who were present when you were discussing the

19 division of these municipalities?

20 A. I've already said that once - you can look it up in the

21 transcript - and I abide by what I said.

22 Q. Actually, the problem is that, according to my information, your

23 president, Mr. Sulejman Tihic, did attend that meeting, and it's very

24 strange that you don't know that your president was there if you yourself

25 were there. So that is what I wish to learn from you.

1 A. We would probably have been sitting together, but as I was alone,

2 then he certainly wasn't there. He may have come later and sat in a

3 corner somewhere, but I didn't see him.

4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Izetbegovic, for

5 that answer.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: How much more time? We've had more than one and a

7 half hours yesterday.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Ten minutes. Yes. As I said, Madam President, it

9 wasn't my fault. I mean, if the witness --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. How many more minutes?

11 MR. PANTELIC: -- yes or no, we would -- otherwise it's a story

12 and story again. Not more than ten minutes.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, let us now address some aspects of your

16 personality, because it is important for us to establish your

17 credibility. You left your place as president of the party to Mr. Tihic.

18 We're talking about the year 1992.

19 A. I didn't leave it to him. We had an assembly meeting, there were

20 elections, and he was elected. I was not.

21 Q. You have a high opinion of Mr. Tihic. He was a former judge, a

22 former prosecutor, former lawyer. He was a respectable member of your

23 community, wasn't he?

24 A. Yes, I do have a high opinion of him, and he held high positions

25 at the same time as Mr. Zaric and Mr. Pisarevic. They held three key

1 positions, and that is common knowledge: state security, the police, the

2 courts, the public prosecutor's office. You know how important those

3 places are. They held those positions. I'm not sure whether that was at

4 the same time, but all three of them held these high positions.

5 Q. Please be kind enough, Mr. Izetbegovic. Let us follow the

6 instructions of this Trial Chamber. If you keep elaborating your

7 answers - I'm not asking you that - we will spend the rest of the day

8 here, so please let us follow the instructions we have been given. When

9 I'm asking you a specific, concrete question, please give me a concrete

10 answer.

11 So you have a great deal of faith in the personal and professional

12 qualities of Mr. Tihic. You consider his assessments to be realistic and

13 founded on --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we're going too far.

15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] -- an analytical approach.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: We are going too far, because Mr. Tihic is a witness

17 in this case.

18 MR. PANTELIC: It is a very important issue here.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I don't think that's the way to go about it.

20 Just ask the question you want to ask. For the reason that he is a

21 witness in this trial, it is important to limit how far you put the

22 integrity of this witness to another witness, regardless of the fact that

23 they were in the same political party or they lived in the same area where

24 the events are being discussed.

25 MR. PANTELIC: It's very much connected, Your Honour. Just be

1 patient, just a few seconds, and you will see the answer.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm very patient, Mr. Pantelic, otherwise I would

3 have ordered you out.

4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation].

5 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, you believe that what Mr. Sulejman Tihic

6 says - and he was in the meantime elected president of the SDA party for

7 the whole of Bosnia - carries weight when he says something or writes

8 something. He has prestige; yes or no?

9 A. It is impossible to compare those days and the present.

10 Q. So in those days, you wouldn't say of him that he was reliable

11 when he says something and when he analyses something. We are talking

12 about those days, 1992.

13 A. I will not discuss anybody's moral integrity, and not his either.

14 Q. I didn't ask you that, Mr. Izetbegovic. Let me ask you the

15 following: You like to socialise, you like to go out to restaurants, you

16 like to have fun, don't you?

17 A. Yes, and sometimes I have a drink too many.

18 Q. That's fine. The fact that you get drunk occasionally absolutely

19 does not affect your regular obligations and your daily life; you're not

20 dependent on alcohol?

21 A. No. I never was addicted, and particularly not today.

22 Q. But from some sources, Mr. Tihic believes that you and Alija

23 Fitozovic were prone to alcohol consumption in 1992, and he had problems

24 with you in party activities; is that correct or not?

25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --

1 A. No.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, that's an objectional

3 question, for several reasons. It's, A, irrelevant; and B, it's asking

4 this witness to comment on what Mr. Tihic thinks. Now, why doesn't

5 Mr. Pantelic simply ask Mr. Tihic that if it's somehow relevant? So for

6 that reason, I object to the question and the answer. And indeed, there

7 have been a number of questions of this witness asking him,

8 Mr. Izetbegovic, what Tihic thinks of him.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: I've already given instructions to Mr. Pantelic. He

10 seems to be thinking that he can go around this issue another way.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: I haven't objected thus far, thinking that we'll

12 get to something that I can grasp, but we're not getting there, and so I

13 must object to any further questions that ask this witness what Tihic

14 thinks of him. The person to ask that is Tihic.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The objection is sustained. I think the

16 problem appears to be to differentiate how to deal with credibility issues

17 regarding any of the witnesses. I think that is a problem. Do give the

18 questions to the witness dealing with himself.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, but --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: I did say do not ask him to discuss the characters

21 of other Prosecution witnesses, especially for Tihic, who is yet to come

22 for cross-examination.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. That was not my intention, Your

24 Honour. It was just a previous question to establish the sort of

25 standards between the -- I mean, within one group of persons, whether they

1 respect each other or not, you know, and then to see what the weight of

2 certain opinions might arise. But I --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You see, that's the very danger. This is a

4 criminal trial. It's not a political meeting.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. It's even not a meeting in the

6 cafe or bar, I mean, although Mr. Izetbegovic was very extensive about

7 these explanations.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: You have five minutes.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree with me, Mr. Izetbegovic, in

11 saying that your party in Bosanski Samac invested a lot of effort to arm

12 members of your party for the purpose of self-protection; yes or no?

13 A. No.

14 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree with me, Mr. Izetbegovic, that

15 together with Alija Fitozovic, you were involved in illegal activities of

16 arming? You brought in large quantities of explosives from Croatia. Yes

17 or no?

18 A. No.

19 Q. You will agree with me, Mr. Izetbegovic, that within your party

20 you had a Reconnaissance Attachment, a Hunters Detachment, a Sabotage

21 Detachment, and a detachment for obstacles and surveyance; is that right?

22 A. As far as I know, no.

23 Q. You will agree with me, Mr. Izetbegovic, that your activities with

24 Alija Fitozovic were directly coordinated with representatives of the

25 Croatian side in Slavonski Brod on Croatian territory?

1 A. No.

2 Q. I would now like to clarify a few things about your property in

3 Samac. The Prosecutor tried to create a situation as if you were having

4 certain problems to regain your property over there.

5 In the first place, Mr. Izetbegovic, you are a co-owner of a house

6 in Bosanski Samac; is that right?

7 A. The largest owner of the house I am living in. There are two more

8 sisters and children of two brothers. Most of it has been carried over to

9 me. Mr. Pisarevic drew up the testament, so he knows best.

10 Q. I just want to clarify a few things, that's all. You are not the

11 100 per cent owner of that house. Yes or no?

12 A. If you want to say that I made a false statement, don't put it to

13 me like that. Such questions can't be answered with a yes or no.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You're using the same language, so you have

15 forgotten that the interpreters are waiting to interpret.

16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, it is not my intention to accuse you of falsely

18 testifying, I just want to clarify a point, please. Are you the owner or

19 a co-owner of that house?

20 A. Those are unfair blows. I've told you I have the majority share

21 of that house.

22 Q. Thank you. But that is still your property. That property has

23 been entered as your property in the real estate books; is that right?

24 A. After my father's death, I am not sure whether we have regulated

25 those things in the books, in the cadastre.

1 Q. But you have every right to do what you will with that property,

2 to sell it or to rent it out or to do what you will; is that right? Yes

3 or no?

4 A. Yes. That is what it should be.

5 Q. The gist of my question, Mr. Izetbegovic, is that there were no

6 restrictions placed on the part of the authorities in Bosanski Samac with

7 respect to your property, no ban on selling it or any -- any restrictions

8 whatsoever regarding your right to fully control that property. That's

9 all that I wish to establish here.

10 A. I said that I have still not filed any request, so I still am not

11 certain as to what I wish to do.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izetbegovic. One more point and that will be it.

13 So we can agree, I think, that the houses and property of all the

14 inhabitants of Samac, regardless of ethnicity, Serbs, you mentioned Dusan

15 Simic, your teacher Sofia, and others, of course, were shelled by the

16 Croatian part and in the conflict and that virtually all houses were

17 damaged regardless of the ethnicity of their owners. Yes or no?

18 A. I didn't say who did the shelling.

19 Q. Yes, but they were damaged during the war operations?

20 A. Yes, during the war operations.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: But let's clarify that answer. According to you,

22 Witness, that was not done by the Croatian authorities, the shelling, the

23 destruction of the houses. Is that part of your answer or you don't know

24 who did the shelling, who destroyed the houses, all you know is that the

25 houses were destroyed?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The houses were destroyed. Whose

2 shell fell on them, I don't know.

3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Thank you. One more question. In connection with the

5 circumstances in the surroundings of Samac in March and April 1992,

6 Mr. Izetbegovic, are you familiar with certain criminal acts committed by

7 Croatian forces against the Serb population in the villages of Sijekovac

8 and the village of Lijesce left of Samac? Do you have any knowledge about

9 that?

10 A. No, I have no knowledge of that.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours. That is the end of my

13 cross-examination.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Re-examination by the Prosecution.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

16 Re-examined by Mr. di Fazio:

17 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, just on these last few questions and answers, you

18 referred to houses being destroyed and damaged. Was your house destroyed

19 or damaged?

20 A. As two shells fell on it from the garden side, the staircase caved

21 in. How it was destroyed, I don't know. So to this day it is not

22 possible to climb upstairs.

23 Q. But the building is still there, is still standing? It may have

24 received damage?

25 A. Yes. Yes. The building still stands.

1 Q. Thank you. Now, very briefly, very briefly indeed, I'd like to go

2 back to this question of coffins. On the flight in the helicopter from

3 Bijeljina -- sorry, from Pelagicevo to Batajnica, you've told us about a

4 coffin you saw and the name on the coffin. Was that the only coffin in

5 the helicopter?

6 A. The only one.

7 Q. Okay. You've also given evidence of a flight that you took in a

8 helicopter from Batajnica to Pale. Were there any coffins in that

9 helicopter?

10 A. No, there weren't any.

11 Q. Thank you. On Wednesday the 17th, you were being asked questions

12 by Mr. Pisarevic, and he put to you or suggested that there was a plan of

13 attack, a plan of attack on Bosanski Samac which was made up or devised by

14 the command of an armed unit of the SDA together with the Croatian Defence

15 Council of Bosanski Samac municipality, and you said that you didn't know

16 of any such plan. If such a plan had in fact existed, would you normally

17 have been made aware of it?

18 A. Probably I would have known because I was in the board of the

19 party. So surely I would have known.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness just be given the series of

21 exhibits that were produced by Mr. Pisarevic, D2/4, D3/4, D4/4, D5/4,

22 D6/4, and I'll just deal with them briefly in sequence.

23 Q. First of all, D2/4. Did you have that document?

24 A. Yes, I see it.

25 Q. It has at the top, at least in the English translation, a

1 reference to "annex number 2," "copy number 2." What does "annex" mean

2 there?

3 A. It is probably the document I saw before.

4 Q. The system of writing "annex" and "copy" at the top right-hand of

5 a page, was that some sort of system that the SDA --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. di Fazio, I'm sure --

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, I didn't see counsel.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: The one on the screen is in English and the accused

9 may not follow.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. I do apologise. Perhaps the B/C/S

11 version could be placed on the ELMO. That's again English. Yes. There

12 we go. And could we just lower it a bit, Mr. Usher, so that we can see

13 the top right-hand corner as well. Thank you.

14 Q. It's a very quick, brief question. You see at the top right-hand

15 corner there are the words "annex number 2" and "copy number" with a "2"

16 handwritten in. Is that system of identification of documents that the

17 SDA used at the time, back in 1992?

18 A. Under no circumstances, I don't know.

19 Q. Also, the document on the face of it lists the president and the

20 members of the municipality Crisis Staff. Is that an exhaustive list of

21 the members of this Crisis Staff? In other words, were there other people

22 also on the Crisis Staff?

23 A. There were people attached. This was the backbone. There were

24 others who participated in discussions when we had them.

25 Q. Thank you. When you look at the document itself, D2/4, the B/C/S

1 version, is there any way that you can tell if that document existed by

2 itself or was part of another larger document? In other words, is that

3 page taken from a larger document or did it exist by itself or can't you

4 say?

5 A. I am not familiar with the larger document, so I don't know

6 anything more about that.

7 Q. Thank you. Now look at D3/4, please.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we have the B/C/S version placed on the

9 ELMO.

10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have an objection to

11 the transcript. The witness said, "I am not familiar with the larger

12 document, so I don't know anything more about that." "I think it was on

13 its own," it is not entered into the transcript. Perhaps the Prosecutor

14 could correct that.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the complete answer.

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. We would like the complete

17 answer to be entered into the transcript.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I will be happy to do that. I'm just not following

20 what -- I'm sorry. If Your Honour pleases.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Page 41, line 4. "I'm not familiar with the larger

22 document, so I don't know anything more about that." Defence counsel says

23 that was not the complete answer.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

25 Q. Mr. Izetbegovic, I asked you about D2/4 and whether it formed part

1 of a larger document or whether it stood by itself, and you said -- you

2 gave an answer. Can you -- to the effect that you were not familiar with

3 the larger document and you don't know anything more about that. Can you

4 just try and now repeat the answer that you gave, your full answer that

5 you gave?

6 A. I do not know that there was a larger document, and I was not

7 familiar with it at all. I don't know.

8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, but all of

9 us here who speak B/C/S heard the witness say, "It was on its own," and I

10 think that the Prosecutor could ask the witness whether he said that,

11 rather than giving a fresh answer.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you. That's precisely what I was

13 trying to find out, and I'm grateful to my learned friend for pointing

14 that out.

15 Q. Did the document exist on its own? Is that what you're saying?

16 In other words, it wasn't part of a larger document?

17 A. I think it was not part of a larger document. I wasn't familiar

18 with it. I would have known. I said I was in the board of the party. It

19 is possible. I still don't understand the question.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 A. I did not know about a larger document.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, it's just past 11.00. I

23 won't be much longer.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: If counsel wishes, we can again ask the audio unit

25 to give us a correct transcript. Yes.

1 It's now 11 hours. We'll have our break and continue at 1130

2 hours.

3 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution continues re-examination.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

7 Q. D4/4, please. Would you have a look at that. Now, your position

8 is that you don't know the person who apparently signed the receipt, this

9 Dzananovic Nerfid?

10 A. I am hearing the name for the first time, and I don't know the

11 document either.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. D5/4.

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. di Fazio.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Judge.

15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I wonder, just going back to the last document,

16 if I could just clarify with the witness the answer. He said, "I'm

17 hearing the name for the first time, and I don't know the document

18 either." The last part, "I don't know the document either," I'd like a

19 clarification on what he means by that.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll ask, if Your Honour pleases.

21 Q. You heard the Judge's inquiry. When you say you don't know the

22 document, do you mean that you've never seen it before? Are you not

23 familiar with this type of document? Can you amplify upon that so that we

24 understand precisely what you mean when you say, "I don't know the

25 document."

1 A. I have never seen it until my arrival here to the trial.

2 Q. All right. Thank you. D5/4. Now, this is a document apparently

3 signed by yourself. Do you know, are you able to state clearly, what O/4

4 and M/160 refers to in that document?

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. Can you shed any light on the meaning of the words, "I will use

7 the above-mentioned objects in accordance to the order of the person who

8 gave me the objects, or his representative, and turn the objects back upon

9 his request"?

10 A. I don't know that I formulated a text of that kind. I don't know

11 who wrote it down like that. I see my signature. How it came to be

12 there, I don't know. Maybe it's a real document. But I'd like to see the

13 original somewhere, and then I could confirm or refute. I don't know,

14 this way.

15 Q. The signature -- you may have been asked this. Forgive me. The

16 signature, is it apparently yours?

17 A. Judging -- to all intents and purposes, yes, 99 per cent it is,

18 although my signatures tend to vary. I don't always sign myself the same

19 way. So I'd like to see the original for that reason.

20 Q. Thank you. The document itself also has a series of lines drawn

21 in, obviously for someone to fill in that part of the document. Can you

22 tell us if this is some sort of standard-form document, or you can't tell

23 us?

24 A. Well, I don't know anything about it.

25 Q. And just a final question on this document. In his questioning,

1 Mr. Pisarevic put this question to you, and you provided this answer:

2 Q. This ammunition, this ammunition mentioned here,

3 could you tell us what it means, 0/4 and M/160?

4 A. I'm afraid I don't know that either. It was a long

5 time ago.

6 Now, I just want to be absolutely certain about your position on

7 this reference to 0/4 and M/160. Mr. Pisarevic assumed, by virtue of his

8 question, that it was ammunition. Is it still your position that you

9 simply don't know what it's a reference to?

10 A. I don't know what it's a reference to.

11 Q. Thank you. Could you now look at D6/4?

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Does the witness have the original? Because the

13 original was also provided into evidence at a later stage. There was a

14 photocopy and an English translation and also the original of this

15 particular document. I think this was given a different exhibit number

16 than D6/4. It may in fact be D7, unless I'm mistaken.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The one that we said looks like a carbon

18 copy.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, that's the one.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: It's clearer. That's the only reason I need it.

22 Thank you.

23 Q. Yes, you can see the stamp. It's a bit clearer there and it says,

24 stamp: "Military post Number 2130 Slavonski Brod." Would that indicate

25 that the document was stamped on its way either into or out of Croatia at

1 Slavonski Brod?

2 A. I can't say anything about the document because I didn't take part

3 in it. I simply don't know.

4 Q. You're not familiar with that sort of stamp?

5 A. Apart from what it says, I never encountered a stamp of this kind

6 before.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I've done with those documents.

9 Q. I'm now asking you questions again about your evidence in answer

10 to Mr. Pisarevic's questions on the 17th of October. He asked you of --

11 whether you attended, on behalf of the SDA, a meeting with representatives

12 of the Croatian Democratic Community. You said that there was an attempt,

13 but you managed to break it up and nothing came of it. And then

14 Mr. Pisarevic asked you a further question about a meeting held in Prud on

15 the 19th of May, 1992, that you went there uninvited, expressed your

16 opinion, and that no joint Crisis Staff or anything like that was formed.

17 I'd just like to be clear about this meeting. Who were the

18 participants in it? And by that I don't mean necessarily individuals.

19 I'm more interested in groupings, any parties or official bodies.

20 A. Exclusively representatives of the HDZ and SDA.

21 Q. Why did you go uninvited? And if you could also comment on why

22 you didn't get an invitation. Those are two questions, I know, but if you

23 could answer both of those.

24 A. Well, it's like this: Many people didn't believe me, either side,

25 because of my unfortunate and also beautiful surname, although I -- and I

1 claim today the same thing, that I was -- in all the events that were

2 taking place, I tried to be as honest as possible, as realistic as

3 possible, as frank and open as possible. And I think that I was somebody

4 who could do everything but the kind of things that would lead to the

5 worst. And if I had to speak for a thousand days, I would always be

6 against events taking the turn that they did turn.

7 Tihic and Fitozovic were invited, but I took it upon myself to

8 go. They told me because they knew I would hear of it. And I said,

9 "Well, I'm going with you too to see what they want." And when I arrived

10 I saw what I saw, and I did what I did.

11 Q. Thank you. So invitations were extended to SDA officials but you

12 weren't included in the invitation list.

13 A. I assume that they received oral invitations, but nobody received

14 any written invitations, nobody at all.

15 Q. You say that nothing came of it and that there was no joint Crisis

16 Staff. Was that an official position adopted by the -- sorry. Was that

17 the result of an official position adopted by the SDA?

18 A. I think it was, yes.

19 Q. What was the basis of your opposition to such a proposition?

20 A. From the very beginning, from the time that the party was formed

21 and throughout its duration, all the time and even today, I never was a

22 combatant or advocate of the creation of any kind of coalition with one

23 side of the two sides involved. We're either going to be all three of us

24 together, all three sides together, or not at all. That was my position

25 from the very beginning, and that is my position today as well.

1 Q. Thank you. Mr. Pisarevic was still questioning you about that

2 meeting, and you stated that you realised where the meeting was leading

3 and that you were -- the SDA was not going to participate in such a

4 meeting, and then you all walked out or you walked out. Then

5 Mr. Pisarevic put to you this question:

6 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that it was decided

7 at that time that the commanders of the joint armed

8 units should be Marko Bozanovic, a Croat, and

9 Mr. Alija Fitozovic, a Muslim?

10 Now, my question is: Were you aware of any joint armed units at

11 all, regardless of who was their head?

12 A. There were no joint units. If some of the Muslims were on the

13 side of the HVO, which was seen in the war, then there were Muslims in the

14 4th Detachment as well, and we never speak about a coalition of any kind.

15 It was the will of certain individuals who --

16 Q. Now, we've heard evidence that Bozanovic and Fitozovic were --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Would we let the witness

19 finish his answer? I mean, throughout these couple of days we have been

20 insisting on giving the opportunity to the witness to finish his answer

21 and now are we changing the rules?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: No. No, we are not.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Sometimes it's just the overlap. So let him

25 complete the answer.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I apologise.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: I didn't realise that I had cut off the witness. I

4 heard a -- I certainly didn't mean to cut him off.

5 Q. If I cut you off, Mr. Izetbegovic, I apologise. Please complete

6 your answer.

7 A. Well, it appeared that you cut me off, but I just wanted to add

8 two more words. Otherwise, I answered, to all intents and purposes.

9 If there were any Muslims in the HVO, then there were also some of

10 them on the 4th Detachment side. That is their personal affair. They

11 opted for that themselves. We were not the ones who went to convince

12 people and say, "You're Muslims, you must be here. That's where you ought

13 to be." It was the free will and decision of the citizens. So that's my

14 answer.

15 Q. Bozanovic and Fitozovic were, we have heard, appointed as

16 commanders or in high-ranking positions in the TO. That appointment or

17 those appointments, I should say, resulted from a meeting. Was it this

18 meeting in Prud or was it another meeting where it was decided that they

19 would become heads of the TO or hold high rank in the TO?

20 A. While we were in Prud, there was no mention of the Territorial

21 Defence. That followed the next day, and it was quite different.

22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Pisarevic asked you this question and you gave

23 this answer, and he was talking about the general instability in Bosanski

24 Samac.

25 Q. Was it because of this uncertainty and insecurity

1 and the general state of affairs as it was that the

2 SDA started to form party patrols which had their

3 checkpoints during the night in the town of Samac

4 itself?

5 A. Precisely because of the prevailing situation, one

6 in which there was no security any more. There was

7 no safety for the citizens of the towns, the Muslims

8 saw to that. They had the right to

9 self-organisation to protect themselves. That was

10 the sole purpose and none other.

11 Your answer doesn't make clear your position on the issue of SDA

12 checkpoints. Did the SDA establish checkpoints throughout the town during

13 the night?

14 A. Yes, the checkpoints did exist, but there was a list for the duty

15 people to be on duty during the night that was sent to the police station

16 in Samac, so that nothing was secret, nothing was clandestine, and some of

17 the work was done together, jointly.

18 Q. What sort of checkpoints were these? Checkpoints where cars were

19 stopped, or something else?

20 A. No. No. It was pure observation. Nobody had the right to

21 intervene in any way. They were just there to observe and monitor.

22 Q. That's what I mean. The word "checkpoint" imports a certain

23 activity. It imports that people might be stopped, questioned, then

24 allowed to move on. I want to understand if it was that sort of

25 checkpoint, something the police might normally set up on a road, or the

1 army, that sort of thing, or was it something altogether different?

2 A. No, it wasn't that type of checkpoint. It was pure observation,

3 and if somebody attempted to do anything, something that was not in

4 keeping with proper conduct, then they could prevent an individual from

5 doing that.

6 Q. Thank you. Mr. Pisarevic, on Thursday, the 18th, asked you some

7 questions about your movements around the town on the 17th of April. You

8 said in evidence that you drove a red Yugo Kedi - I'm not sure if I've got

9 the car right, but I think it's enough to identify the type of car that

10 you mentioned - and that you drove it home. How do you reconcile that

11 with your evidence that you went to your daughter's apartment to evade

12 capture?

13 A. My daughter was at their uncle's, her husband's aunt, in fact.

14 That's where she was. And I went there to leave the car. I took the keys

15 to her flat and went to the flat alone, on foot.

16 Q. So you didn't go home -- when you said you went home, you didn't

17 go to your residence; you went to your daughter's residence?

18 A. Yes.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, if I may interrupt, before we rise, we may

20 need ten minutes for some housekeeping matters we need to discuss before

21 Monday.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I can assure you that I don't intend to be

23 more than a few more minutes, and then we'll have our next witness to

24 call.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, precisely that, because we're trying to discuss

1 something before the next witness comes.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. That will be done. Thank you.

3 Q. You said, in answer to counsel for Mr. Tadic, Mr. Krgovic, that

4 you participated in some exchanges, three in all, exchanges that occurred

5 in Bosanski Samac. Who was exchanged? Who was being exchanged on these

6 occasions?

7 A. Prisoners were being exchanged from the battlefront at Vukovar.

8 Q. Soldiers?

9 A. I think there were very few soldiers. All of them were in

10 civilian clothing. There were elderly people and women, a lot of elderly

11 people and women from Vukovar, sick people, all kinds of people. There

12 were no soldiers from Vukovar at all.

13 Q. So what ethnic background were the people who were being held in

14 Bosanski Samac prior to the exchange? Were they Croats, Serbs, Muslims,

15 or mixtures?

16 A. They were mostly Serbs and Croats. They were being exchanged, no

17 others. There were perhaps some Muslims here and there, but that was a

18 rarity, somebody who happened to find themselves there at that particular

19 time, that's all.

20 Q. Who were they being exchanged for?

21 A. One side would bring their own people in a bus and the other side

22 would do the same, and then they would switch buses. People from one bus

23 would move to the other and vice versa. And us locals were present there

24 to organise this, to give them some sandwiches, something to eat, some

25 first aid, food. And everybody received that assistance, both parties,

1 but the Vukovar people had to stay on - this was done by the Red

2 Cross - until they received agreement and were allowed to -- until Croatia

3 said that it would accept them.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Madam President, we have to clarify, and I think we

6 have to ignore the question, a part of the question of my learned

7 colleague. It's page 52, line 3. He said, "So what ethnic background

8 were the people who were being held in Bosanski Samac?" which my

9 understanding is that these people are maybe in detention or in camp or

10 whatever, and then going to exchanges. But obviously, the witness said,

11 very precisely, they just switched the buses in Samac, who was the transit

12 point or something like that. So if my learned colleague can clarify

13 that, because this formulation, "being held," I think --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. You want that clarified.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the Prosecutor got that.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I do apologise.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: It's the use of the word "held" that the counsel is

19 concerned --

20 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm just looking at the transcript, and may I just

21 very briefly confer with my colleague before I --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.

23 [Prosecution counsel confer]

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Right. I think I understand the problem.

25 Q. The people who were in Bosanski Samac being exchanged, were they

1 being held, or you can't comment on that? In other words, were they

2 prisoners or not apparently prisoners?

3 A. They could leave Samac freely, and we even took some people to

4 lunch at the hotel, to have something to eat, until the order came from

5 their side that they could start on their exchange journey and that they

6 would be accepted.

7 Q. Do you know how the people came to be in Bosanski Samac?

8 A. I do. I sat with a group of them on one occasion in the hotel

9 while they were having lunch. We went to dress some of them, because they

10 were in pajamas. They had been taken out of the hospital. We gave them

11 clothes to wear from the Red Cross.

12 Q. And do you know how long before April 16 these exchanges took

13 place?

14 A. As I was saying, there were several exchanges, so I can't

15 remember. When an exchange was happening, there were many representatives

16 from Belgrade, from Zagreb, from the military structures of both sides,

17 and we, as the hosts - at least that's how we considered ourselves to

18 be - we helped them as much as we could, as far as the humanitarian side

19 is concerned. We didn't help in any other way. Of course, we helped as

20 much as we could.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. di Fazio. I wonder whether we can

23 go back to your question as to line 53.21, where you say, "Do you know how

24 the people came to be in Bosanski Samac?" And Mr. Izetbegovic's answer

25 is: "I do." And then he talks about sitting with them at lunch, but we

1 don't get an answer beyond the "I do." Could we have a little bit of

2 elaboration, please.

3 MR. DI FAZIO:

4 Q. The people you sat with at lunch, how did they come to be --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Di Fazio.

6 MR. DI FAZIO:

7 Q. How did they come to be in Bosanski Samac? How had they arrived

8 there? How had they been taken there?

9 A. They were exchanged. This side, the Serb side, went immediately

10 across the bridge in the direction of Belgrade, I suppose. There were

11 cases when from Zagreb approval had not been given to accept them. So we

12 had no other way out but to take them to the hotel to warm up, for some of

13 them to change, and to have something to eat. That's how it was, and that

14 is how it went on. And when approval arrived for them to leave, they

15 left. No one slept.

16 Q. Thank you. You've described -- you told the Court how they left,

17 but how did they get there in the first place? How did they get to

18 Bosanski Samac?

19 A. We took them, because there was no point in keeping them there, to

20 make them suffer even more than they had suffered already. We tried to

21 ease the situation for them, to have something to eat, to refresh

22 themselves.

23 Q. Did they arrive in buses in Bosanski Samac?

24 A. Yes. The buses came in front of the hotel. They got off the

25 buses, went into the hotel, then from the hotel back to the buses again.

1 Q. Where had the buses come from?

2 A. The exchange took place in the customs-free zone in Bosanski

3 Samac, right next to the bridge on the Sava River, and from there to Samac

4 it's about 3 kilometres, and that is why we took them there.

5 Q. Those people that you looked after, fed, took to lunch to the

6 hotel, were they people coming into Bosanski Samac?

7 A. I don't understand what you mean "coming into."

8 JUDGE MUMBA: They were not resident of Bosanski Samac. It looks

9 like they came from somewhere else, from outside the town. Where did they

10 come from? With their buses, where did they come from?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They came from the direction of

12 Vukovar. They were brought there as prisoners of the Croatian army and

13 Croatian citizens. They came from that part to be exchanged. We took

14 them to Samac. There was no one from Samac. They were all from the

15 Vukovar area.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izetbegovic. Mr. Pisarevic asked you questions

19 about people abandoning the town of Bosanski Samac, and he asked you

20 this:

21 Q. You mentioned that there was unrest in town, that

22 people were taking their children out of town. Does

23 that mean that the town of Bosanski Samac, in that

24 period of time, was being abandoned by entire

25 families or parts of families?

1 And you replied:

2 A. Both, whole families and parts of families.

3 Now, are you -- were you saying there that people were abandoning

4 the town of Bosanski Samac on a permanent basis, going and never coming

5 back again? Is that what you were saying?

6 A. No, that is not what I meant.

7 Q. What did you mean?

8 A. Everyone went thinking that it would last a couple of days and

9 then that it would be over and they would come back. They didn't go far.

10 They went to neighbouring villages, some to Slavonia. Whoever had someone

11 close by, family or friends, they went there where there was no danger.

12 Q. Thank you. You were asked questions by Mr. Pantelic yesterday --

13 I'll withdraw that question. Thank you.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further questions.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much. Can we release the witness?

17 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: What did you want to say?

19 MR. PANTELIC: I just want to have a right, with your permission,

20 to a very narrow issue, one question in re-cross in order to clarify

21 something which is in the interest of justice --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no, no.

23 MR. PANTELIC: -- and complete the facts --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no.

25 MR. PANTELIC: -- for the information of this Trial Chamber.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You don't cross-examine twice. After the

2 examination, that's the end.

3 MR. PANTELIC: I think it will be very useful for this Trial

4 Chamber to know these two directions, and actually, I want to help to my

5 learned friends from Prosecutor, and as well as the Trial Chamber, in

6 order to establish these very simple facts about the ways of buses coming

7 from one point to Samac and vice versa. I mean that's the only question

8 that I want to say.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: You see, the Trial Chamber doesn't want to establish

10 a precedent where after re-examination counsel for the Defence, and even

11 for the Prosecution when it comes to the Defence case, to do what you're

12 trying to do. What is the point? First state the point.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. The point is I want to ask a very simple

14 question of Mr. Izetbegovic, from which town the buses came in Samac.

15 There are two towns, two regions actually in Croatia. And who conducted

16 these exchanges, you know, in order to clarify. Because it doesn't seem

17 to me it's clear from the transcript that that was the case.

18 So that's my intention, but, Your Honour --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Why? You have your intention --

20 MR. PANTELIC: About the principle, Your Honour, please.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you remain silent when I'm talking to you?

22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. Yes.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: I've explained the point, and I'm sure the witness

24 has understood what clarification you need. So the Trial Chamber will

25 adopt it and ask the witness to answer and clarify.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think he's quite understood -- I don't

2 think the witness has quite understood that the Chamber is putting the

3 question to him now rather than --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Did you catch what Mr. Pantelic was saying yourself,

5 Mr. di Fazio? You had your microphone off.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes. I heard, yes. Do you want me to ask

7 the question?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I do apologise.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I need to say anything?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me ask.

12 Questioned by the Court:

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel for the Defence wanted clarification on the

14 people you said had come from Vukovar. He wanted to find -- on the

15 buses. He wanted to find out in which regions they came from, if you do,

16 or which towns they came from other than Vukovar, or if Vukovar is a

17 region. Can you explain, as far as you know, where they came from, the

18 towns, the regions, if you know?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Except by the licence plates of the

20 buses, I can't know anything more. I didn't have lists of names of the

21 people in the buses. My duty was to provide humanitarian aid. There were

22 Zagreb, Vukovar, and Cakovec registration plates and also Vinkovci

23 registration plates.

24 So this side that brought them, who I assume were Serb prisoners,

25 they had licence plates from Zagreb, Vinkovci, Cakovec. As for those from

1 Vukovar, they were Croatian prisoners.

2 I just saw the licence plates, no others than those I have

3 mentioned. I didn't see any others.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: The examination is through with you, and we are very

5 grateful that you have been very patient and have given evidence to the

6 Tribunal to assist us in our trials. Thank you very much. You are

7 released.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, counsel.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. We do not have any

11 questions or things like that for this witness, but maybe it would be

12 useful, because during the re-examination, the Prosecutor has showed the

13 document D5/4, which was in the copy. We would like to offer --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness can be led out. Yes, the witness can be

15 led out.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: And we think it would be useful just to see the

18 original of this document, because the witness stated that he was 90 per

19 cent certain that it is his signature, but maybe he should see this.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Where was the original in the proceedings? When he

21 was being examined, where was the original?

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: We had it, Your Honours, during, but we did not

23 believe --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: You said that. But why didn't you offer the

25 original?

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Because the witness did not make any doubt about

2 his signature. Now he said it's maybe 90 per cent.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Immediately he said that, and you knew you had

4 the original, why didn't you bring it up? Why didn't you do that?

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: We were waiting for the Prosecutor to finish his

6 re-cross.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. You can't give that as an excuse. You have

8 seen your colleagues intervene, object, do whatever they want to do during

9 the re-examination. Those are things which will not be accepted by the

10 Trial Chamber. Okay?

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: As Judge May said some time back, these are not

13 trials by ambush. All right? You put your case on the table. The other

14 side puts their case on the table. Okay? No more --

15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I'll leave it with the Prosecution, if they think

17 it's worth pursuing, to deal with it.

18 Yes, Ms. Baen.

19 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I don't have any problems or anything

20 other than a question, because I'm not familiar exactly with how this

21 works over here.

22 Is this witness being released now? Is he going to talk to the

23 Victims and Witnesses people now for the investigation or is he going to

24 be coming back and do we get a report? I'm just --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Which witness?

1 MS. BAEN: The investigation with Mr. Izetbegovic, about his

2 conversation or what --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You have no confidence when the Trial Chamber

4 says the matter is under investigation?

5 MS. BAEN: No, I have total confidence.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: So what is your problem?

7 MS. BAEN: My question is: Is he leaving now or is he going to

8 talk to them now or is he coming back and do we get a report? I just

9 don't know. It's a different procedure than from where I come from so

10 that's why I'm asking.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So you just wait. If all you wanted to do was

12 remind the Chamber about it, you should have done so. So you don't ask

13 about the procedures.

14 MS. BAEN: I'm just asking for the state of the report.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The matter will be taken care of.

16 MS. BAEN: We will receive a report? That's all I'm asking. I

17 don't understand. I've read all the jurisprudence here in the ICTY, and I

18 haven't seen this procedure before, so I'm just asking if we get a report,

19 because all my co-counsels are asking me how it's done in the United

20 States. It's done differently. So I'm merely asking, very respectfully,

21 Your Honour, if we're going to receive a report as to what the --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will take a decision, and the

23 Trial Chamber will inform the parties.

24 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution -- I wanted to find out who the next

1 witness is.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: The next witness is Hasan Bicic and that witness

3 will be led through his evidence by my colleague Ms. Reidy.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. I just wanted to raise the issue that

5 was discussed at pre-trial stage regarding conflict of interests

6 concerning Mr. Pisarevic and his client Mr. Simo Zaric. I'm sure you've

7 read the pre-trial proceedings.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I have read them. I haven't read them recently.

9 This --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the Trial Chamber has been reminded of the

11 issues that were raised then. We just want to be sure that now that the

12 trial is proceeding whether the matters were as they were discussed and

13 decided, and I would like to hear from Mr. Pisarevic, who is counsel for

14 Mr. Simo Zaric, again.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, perhaps before we --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: That matter is discussed, yes.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no. Before you call upon the Defence, I'm

18 informed by my -- by Mr. Weiner that the two witnesses who are to be

19 called, the Bicic brothers, were in fact represented in legal proceedings

20 or some legal matter - I don't know the nature of it - in Yugoslavia by

21 Mr. Pisarevic. Now, problems that might arise, I don't know, but I just

22 thought I would inform the Chamber that that is the fact, that is the

23 situation, and --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: From the point of view of the Prosecution, you have

25 no problem with Mr. Pisarevic cross-examining these witnesses?

1 MR. DI FAZIO: May I just confer with my colleagues briefly?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because we want to discuss that fully so that

3 it doesn't arise in the future.

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Obviously, the Prosecution is concerned that

6 because of the previous relationship on our case that existed between

7 Mr. Pisarevic and the Bicic brothers, there may well be some prejudice

8 caused to the Prosecution by the fact that Mr. Pisarevic has access to all

9 sorts of what normally would be privileged, I suppose, information.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Were the proceedings on similar events?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: No. No, no. They're some sort of civil matter, I

12 understand -- business, some sort of business matter, Mr. Weiner tells me.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Let me just be clear. These two witnesses

14 are not the ones who have allegations against some of the accused persons

15 where Mr. Pisarevic was allegedly present?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: No. No.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: They are not the ones?

18 MR. DI FAZIO: No. No. No. No. No. I see. Mr. Pisarevic

19 arises very briefly in the evidential scenario that these witnesses will

20 describe during the time of their incarceration, but not in a manner that

21 should cause the Prosecution any concern. And before I finally make my

22 position on that, may I just briefly confer with my colleagues, who have

23 been proofing these two witnesses --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and who have more -- who have a clearer idea

1 about the significance of this encounter?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And while the Prosecution is doing that, I

3 would like Mr. Pisarevic to think about what was raised at the pre-trial

4 stage, and also Mr. Simo Zaric, because I'll come to you two later.

5 [Prosecution counsel confer]

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'm grateful for that indulgence. The

8 situation is this: Mr. Pisarevic, I understand, has recently represented

9 these two gentlemen, these two Bicic brothers, in proceedings to obtain

10 the return of a home or land or something in the former Yugoslavia.

11 That's one aspect. As far as the evidential scenario of events in 1992

12 are concerned, there will be evidence from these witnesses that they spoke

13 or attempted to speak with Mr. Pisarevic on the day of the takeover, what

14 the Prosecution says is the takeover. There will also be evidence from

15 one of them, one of the Bicic brothers, that they were temporarily

16 released, following a beating, and taken to their homes and at one stage

17 encountered Mr. Pisarevic outside of a pizza bar, a pizza bar I think that

18 they owned themselves. That's it.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: These are the two. Are there any others on the list

20 who appear to be concerned with --

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Any other witnesses?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, who may be concerned with Mr. --

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, there are.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Who may be alleging that Mr. Pisarevic was present

25 when certain incidents were happening to them?

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes. I understand. Yes.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MR. DI FAZIO: I can't give you an exhaustive list as I stand

4 here. However, I can tell you that one of the witnesses who apparently

5 speaks of contact with Mr. Pisarevic during events (redacted)

6 (redacted), and I know that other witnesses talk

7 about Mr. Pisarevic from time to time in their statements.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Let's do it this way: Since the immediate

9 one and the following one you think are not going to make the allegations

10 like Mr. Pisarevic was there but they were represented by Mr. Pisarevic,

11 so that is not the point. These are the witnesses. So if you provide the

12 list of these witnesses whom, according to your case, make allegations

13 that when certain incidents, which are the basis of some of these crimes,

14 were happening, Mr. Pisarevic was there, in a situation where it would

15 mean that Mr. Pisarevic may be a witness, all right?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I understand.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So when you have that list, give it to the

18 Defence, the whole team, and also make sure that -- okay. It's up to the

19 Defence counsels, really, to make sure that their clients get these

20 names. So that we know exactly when to ask co-counsel to cross-examine,

21 to avoid the conflict of interest and also to avoid possible intimidation

22 by the witnesses --

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: -- on their own.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Because they may be intimidated by the mere fact

2 that --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I understand that.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: -- this is the counsel who --

5 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: -- was present at the time these incidents were

7 happening, not that Mr. Pisarevic will be intimidating them, but just the

8 presence --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: -- yes, can affect the witnesses. And I want Mr.

11 Simo Zaric to understand these things, what I'm saying, correctly so that

12 when the time comes, we can deal with this matter. Because, as the Trial

13 Chamber, we have the duty to see to it that the trial is fair, is

14 dignified, the witnesses are not unduly intimidated, they are free to give

15 evidence as much as -- of the things that they know about, so that the

16 presence of anybody in the courtroom should not be used as having had an

17 undue influence on them, in which case, the accused in question who has

18 that particular counsel may raise the issue on appeal and apply to the

19 Appeal Chamber that the proceedings were not fair because he didn't -- he

20 does not think then that his counsel fully represented him because of the

21 possible conflict of interest. Because these things may not actually

22 happen, but the perception is important.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: And it is the duty of the Trial Chamber to see to it

25 that that is avoided; if necessary, ask a co-counsel to do the

1 cross-examination.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, I understand that, and I, with respect,

3 entirely agree. The Prosecution will seek to guard against that

4 eventuality happening. We'll conduct a search of the statements, we'll

5 revise them, we will see where Mr. Pisarevic is mentioned --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Appears to be --

7 MR. DI FAZIO: -- in the statements.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: And we will provide a report to the Defence and, if

10 necessary, to the Chamber.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, to the Chamber as well.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: And we will also, in addition, when witnesses

13 arrive here and we proof them prior to their giving evidence --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: -- will be on guard and alive to that issue.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: So with respect, it's a good idea. It will be

18 done, and we'll cover those concerns.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. So the next witness we okay. Mr. Pisarevic

20 can cross-examine.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because there's no allegation that he was

23 present.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Other than --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Other than having --

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Other than being --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Represented.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- outside the pizza hut, pizza establishment --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: -- on an occasion when one of the Bicic brothers

8 was released temporarily.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: And a couple of -- yes, and a couple of telephone

11 calls on the day of the takeover.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Okay. Yes. So we can proceed. You can call

13 the witness.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. May I just say one more thing on that?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: We have nothing to cause us any concern on the

17 instructions that we -- or the instructions that we --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: You have --

19 MR. DI FAZIO: -- found on the telephone calls. Now, I'm speaking

20 from the Prosecution's point of view.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: The Defence know something that they -- or allege

23 that something happened during those telephone calls in particular.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: What's -- the telephone calls since they came into

25 the --

1 MR. DI FAZIO: On the --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: -- we started the trial, or when?

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no. This is on the day of the takeover, back

4 in 1992.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, okay. On the events in 1992.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: The instructions we've taken on that don't cause

7 us, at this stage, any alarm. However, I can't speak for the Defence.

8 They may have all sorts of different versions of those phone calls, and

9 it's up to them to exercise their judgement and decide whether or not

10 their own instructions are such that will bring Mr. Pisarevic into some

11 sort of conflict --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: -- where he might be called upon to testify --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: -- or placed in that position. I can't speak for

16 them. That's their problem. But as far as the Prosecution is concerned,

17 and on the material that we have, we're not alarmed about that at this

18 stage.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes.

20 Mr. Pantelic.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. If I may, Madam President. According to our

22 well-established practice, prior to the witness will be brought in, we

23 have to change the positions of the --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Mr. Milan Simic, just a few of them, just a matter

1 of principle, nothing more. Thank you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll deal with that. I want Mr. Pisarevic to

3 be on inquiry that at one stage he will be called upon to deal with the

4 issues that have been discussed, and it may be necessary that his

5 co-counsel cross-examines the witness. I want you to understand clearly

6 that the Trial Chamber is not alleging that you are likely to conduct

7 yourself improperly; it is the perception, and also the protection of the

8 Prosecution witnesses. So when we reach that stage, we may have to ask

9 co-counsel to cross-examine those particular witnesses, all right? And I

10 want Mr. Simo Zaric to understand that so you can deal with that off the

11 Bench, when we come into Court, just before we deal with those witnesses

12 concerning these issues we have raised, we are all clear as to what is

13 happening, and also your co-counsel can be prepared if he is called upon.

14 And I want to make it clear that it is not according -- you know, it won't

15 be according to your decision; it will be the Trial Chamber's decision.

16 So maybe we can carry out the swap, asked by the Defence, as long

17 as the security officers are not interfered with.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Madam President, if I may, just a second, please.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Do we have ten minutes prior to one hour to discuss

21 some procedural evidential issues or --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Regarding this witness?

23 MR. PANTELIC: No. Regarding the other previous issues that we

24 raised several weeks ago, I mean videotapes, audiotapes, stuff like that.

25 I mean --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. In fact, I was just reminded by the

2 legal officer about that. About the requests on videotapes, the Trial

3 Chamber has looked into the matter and has found out that the correct

4 procedure is for the Defence counsel to ask for these videotapes from the

5 Registrar, in writing, putting across their reasons. Because this is not

6 the normal procedure, but if you put down your reasons why you are seeking

7 these videotapes for your use in the Defence case, then it will be up to

8 the Registrar to respond.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much, Madam President. And also, I

10 would like to ask for your assistance with regard to the audiotapes,

11 because, as you well know, we have some problems, you know, with the exact

12 words in B/C/S language what was said or not of the witnesses. So we

13 would like to have, if it's possible, let's say one or two days after the

14 testimony, this copy of audiotape, so that we can check by ourselves, and

15 then in writing, in writing form, to inform the Trial Chamber or the

16 Registry about the annotations, you know, and stuff like that, you know.

17 Because you -- in some cases you cannot hear what the witness said in his

18 own native language, so --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. What you do is you make separate

20 applications.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: For the videotapes, a separate one, because the

23 reasons will be different; for the audiotapes, also a separate one, so

24 that the Registrar has these things on record. It is much easier to catch

25 anything once it's on record.

1 MR. PANTELIC: I understand.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, if you can do that, because you are asking that

3 you need the audiotapes every two days, so you deal with that in writing

4 so that we have a record.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. And also, about

6 the issue of Mr. Donia's report in other case, which was under seal, we

7 obtained, according to the order of -- on Judge Rodrigues's Trial Chamber,

8 actually, he granted our request, subject to agreement between our Defence

9 teams and Defence team in that case, Prijedor case. So we filed that

10 yesterday, and actually, we completed everything, so we are waiting for

11 the development about that issue.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: What did you file yesterday?

13 MR. PANTELIC: We filed an agreement which was according to the

14 directions in Judge Rodrigues's decision.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

16 MR. PANTELIC: We filed an agreement between our Defence in our

17 case and the Defence in their case, in Mladjo Radic case, before Judge

18 Rodrigues.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. Thank you.

20 MR. PANTELIC: So now we are at that stage and we would like to

21 know when this report can be handed to us, and then we shall decide

22 whether to proceed with the other --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. Okay. Yes. The Trial Chamber will deal

24 with that as soon as we see copies of what you filed.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So possibly on Monday.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: So the next witness can come.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Please make your solemn declaration.

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

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

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Please sit down.

9 WITNESS: HASAN BICIC

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution.

12 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Examined by Ms. Reidy:

14 Q. Could the witness please state your full name for the record?

15 A. My name is Hasan Bicic.

16 Q. Where were you born?

17 A. I was born in Bosanski Samac.

18 Q. And when was that?

19 A. On the 11th of June, 1960.

20 Q. Do you have -- did you have family at the time in Bosanski Samac?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Could you tell us who the family were, brothers, sisters, your

23 mother, your father?

24 A. It was my brother and his wife and daughter my mother.

25 Q. Had your family lived in Bosanski Samac for a long time?

1 A. Yes, I was born there. My father was also originally from Samac,

2 that is to say, my family is one of several families which formed Bosanski

3 Samac.

4 Q. So is it accurate to say that generations of Bicics have lived in

5 Bosanski Samac?

6 A. Well, you could say from the founding of the town itself, that my

7 father's family on my father's side, the family lived in Samac, yes.

8 Q. Where do you live now?

9 A. I now live in Germany for the moment.

10 Q. In April 1992, where were you living?

11 A. In Bosanski Samac.

12 Q. Did you attend primary school in Bosanski Samac?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Mr. Bicic, are you -- I'm going to ask you about some of the

15 defendants in this case to which you're testifying. Are you familiar with

16 Milan Simic?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Have you known Milan Simic a long time?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you attend primary school with Milan Simic?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know Blagoje Simic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you attend primary school with Blagoje Simic?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Would you be able to indicate to the Trial Chamber today whether

2 you see Milan Simic and Blagoje Simic in this room?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. For the record, could you please indicate who you believe to be

5 Milan Simic and then after that who you -- where in this room you believe

6 Blagoje Simic to be sitting?

7 A. Yes. Milan Simic is to the left in a wheelchair. Blagoje Simic

8 is the third, moving from left to right, with a beard.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MS. REIDY: Can I just have the record reflect that both Milan

11 Simic and Blagoje Simic have been correctly identified by the witness.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MS. REIDY:

14 Q. Mr. Bicic, are you aware whether Mr. Blagoje Simic and Mr. Milan

15 Simic are related in any way?

16 A. Yes, I am aware of that.

17 Q. Do you know the relationship between them?

18 A. I think they're cousins.

19 Q. Thank you. After you did primary school in Bosanski Samac, did

20 you remain in Bosanski Samac?

21 A. No. After primary school, I went to Sarajevo to attend secondary

22 school there.

23 Q. And after secondary school?

24 A. After secondary school I came back to Samac where I took over the

25 family restaurant.

1 Q. What is the nature of that restaurant?

2 A. How do you mean what is the nature of the restaurant was?

3 Q. Was it -- basically was -- was your restaurant a pizzeria?

4 A. No. It was a family restaurant where we served a la carte food, a

5 la carte menus. And later on I opened a pizza bar.

6 Q. I take it that you have more than one family business interest in

7 Bosanski Samac then?

8 A. Yes, later on. After the restaurant, that is. We had several

9 other catering establishments in town.

10 Q. In this latter period, was one of those catering establishments a

11 pizzeria?

12 A. Yes.

13 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, I just wish to show the defendant [sic]

14 what's on the record as Exhibit P9. This is the map which has been

15 subject to various markings by previous witnesses, and I -- we have clean

16 copies of that map, and depending on what the Trial Chamber thinks is the

17 most appropriate way to proceed, I would propose to give a clean copy to

18 the witness and have it marked as P9B and then --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. I just want to make sure that the clean

20 copies have also been given to the Defence counsel.

21 MS. REIDY: No. We just have -- well --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me just ask the usher --

23 MS. REIDY: I didn't expect it.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let me ask the usher to show it so we know it

25 is the exact copy of P9.

1 MS. REIDY: Of course, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Sometimes there can be -- yes, Mr. Pantelic?

3 MR. PANTELIC: Probably it is a mistake in 76 page, line 8. Our

4 learned colleague just mentioned "defendant." Probably she thought the

5 "witness."

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh.

7 MR. PANTELIC: I just wish to show "defendant." So --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

10 MR. PANTELIC: You're welcome.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Just to make sure that it's the replica of P9,

12 because we don't want one and the same copy to be marked by so many

13 witnesses, otherwise it will cause confusion when writing the judgement or

14 indeed on appeal, if the case goes to appeal. Can we get the number? We

15 would be grateful if it would be P9 something.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P9D.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

18 MS. REIDY: May I also ask the usher to give the witness a pen

19 or -- if he has one.

20 Q. Mr. Bicic, I think you can see in front of you a town plan of

21 Bosanski Samac. I'd ask you to indicate on it as best you can where your

22 pizzeria was and also where your home was.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Can he do it with numbers, like 1, 2?

24 MS. REIDY: Certainly.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: So less confusion.

1 MS. REIDY:

2 Q. Mr. Bicic, can you mark on the map with a number 1 where your

3 house was.

4 A. I've marked it, roughly.

5 Q. May I suggest to -- may I just use a smaller pen?

6 A. As far as I'm able to find my way on the map. I've done it.

7 Q. Thank you. Could you now please mark on the same map with a

8 number 2 where you recall your pizzeria being located.

9 A. [Marks]

10 Q. Thank you very much.

11 MS. REIDY: At this stage I don't intend to ask the defendant --

12 the witness to mark anything else on the map, but if it could be

13 remained -- if it could remain with the witness so that we can cross-refer

14 to it should it be --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's all right.

16 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

17 Q. Mr. Bicic, this pizzeria which you've marked on the map, was it a

18 successful business?

19 A. Fairly successful, yes.

20 Q. And -- so that I take it you had many clientele?

21 A. Well, I had many, yes.

22 Q. What sort of people would come to your restaurant?

23 A. Could you clarify that? You mean ethnically speaking or social

24 strata? What do you mean by the sort of people?

25 Q. I'll limit it at this stage just to whether people of all ethnic

1 groups living in Bosanski Samac used to frequent your pizzeria.

2 A. Absolutely so, yes.

3 Q. May I ask whether any of the defendants in this case used to

4 frequent your pizzeria?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. For the record, could you state whether -- which of the defendants

7 used to frequent your pizzeria or whether all of them did?

8 A. Of those present here, I think the one who was our most frequent

9 guest was Milan Simic. And from time to time, I think that Miroslav Tadic

10 and Mr. Zaric would come by. Blagoje Simic wasn't in the establishment

11 even once ever, as far as I know.

12 Q. You've mentioned that Miroslav Tadic used to come by. Did you

13 have other contact with Miroslav Tadic apart from when he was a guest or a

14 client in your restaurant?

15 A. He wasn't a frequent guest, but he would drop by from time to

16 time. But we did have contacts. That is to say, we were members of an

17 organisation. It was called the Presidency of the Association for

18 Craftsmen of our municipality.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Ms. Reidy, if I could ask you whether the witness

20 should be identifying that Mr. Tadic and Mr. Simic are actually present in

21 the room here as you did with Mr. Milan Simic and Mr. Blagoje Simic,

22 please.

23 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour, absolutely. I was just coming to

24 that.

25 Q. Mr. Bicic, you've heard Judge Williams' directions. Can you

1 please identify whether you see Mr. Miroslav Tadic in this room and if so,

2 where he is?

3 A. I can see him, and he is second in order from left to right.

4 Q. Just to clarify, is that on the back row against the wall?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. REIDY: I think the record can show that Mr. Miroslav Tadic is

7 being correctly identified.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MS. REIDY:

10 Q. And finally, you said that occasionally Simo Zaric came to your

11 restaurant. Similarly, could you identify to the Chamber if he's in the

12 room, and if so, where he's located?

13 A. I also said that Mr. Zaric did come by but not frequently, and

14 he's sitting up in front.

15 MS. REIDY: I think the record can also reflect that Mr. Simo

16 Zaric has been correctly identified.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Bicic, I'd like to take you now just to the few months

20 directly before April 1992, and I would like to ask you some questions

21 about what your knowledge is of the events in Samac at that time.

22 MS. REIDY: At this stage could I ask for the Exhibit P14A, which

23 I believe is the clear copy or the unmarked copy of the photographs to be

24 presented to the witness. I don't know whether it's necessary for the --

25 well, my next question is not directly related to a photograph, but in

1 this line of questioning I will be referring to the exhibit. I don't know

2 whether the usher --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: What you do, if you just direct the usher, "Can you

4 prepare photograph number so-and-so, number so-and-so, number so-and-so,"

5 so that he can be putting them to the ELMO as your questions come.

6 MS. REIDY: If the usher could prepare photograph number 33.

7 Q. Mr. Bicic, can you tell me, in the months -- so we're talking

8 about February, March 1992. Would it be correct to say that there was an

9 increase in tensions in and around Bosnia Samac? And I mean ethnic

10 tensions or political tensions.

11 A. Yes, you could put it that way.

12 Q. Is it the case that there were checkpoints and barricades to be

13 found in various locations in Bosanski Samac?

14 A. Yes.

15 MS. REIDY: Could I ask the witness to look at what is now P1A/33,

16 which I believe is on the ELMO.

17 Q. Are you familiar with the scene or the area depicted in this

18 photograph?

19 A. Not from this angle of vision, no.

20 Q. Are you saying that you don't know -- you don't know where that

21 place is?

22 A. From this angle, I couldn't say, but let me try. I think it could

23 be Crkvina Street. Crkvina, in fact, is a village some 5 kilometres away

24 from Samac in the direction of Gradacac and Modrica. I think I recognise

25 a detail here, that it is a kiosk, a police checkpoint or something like

1 that. I think that's it.

2 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether there was a checkpoint in

3 and around the road in Crkvina?

4 A. Yes, there was. I know that.

5 Q. Can I ask you who was in charge of that checkpoint?

6 A. Uniform -- people in uniform, wearing the uniform of the Yugoslav

7 People's Army.

8 Q. Were you yourself ever stopped at that checkpoint?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can you tell me, when you were stopped, what took place?

11 A. Well, I was driving in the direction of Modrica when a group of

12 soldiers stopped me right there. Now I'm sure it was at this junction

13 here. And they told me to get out of the car. They searched the car, and

14 I had to lean up against the car and they frisked me. They searched me in

15 detail, probably looking for something, probably weapons.

16 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that members of the

17 4th Detachment may have been involved in manning the checkpoint?

18 A. Perhaps there's no reason for me to believe that they manned

19 [Realtime transcript read in error "not"] the checkpoint, but there is

20 reason for me to believe that I was searched following orders given by

21 someone from the 4th Detachment.

22 Q. And what is that reason?

23 A. Well, perhaps a week after the search and my car being stopped and

24 me in it, I received a piece of information from a young man, a Serb from

25 Crkvina, who at that particular moment or a little before they stopped me

1 was in a catering enterprise there which is located between Samac and

2 Crkvina, and the bar is Trile.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we proceed, Mr. Zecevic, there was --

4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. There's a certain problem

5 with the transcript. The question was -- it's at line -- it's at page 81,

6 line 25.

7 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the members

8 of the 4th Detachment may have been involved in

9 manning the checkpoint?

10 And:

11 A. Perhaps there is no reason for me to believe that

12 there may not the checkpoint.

13 Probably -- because the witness said they were -- "I have no

14 reason to believe that they were manning the checkpoint." Just that is

15 the objection. Thank you. Maybe my learned colleague can again put the

16 question to the witness. Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the Prosecution have picked the point

18 raised by Mr. Zecevic.

19 MS. REIDY: And I heard also in translation what Mr. Zecevic said,

20 it's just it didn't appear in the transcript.

21 Q. Mr. Bicic, this is just a technical issue with the transcript.

22 Could I ask you, do you think that the -- or do you have reason to believe

23 that the 4th Detachment were manning the checkpoint?

24 A. I have reason to believe that it was connected to the

25 4th Detachment.

1 Q. But if --

2 A. That there was a connection with the 4th Detachment.

3 Q. But is it also correct that previously you did say that you have

4 no reason to believe they might have actually been manning it, but that

5 then you were searched and stopped on directions of a member of the

6 4th Detachment?

7 A. Following orders or information which was given from that where

8 this young man was present, and he told me seven days later that some

9 people told them to stop me and search me, that they got in touch with

10 them somehow and told them to stop and search me.

11 MS. REIDY: I think that's --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, our time is -- our clock says 1.00. We

13 will adjourn, and we will resume on Monday at 0930 hours.

14 Next week the schedules may continue in the afternoon if the

15 facilities will be provided. I'm sure the legal officer did inform

16 counsel on both sides. If the facilities we asked for will be provided,

17 then we will have afternoon sessions as well.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. Do we have any idea when

19 we'll know? Will we know that on Monday or ...

20 JUDGE MUMBA: On Monday, yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because the arrangements, we have been

23 informed, have been made. But whether or not they will actually take

24 place, they will actually be there, we're not sure.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, concerning this arrangement for the

1 facilities, I assume there is facilities for my client Milan Simic.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, at the beginning of the trial, we were told

4 that we will be able to inspect this facilities.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: And we actually went over there but we inspected

7 actually the room only at that time.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. This is why I was saying we may, because I

9 know that is subject to your looking at the facilities and finding --

10 yes. Yes.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: And you understand, of course, our position that

12 after all we are not the ones who practically decide, but we have to

13 consult the medical specialist, the doctor as well.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the medical report which was -- which

15 suggested this bed arrangement is clear, and it was given to the people

16 responsible for making these arrangements so that we -- at least in our

17 minds, it's not an ordinary bed.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: So that's why I'm saying we may continue in the

20 afternoon if the facilities will be available.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: That means if they will be available and if they are

23 properly available. Let me put it that way.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you so much.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because as much as we are concerned, the

1 Prosecutor is really not a persecutor. Thank you. We'll adjourn.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.04 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day

4 of October, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25