1 Wednesday, 16 January 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused M. Simic not present in court]

5 [The witness entered court]

6 --- Upon commencing at 2.35 p.m.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number

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

10 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: I notice that Mr. Simic, Mr. Milan Simic, is not in

12 Court, Mr. Zecevic.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, my client is very sick, I should say,

14 and he -- he wasn't able to come today. He waived his right, though, to

15 be present today at the Court as well, as yesterday. And I don't really

16 know at this moment, I cannot inform the Trial Chamber how long will it

17 take, because he's under -- he's taking some medicaments. So I really

18 don't know. It might happen that he comes tomorrow, but this is under

19 question mark still. Thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: So we can proceed.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah. We can proceed, and we will inform the Trial

22 Chamber accordingly for tomorrow. Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Tomorrow morning.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes. I see Mr. Di Fazio.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: You see both of us, if Your Honour pleases,

2 perhaps if I may go first. If I could just assist the Chamber with a few

3 matters that arose out of yesterday's proceedings. First of all

4 Mr. Pantelic's inquiry regarding statements made by this witness.

5 We checked our records, and the Prosecution can confirm that every

6 statement and every set of notes that it has in its possession have been

7 disclosed and provided to the Defence. Indeed, in the course of

8 cross-examination, every statement and every set of notes has been in fact

9 referred to in the evidence, bar one statement, which is a statement taken

10 on the 27th of July, 1994, which was taken at the MUP in Bosnia, and that

11 hasn't been raised in evidence thus far. But it was certainly provided to

12 the Defence, and there are receipts. We have receipts dated the 15th of

13 May of this year indicating that that particular statement was provided as

14 well.

15 So the upshot is everything's been provided.

16 Just on that issue, however, I would ask Defence counsel to think

17 carefully before making those sorts of requests in court. I understand

18 their position, but nonetheless, seeking -- getting that sort of

19 information about what's been provided is no easy matter, and it really

20 takes the case manager away from a lot of other important tasks that the

21 Prosecution would like him to be attending to in the evenings. I would

22 ask the Defence counsel to think carefully before they make those

23 requests. This statement was -- as I said, all material was provided and

24 it's all been referred to in cross-examination except that one statement

25 and that was provided back then.

1 As I said, I repeat my request to Defence counsel to

2 consider that issue carefully. It's not a question of simply going and

3 looking up one document, it does involve quite a bit of work to go over

4 material that's already been provided to them.

5 So that's all I wanted to say about the issue raised by

6 Mr. Pantelic.

7 I believe on -- another matter is the statement of this witness

8 that the Defence say was taken in the SUP office in Bosanski Samac. That

9 statement was provided to the Prosecution, as I said, yesterday, by

10 Mr. Lukic, and he will confirm that, I'm sure, shortly.

11 And finally, if Your Honours please, on one matter --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: This document you're talking about, this is D --

13 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry I should have mentioned that. D22.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: /3

15 MR. DI FAZIO: /3 ter.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the Serbo-Croat.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: That is the one actually. You're saying that was

19 provided by the Defence to the Prosecution.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. And Mr. Lukic can confirm that.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: And finally, there is just a matter that I detected

23 earlier, and that's this: In D24/3, which is the judgement of the

24 Bijeljina court, the translation of the judgement of the Bijeljina court,

25 it says -- it's dated, if you look at that particular document in the top

1 left-hand corner, 21st of August, 1993. That must be a mistake. I've

2 shown it to Mr. Lukic, and if you look at the B/C/S version, D24/3 ter ID,

3 it's the 21st of June, 1993. Just the dates. You see?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: So the August date -- and given the minor

6 controversies over dates and times as far as this statement is concerned,

7 that could be important, so we should have an accurate translation. Can I

8 draw that to the Chamber's attention, and could we, I don't know, perhaps

9 by court order alter the translation.

10 JUDGE MAY: Let me find out from Mr. Lukic.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: What date does the Defence maintain?

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. The

14 Prosecutor showed me this inconsistency between the English translation

15 and the original document, and what I found out from the statement during

16 the cross-examination of the witness was that the trial took place in

17 June. Perhaps he can confirm that now. So I think that in that sense,

18 the B/C/S document is beyond dispute and I think it's a mistake in the

19 English translation.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe I can ask the witness as to when the

21 trial took place. Was it June 1993?

22 WITNESS: WITNESS M [Resumed]

23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in June 1993.

25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: If I could also add one thing. In the English

1 translation, if you look into the first paragraph, line 6, it actually

2 does state 21st of June, 1993, that the court was sitting and rendering

3 the judgement.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I think that confirms it beyond all doubt.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: So that August should go -- sorry, 21st of August

7 should go and 6th of -- 21st of June substituted.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So we all agree that Exhibit 24/3, it should be June

9 and not August.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: So perhaps it could be altered. I don't know how

11 you'd normally proceed. A simple handwriting alteration should be enough

12 if it's done by the registry.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: The record is there. It should go back, of course,

14 to the translation people as well for the exhibit itself to be corrected.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Di Fazio, you are through?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Before -- Mr. Pantelic, just wait.

19 Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to talk

21 about two things. Before the Prosecution says what their stand is, I

22 would like to now provide to the registry and the Trial Chamber the

23 documents of documents 26/3 ter ID and document 23/3 ter. I didn't have

24 copies of that document yesterday, so one is for the registry and the rest

25 is for the Trial Chamber.

1 In response to what my learned friend the Prosecutor has said, I

2 would like to I apologise to the Chamber and to the Prosecution regarding

3 my statement of yesterday, because I really did think that I had received

4 this document from the Prosecution. Shortly before the questioning -- the

5 examination of this witness last December, we exchanged documents here in

6 the courtroom, so I received a judgement from the Prosecution, and I did

7 have a statement.

8 In any case, the Prosecution received this document from me, and

9 this is document D22 ter ID, the statement of the witness provided to the

10 SUP. The original of this document is not in my possession. I've checked

11 my documents here and also all the documents that I have. I checked them

12 through my investigator in my office in Belgrade.

13 I completely agree with the view of the Trial Chamber for a --

14 that there must be an original in order to carry out a handwriting

15 expertise. I spoke with my learned friend the Prosecutor this morning

16 regarding this problem, and I propose the following, but I would just like

17 to ask the Trial Chamber to allow me to state what the procedure is

18 according to the regulations which was in force then in the territory of

19 the former Yugoslavia and also before the military tribunal in Bijeljina

20 at the time of the proceedings.

21 The essence is as follows: A statement which is taken in a police

22 station is taken in three copies. One copy remains in the records of the

23 police station. Two copies are provided to the public Prosecutor. The

24 public Prosecutor, if he decides to initiate legal proceedings, will

25 provide the case files and all the evidence to the investigative judge

1 along with that statement. So one copy will be left in the possession of

2 the public Prosecutor, and the second copy will be given to the

3 investigative judge. The Trial Chamber before which the case appears of a

4 certain person does not have the right to look at the statement given

5 before the SUP, and it's not evidence before a Trial Chamber, except in

6 strictly determined conditions in case it's subject to the strictest fine,

7 and if the person that is being tried agrees with that. So it means that

8 the statement which is provided to the court remains under seal with the

9 investigative judge, which means that the original of the statement, the

10 original statement could be kept in one of those three places.

11 Through my investigator, I obtained copies of that statement, and

12 I provided them to the Chamber. So I'm afraid that I may not be able to

13 get from the authorities of Republika Srpska the originals. So my

14 suggestion to the Prosecution was to provide in a reasonable date, and I

15 will try to do my best to provide one of those originals. If I do not

16 obtain such an original, then I will not move for handwriting expertise.

17 But I think it would be interesting for this legal proceedings to ask for

18 the case files regarding not only about this witness but other witnesses

19 who were also before -- appeared before the court in Bijeljina in view of

20 the accused's rights to a fair trial. I think it would be something that

21 would be in important for this Trial Chamber, and I will try, to the best

22 of my ability, to obtain these documents.

23 So I would like to be given a certain period of time within which

24 I can try to obtain this document. There's no need for the witness to

25 give his signature on a separate piece of paper. The Prosecution already

1 has in their statement -- in his statement to them his signature. So if

2 necessary, then we will act on the basis of that in the future.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just want to be sure that from what you have

4 submitted, it means that the court in Bijeljina which tried the witness,

5 the ones who delivered the judgement D24/3, do have one of the original

6 copies of D22.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Precisely. According to the laws in

8 force at that time, all the case materials, including the evidence --

9 including the statement, which is D22 ter ID, are kept at the court in

10 Bijeljina with the investigative judge in his documents or in the case

11 file itself under seal.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Lukic, you can do what you can to see if

13 you can obtain those documents. If you have any problems, you should

14 apply by motion so that the Trial Chamber can issue the relevant orders to

15 the relevant authorities, according to our Rules of Procedure and

16 Evidence, and then maybe we can have an original copy. Because the Trial

17 Chamber would like to make sure that whatever examination the handwriting

18 expert deals with is properly conducted.

19 JUDGE SINGH: The other thing perhaps I might remind you is, and

20 ask you is whether each of the copies is signed separately or is there

21 some sort of a carbon paper on which he signs on the original and then the

22 signature appears on the other copies. Because then when you do provide a

23 copy to this court, the signature has to be clear, very clear, and I think

24 you should ascertain that before you bring the copy in.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] According to my information, Your

1 Honour Judge Singh, each copy is signed individually, and all of those --

2 each of those three copies represents an original. And I thank the Court

3 for its decision.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: And in addition to what Judge Singh has asked, when

5 you look at D22, it's typed. Yeah. I was wondering whether that is how

6 the statements are actually taken, typed or in longhand and then typed

7 later. What are your instructions on this?

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is no rule about

9 that. Sometimes, according to my information, even though I've never

10 worked at the SUP myself but I did have access to such evidence, sometimes

11 the person is asked to write out the whole statement, in which case the

12 whole statement is handwritten. Sometimes he's asked to speak, to talk,

13 and then the authorised official types up the statement at the same time

14 as he's speaking and then the person being questioned signs statement.

15 But according to the regulations in force at that time in Bosnia and

16 Herzegovina, and this was also the law which was applied in the territory

17 of Republika Srpska, the person is just asked to provide a statement. But

18 this is also in accordance with the Penal Code which was in force in the

19 entire territory of the former Yugoslavia.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: If my memory serves me right, I think the witness

21 kept saying that the officer who was asking him questions already had a

22 piece of paper onto which things were written. So I'll clear this with

23 the witness so that we're sure at the time that he was being questioned

24 what actually happened.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Do you want me to ask this of the

1 witness?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We want to know whether anybody was recording

3 and how they were recording, in longhand, typing, all the details at the

4 time he was being interrogated, regarding D22.

5 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.

7 A. Good afternoon.

8 Q. I assume you've heard what the Trial Chamber is in interested in,

9 and I am interested in that as well. I would like to ask you a few

10 questions about the procedure itself when you were giving a statement to

11 Mr. Savic. First all, was anybody else there present except for

12 Mr. Savic?

13 A. There was a duty police officer who was standing behind me.

14 Q. While Mr. Savic was taking your statement, was he typing anything

15 out on a typewriter?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did Mr. Savic have any piece of paper in his hand which he showed

18 you and which he asked you to sign?

19 A. He did have a piece of paper which contained a list of 10 or 11

20 persons, among which was also my name, and it was a list of the scouts

21 unit.

22 Q. You explained to us that this was a paper which he was waving at

23 you. It was proof which he showed to you in regard to your membership of

24 the scouts unit; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Did he have a piece of paper in his hand which he asked you to

2 sign?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Was there a typist in that room to whom he was dictating

5 something?

6 A. No.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think the matter has

8 been sufficiently clarified now.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Just one more question to the witness.

10 As you were answering the questions put to you, was the official

11 writing down your answers?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Any point, Mr. Di Fazio?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: No, thank you. Your Honour asked the question that

15 I was going to ask -- I suggest should be asked, thank you.

16 JUDGE SINGH: Just one or two more questions. How long were you

17 with this Officer Savic that day?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From 20 minutes to half an hour.

19 JUDGE SINGH: And you left the room then. Did you come back to

20 sign anything later that day or the next day?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: We can go back to Mr. Lazarevic. Yes, Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one more clarification regarding

24 the question by Judge Singh.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Did you perhaps receive any kind of piece of paper from the SUP

3 over the next several days to sign?

4 A. No.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, we can continue with your

6 cross-examination.

7 Mr. Pantelic, you wanted to respond to Mr. Di Fazio's --

8 MR. PANTELIC: Yeah. Actually, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

10 MR. PANTELIC: -- with your permission about this issue about the

11 statement from 1994 which might be of importance for ongoing proceedings.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Just very briefly, Your Honours. I made a short

14 inquiry among my colleagues, and it seems to us that we didn't receive

15 this statement from Orasje MUP from 1994, and I would be very grateful to

16 our learned colleagues if they can just show us this copy so that we can

17 know what is actually going on.

18 And the other thing, Your Honours, it is our understanding that

19 the Office of Prosecution is not in possession of any other statements

20 from the witnesses in this cases from sources of Bosnian police or Bosnian

21 intelligence service and that actually, in this particular case, they are

22 finished with the discovery process to the Defence. I would like

23 confirmation from the Prosecution.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: You may sit down then. Are you through? Yes.

25 I would just ask you, Mr. Di Fazio, on the Orasje MUP 1994

1 statement.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I've got a copy here. It's got some

3 handwriting on it, but I'm happy to provide it once again to the Defence,

4 if that will assist.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: And as far as discovery is concerned, well, I --

7 I'll repeat what I said earlier. We've handed over everything that we've

8 got emanating from this witness in terms of statements and notes.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: So when are you going to provide that?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, now.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Soon?

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Now.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just wanted to say that under Rule 68, of

14 course the Defence are entitled to receive any documents that the

15 Prosecution may have or may indeed come across even during the

16 proceedings, even after the proceedings. The reason for this is that

17 they're entitled to any document that may be of assistance to them, to the

18 accused persons. And also the Trial Chamber is entitled to any documents

19 that might have probative value. So that is important. So when they are

20 asking for any sources from anywhere, they are simply obliging their

21 clients under their duties to be diligent, as some of the Appeals Chamber

22 decisions have indicated. They always have -- if they are put on inquiry,

23 it is their duty to find out and make sure that if there are any

24 documents, they have access to them.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: The Prosecution is alive to that issue and that

1 concern of the Trial Chamber and all the Trial Chambers in this Tribunal.

2 I might also add that statements are one of the easiest things to identify

3 and hand over in terms of Rule 68, so I just don't see that there could be

4 any problem as far as disclosure is concerned.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. All right. Thank you.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I don't want to take any more --

7 any time here. After brief consultation, my colleagues confirm that they

8 didn't receive this Orasje statement during the discovery process.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

10 MR. PANTELIC: During the break we shall contact our colleagues of

11 Prosecution and we shall and --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Resolve the matter.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you very much.

14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering. Mr. Pantelic, in his -- not

15 that statement but the previous intervention had asked the Prosecution

16 concerning the discovery process being over with respect to witnesses, in

17 the plural, in this case, and I believe I heard you, Mr. Di Fazio, to

18 respond by saying that yes indeed all documents with respect to this

19 particular witness in front of us had been disclosed. So I'm a little bit

20 at odds with what Mr. Pantelic said and what you responded.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I was -- I was confining my remarks to this

22 particular witness regarding disclosure because that's the context in

23 which it arose. Is Your Honour now asking me about the issue disclosure

24 generally in the case?

25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Rather it's not myself asking; it's what

1 Mr. Pantelic asked you.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, you're quite right when you say the

3 issue is -- and -- an ongoing thing, and indeed there is an exercise in

4 disclosure being conducted at the moment in conjunction with the Defence

5 regarding a collection of documents. That is being conducted by my

6 colleague Ms. Reidy, and I can't say that I have first-hand knowledge of

7 just how that is progressing, but I can say that it is progressing and I

8 can say that the Prosecution is alive to it and concerned about it, and I

9 can say that the Defence are participating in that. So whether it is all

10 disclosure in every single aspect of this case has been complete, I cannot

11 say with absolute certainty, but I can say that the majority of it has

12 occurred and that as I said, there is this last aspect of disclosure that

13 is being attended to and in which the Defence are participating.

14 If, however, you require more details about that, then it would

15 seem to me that Ms. Reidy would be the best person to address you on that.

16 If you're concerned about it, I can make arrangements for her to give you

17 a progress report, so to speak, on that.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We would appreciate that actually.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: You would.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Later, yes. Before -- after we finish this

21 witness, for instance.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, I anticipate that the next issue that

23 will arise will be the -- I withdraw that. Okay, after we finish this

24 witness and before the next witness comes along.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll see how we progress. We'll see how we go

1 because I'm not happy interrupting Mr. Lazarevic's cross-examination for

2 so long.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: All I would ask is just some indication so that she

4 can marshal her notes and so on and get herself together as far as that is

5 concerned.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you very much.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, you're continuing with

9 cross-examination.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC:. Yes. Thank you, Your Honours. And good

11 afternoon, Your Honours.

12 Cross-examined by Mr. Lazarevic: [Continued]

13 Q. Good afternoon, sir. We will continue where we left off

14 yesterday. This delay you have seen yourself the reason for it, so I will

15 not now go into any explanations.

16 Before we continue with another topic, I would now like to ask two

17 very short questions pertaining to the topic of the white bands. You

18 remember that we discussed it yesterday.

19 Can you please tell me, this obligation to wear such white bands

20 around your sleeves, how long was it in force?

21 A. It was not in force for a long time. I may have worn this band

22 for some 7 to 10 days.

23 Q. These would be the first 7 to 10 days from the 16th of April or

24 the 17th of April, rather, onwards?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Were there any cases of people not wearing that band despite the

2 fact that they were of Croat or Muslim ethnicity?

3 A. As far as I know, that was not the case. Everybody wore such

4 bands, all the people that I saw.

5 Q. Yes. I just wanted to ask you that as far as you know then. But

6 do you know if anyone, any member of the Croatian or Muslim ethnic group

7 had any -- suffered any consequences because they did not wear such a

8 band, that perhaps they would be arrested or harassed because they didn't

9 wear such a band?

10 A. I do not know about that.

11 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move on to another topic. It is

12 the meeting that took place in late June in the memorial home. You

13 testified about that. You said that Simo Zaric, Mladen Radovic, Jovo

14 Savic, and Vlado Sisic were present at the meeting, that some of them

15 addressed the meeting and that all of them were members of the

16 4th Detachment; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you know that the official date when the Republika Srpska army

19 was established is considered to be the 12th of May, 1992?

20 A. As far as I know, the 4th of January, 1992, is the day of the

21 Serbian Republic. That was when the assembly split at Pale and when

22 Momcilo Krajisnik split off his faction from the rest of the assembly in

23 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24 Q. I did not want to interrupt you during your answer, but I did not

25 mean the time when the assembly was split off. I meant the date when the

1 army of Republika Srpska was established. Do you know that it was the

2 12th of May, 1992?

3 A. No. I don't have that information.

4 Q. The reason why I ask you this is because we have information that

5 in June, the 4th Detachment had already ceased to exist and that at that

6 time it was already the 5th Battalion of the Republika Srpska army. Do

7 you know that?

8 A. No.

9 Q. I would now like to ask you some questions regarding Mladen

10 Radovic. Had you known him from before?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. He was a fellow citizen; you knew where he lived?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you know what his function was, in what capacity he was there

15 at this meeting in the memorial hall?

16 A. No, I don't know.

17 Q. You don't know that he was the commander of the 5th Battalion?

18 A. No.

19 Q. At that meeting, you and the others who attended the meeting were

20 offered to receive weapons and by that very act to become, as I

21 understand, soldiers of the Republika Srpska army.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So that means had you accepted this proposal that was presented to

24 you at the meeting, you would have become a soldier of the

25 Republika Srpska.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you very much. I would now like to move on to another topic

3 and that would be Odzak. In your testimony before the Tribunal, you

4 stated that when you came to Odzak for the first time that the mosque was

5 already destroyed. That's what you said yesterday.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know when the Republika Srpska army entered Odzak, on what

8 date?

9 A. At the beginning of July.

10 Q. Could it be on the 13th of July, 1992?

11 A. No.

12 Q. We have information that the mosque in Odzak was destroyed on the

13 17th of July, 1992. Could you confirm this information, the 17th of July,

14 1992?

15 A. I already told you that I was not there when the mosque was

16 destroyed. I went to Odzak the next day. So I could not tell you when

17 exactly the mosque was destroyed.

18 Q. Yes. I understand that. But in your testimony before the

19 Tribunal, it is in the transcript, page 5087, line 25, you said that you

20 arrived in Odzak for the first time on the 9th or the 10th of July. Is

21 that what you said?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I think we again have a problem with those dates. So according to

24 you, the information that the mosque was destroyed on the 17th of July is

25 not correct?

1 A. I have to tell you that it's been 10 years, and I could not

2 pinpoint the exact date. I cannot remember the exact date. I know that

3 it was the beginning of July.

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lazarevic, if we can look at page 19,

5 line 11, the witness in answering your question, at least according here

6 to the English transcript, says, "I already told you that I was not there

7 when the mosque was destroyed. I went to Odzak the next day." So that

8 presumably would -- if it means a literal meaning what we have -- sorry, a

9 literal meaning of what we have there, whatever the day the witness went

10 to Odzak, he's saying that he must have heard that the mosque was

11 destroyed the day before. So that presumably would give us the date. If

12 you could clarify maybe with the witness that that's what he means.

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: I fully understand what Your Honour means, but in

14 his statement before this Tribunal, the witness stated that the first day

15 he came was 9th or 10th of July, and we have this in transcript. So this

16 is the issue I was really trying to clarify with the witness because there

17 are some misunderstanding obviously. This is why I was insisting on these

18 dates, and again I will ask the witness to start it.

19 Q. [Interpretation] So to sum up, you did get the gist of what

20 Judge Williams was saying. So you arrived in Odzak one day after the

21 destruction of the mosque.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So do you still maintain that it was the 10th or the 9th of July?

24 A. It's been a really long time, and I cannot tell you specifically

25 the exact date. Maybe it's one day or two days later or earlier.

1 Q. I will not dwell on that any more. Do you know that after the

2 Republika Srpska army entered Odzak that a military administration was

3 introduced?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you then confirm that the command of the military

6 administration was in the hotel in Odzak?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you know that the Crisis Staff of the Bosanski Samac

9 municipality had set up a civilian council for Odzak?

10 A. I am not sure about that.

11 Q. Do you know Savo Popovic?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you know that he was the president of the civilian military

14 council for Odzak?

15 A. I know that I used to see him in Odzak, but I don't know what his

16 function was.

17 Q. Now I would like to ask you some questions about certain

18 individuals, just to clear things up as much as we can.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't object to -- I'm

20 referring to the question that my learned friend asked, "President of the

21 civilian military council for Odzak." It seems to be a contradiction in

22 terms to me, unless it's some sort of joint body consisting of both

23 civilians and military personnel. If it's the case for Mr. Zaric that

24 there was such a body, then shouldn't it be put to the witness that (a) he

25 can answer clearly; and (b) the Chamber can know what it's supposed to be,

1 this body, because just who was running Odzak might become important in

2 this case. All we know is a civilian military council. What is it,

3 soldiers or the Crisis Staff or is it both or what?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Right.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not objecting but I suggest the Chamber would

6 be assisted if that was clarified.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure Mr. Lazarevic --

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I will do my best to satisfy my learned colleague.

9 Civilian military -- what was it -- council was the official name under

10 what this body was formed by the Crisis Staff of Bosanski Samac. I am

11 using its exact name as the way these -- this is the information that I

12 got from my client. Maybe there is another name for this body. Maybe my

13 client really cannot have this information, but I must -- I wanted just to

14 say that it was a body of 15 persons, and my client was one of these 15

15 persons.

16 I'm not certain about the possibility that this witness could give

17 us a detailed information in regard to this. Maybe we shall wait for

18 Defence case to give all the possible evidence and all the explanation

19 about legal status of this body and everything. So far I'm just

20 interested about persons that this witness possibly saw during that time

21 in Odzak and maybe to clarify with him if he has any knowledge about what

22 were their tasks, what were their position, who was in charge for what.

23 And this is only according to his knowledge. And this is obviously the

24 issue that we're going to deal with, but I don't think this witness is the

25 right one to explain all this.

1 So in this situation, I will just ask him about persons.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. I'm sure that is clear to Mr. Di Fazio.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is, and now I know what the position is.

4 Thank you very much.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. In light of your previous answer, I will not be asking you about

7 some very important functions, posts, tasks, things that you're not aware

8 of. I would just like to ask you some questions pertaining to certain

9 individuals. So I will be mentioning names of people and then you will

10 just tell me that -- whether you know that person or not, whether you used

11 to see him in Odzak or not, and whether you know what he was doing in

12 Odzak or not. So I don't want to ask you any questions as to the things

13 that you are not in a position to know.

14 I will start with Savo Popovic. You already said that you knew

15 who he was. Let me now ask you if you saw him in Odzak.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you know what he was doing in Odzak?

18 A. Regarding Savo, I said a little while ago that I did used to see

19 him, but I don't know what function he was performing.

20 Q. The next person is Cedo Milicevic. Do you know Cedo Milicevic?

21 Do you know that person?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you see him in Odzak?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you know what function he was performing, what he was doing

1 there?

2 A. I don't know exactly, but I think that he was a minister of

3 tourism.

4 Q. In Odzak?

5 A. In Odzak for those hotels and so on. I don't know exactly.

6 Q. The next person is Dusan Gavric. Do you know who that person is?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you see him in Odzak?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you know what post he was at?

11 A. I think he replaced Savo Popovic in the function that he was

12 performing.

13 Q. But you don't know what that was?

14 A. No.

15 Q. The next person is Milan Ugljesic. The questions are the same.

16 Perhaps you can yourself follow on from there. Do you know him? Did you

17 see him? And do you know what duties he was carrying out?

18 A. Yes. I think Milan was a police officer.

19 Q. Miso Pavic?

20 A. Perhaps you're thinking of Mirko Pavic.

21 Q. Mirko Pavic?

22 A. He was the police commander in Odzak.

23 Q. Ilija Ugljesic?

24 A. I know him. I don't know what duties he was carrying out, but he

25 is the brother of Milan Ugljesic

1 Q. Thank you. And Drago Tadic?

2 A. I don't know him.

3 Q. Rajko Dervenic?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Mihajlo Milosevic?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And Mirko Pavic.

8 A. We mentioned him awhile ago. He is the -- he was the commander of

9 police in Odzak.

10 Q. Yes. We talked about him when I was asking you about the SUP

11 orders. That's the same person who worked at the police in

12 Bosanski Samac; is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you know if Simo Zaric was in charge of security affairs in

15 Odzak?

16 A. I don't know that.

17 Q. I asked you a certain number of questions just now regarding a

18 large number of persons, including my client amongst them, and you

19 answered almost to all of those questions that you don't know what posts

20 these people were at. You don't know the people who were in that council.

21 In your statement before this Chamber on the 4th of December,

22 transcript page 5043 and 50 -- 5093 and 5094, you called a lot of people

23 as -- you called my client a chief.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his question?

25 Could the witness repeat his answer, please?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters didn't catch the answer of the

2 witness, I think to your previous question.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm sorry. I will clarify this with the witness

4 again.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: So that he can repeat his answer, yes.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Since the interpreters did not catch your answer, it was a little

8 fast, I will repeat the question again. You described my client as the

9 Supreme Commander in Odzak. We've established that you don't know what

10 duties he was performing in Odzak. Could you please tell me, based on

11 what do you claim that he was the Supreme Commander since you don't know

12 what his function was?

13 A. Everything that happened in Odzak was first cleared with

14 Mr. Zaric. Everything that was done was done under his orders.

15 Q. I think that you said that this both pertained to civilian and

16 military issues; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you know -- I've already asked that, but do you know that the

19 military administration was stationed there? Do you know who made up the

20 military administration, the military component?

21 A. It seems to me that you don't know what my function was in Odzak.

22 I was carrying out my work duty, and I would pass by when Mr. Zaric was

23 directly issuing orders about what to do and where to go.

24 Q. Sir, I asked you a specific question here pertaining to the

25 military administration and to the question whether there was a military

1 administration you said that you know that there was one and that it was

2 there. Was Simo Zaric in that military administration?

3 A. As far as the military administration, I used to see him in

4 military uniform, armed, at the hotel with the army.

5 Q. So you think that he was some kind of military administrator of

6 Odzak?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you very much. I would now like to put several questions to

9 you continuing in this same topic. I would like to ask you questions

10 regarding the hotel in Odzak.

11 Simo Zaric's desk was at that hotel. Is that true?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was that on the ground floor of the hotel, in that room?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. Was that a section screened off?

16 A. He had his desk close to the bar, on the right side as you entered

17 the hotel. As far as any kind of screens, it was -- there was a screen in

18 two sections there at the entrance. It was some kind of panelling.

19 Q. Yes. That's what I meant. Was the dining-room also in that part

20 of the hotel?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did the workers who were carrying out the work duty in Odzak also

23 eat in that restaurant?

24 A. Yes, for a while, very, very briefly.

25 Q. If I understood your statement properly, you were sent to go to

1 the work duty in -- to Odzak from Samac.

2 A. We would receive our schedule in Samac, and a group of us would go

3 to Odzak.

4 Q. So you were told in Samac to go to Odzak.

5 A. Yes. There was a truck waiting for us in front of the local

6 commune, and then we were taken to Odzak. But we didn't know what we

7 would be doing in Odzak.

8 Q. So this is where you would go onto the truck and then you would

9 arrive at Odzak; is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. We received certain information here that workers who were

12 carrying out the work duty were brought to Odzak, in front of the SUP

13 building?

14 A. Later. At the beginning we were brought in front of the hotel.

15 Q. So at the beginning you were brought in front of the hotel. Later

16 this was changed and after that you were brought in front of the SUP.

17 A. Yes, that's right. And we would eat, eat our lunch at the SUP

18 afterwards.

19 Q. Thank you very much. In Odzak, you and the rest of the workers in

20 Odzak were issued your instructions by Stojan Blagojevic; is that right?

21 A. He would read a list of persons who were supposed to go to

22 Novi Grad and to those places where we would be working.

23 Q. Did Stojan Blagojevic also check whether those tasks you were

24 given were carried out, whether you had performed your tasks, how far you

25 had performed them? Was that something that he did?

1 A. As far as I'm concerned, he didn't check up on me. I don't know

2 about others. He did go.

3 Q. Thank you. You've given me a detailed answer regarding yourself

4 and also -- it doesn't matter if you know or don't know about the others.

5 This is sufficient.

6 While you were waiting to receive instructions from Stojan

7 Blagojevic, where we were supposed to go, you said for a while this was in

8 front of the hotel and later it was in front of the SUP. Did you meet in

9 front of the hotel or in front of the SUP, not in those buildings?

10 A. Yes, in front of the hotel and in front of the SUP.

11 Q. So you don't know what was happening inside the SUP or the hotel

12 buildings at that time?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. You were allowed to move freely around Odzak, you had permission

15 to do so?

16 A. Yes, since this is the kind of work I was doing. I was working on

17 the public water system. I needed to be able to move freely.

18 Q. So you were able to move freely around?

19 A. Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, the interpreter is under pressure. You are

21 not yourself pausing.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise to the interpreters and to the Trial

23 Chamber.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. We have your last answer. Could you please

25 tell us who issued you this permit to move freely in Odzak?

1 A. I was given that by the chief of the city water system, Krstan

2 Djordjic.

3 Q. Thank you. I would like now to move to the topic of the work that

4 you were doing at the farm in Novi Grad. You know about the work about

5 the job that I am talking about?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Again not an objection, but I suggest that the

10 Chamber might be assisted if we knew whether the witness is talking about

11 a permit, a document that allowed him to move around, or whether it was

12 permission, just "You're free to walk around." I don't know but you might

13 find that useful. From looking at the answers, I just can't tell if he's

14 talking about blanket permission, oral permission, or whether he's talking

15 about a piece of paper that enabled him to move around. That might be

16 important.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because one may as well ask then, "Why are you

18 saying you are forced to work? You could have left."

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I will clarify this issue, and thank you to my

20 learned colleague.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, please clarify that.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. You heard my learned friend the Prosecutor and also the Judges.

24 Could you please explain to us what kind of a permit or permission it was?

25 Was it a document, a piece of paper which somebody issued to you which

1 enabled you to move freely, or were you just simply told, "You may freely

2 move around Odzak and nobody will stop you."

3 A. I received a piece of paper on which my name was -- my name and

4 last name were printed, and it stated "Permit to move freely around

5 Odzak."

6 Q. Could you please tell us who signed it? Is that the same person

7 that you mentioned? Who signed that permit?

8 A. I don't know who signed it.

9 Q. I think that this dilemma has now been cleared up about the type

10 of permit. So now we can come back to Novi Grad.

11 Does the name Milan Ugljesic mean anything to you in connection

12 with this topic?

13 A. I think that he was a butcher at the farm in Novi Grad.

14 Q. Yes, but was he in charge of this farm or the abattoir?

15 A. I don't know. I know that I used to see him around Odzak but if

16 he was in charge of the farm or not, I don't know.

17 Q. Could you please tell me who told you that you should go to this

18 farm?

19 A. Two police officers brought me in front of the hotel, and I think

20 Dusko Popovic and another person, I think his name was Acimovic, I don't

21 remember his first name.

22 Q. Thank you. That is an answer to my question. Can you please tell

23 me who drove you to Samac when you went to get your tools?

24 A. A police vehicle, a police officer.

25 Q. Do you know his name?

1 A. I know they used to call him Cigar and I think that was that

2 person Acimovic, Slobodan or --

3 Q. So the same person, one of those two people were the ones who

4 actually told you to go to the farm; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did that same person brought you back from Samac to Novi Grad?

7 A. He brought me to the Odzak hotel.

8 Q. Yes. So he brought you back to the hotel in Odzak. Can you

9 please tell me who took you to Novi Grad?

10 A. The police.

11 Q. The same two police officers that you mentioned or others?

12 A. I think it was the same ones. We were only -- there was only two

13 of us. There were only two of us, and there was him and his colleague.

14 Q. Well, we will deal with that later. I just want to know whether

15 they were the same people who took you to Novi Grad or were they different

16 people?

17 A. It was the same ones.

18 Q. When you got to Novi Grad, who monitored your work there, if

19 anybody did that?

20 A. There was one soldier. I think he was armed, and he was in a

21 military uniform, and he was a guard at the farm.

22 Q. Do you know his name?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Now I wanted to ask you about what you've already started to tell

25 me and that is, was anybody else on work duty working at the farm together

1 with you?

2 A. I think it was Sead Zigic.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, again I do apologise for

4 interrupting and I'm not objecting, but I want to everyone is following

5 this portion of the evidence. Is my learned friend -- because I have a

6 slight doubt that I am.

7 Is my learned friend -- my learned friend and the witness

8 discussing the episode where he goes to repair pipes in -- at Novi Grad?

9 That's what I understand. I wanted to make sure that the Chamber

10 understood that that was the episode. It's not clearly defined. If you

11 look at the questions, we see a series of questions about work at

12 Novi Grad. It could be just general forced labour. But the witness did

13 describe an episode where I think he alleged that Mr. Simo Zaric

14 participated in giving him instructions to go and repair some facilities

15 at Novi Grad. That's what I understand this is about. But if you read

16 the transcript, it's not immediately apparent. I just wanted to make sure

17 that I've got it right and that the Chamber is -- understands the

18 significance of this evidence.

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I have checked very carefully the transcript, and

20 there is only one episode that occurred regarding witness involvement in

21 certain events in Novi Grad and this is the incident where he mentioned

22 the name of my client.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: So we are talking about this. Of course I will

25 ask again the witness because I want to make sure that he also understands

1 that we're talking about this very same event.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.

3 Q. [Interpretation] I would now like, since this issue arose, are we

4 now talking about the same incidents or perhaps there are several

5 incidents? Is this the incident in whose respect you mentioned my client

6 Simo Zaric when you went to fix the pipes at the farm in Novi Grad? So

7 this would be the event that we're talking about. So let us now clear

8 this up.

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: I hope my learned colleague is satisfied with this

11 answer.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I'm sure he is.

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. So we left off when you said Sead Zigic was with you. Was there

15 anyone else from the work duty detail or was it just the two of you?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. You said that you spent a night in Novi Grad; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you please tell me where did you spend the night?

20 A. In the reception -- at the reception desk, and that is right at

21 the entrance to the farm.

22 Q. Can you please tell me at what time approximately did you finish

23 with your work?

24 A. Around 6.00 or 7.00 p.m. At any rate, night fell while we were

25 still there.

1 Q. Did anyone check whether you had finished your task? Did anyone

2 control that, verify that?

3 A. When we let the water flow through the pipes, the guard realised

4 that everything was okay.

5 Q. So after that, you spent the night in Novi Grad and the next day

6 you went back to Odzak; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Simo Zaric did not tell you personally to go to Novi Grad; is that

9 correct?

10 A. He did not address me. He addressed the two police officers.

11 Q. That's what exactly what I was getting at. So he was not

12 addressing you when he told you to go to Novi Grad; is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You said that he told one of the police officers that if you

15 failed to do your task --

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. We did not get the

17 answer because it overlapped.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, the interpreters did not get the answer

19 from the witness to your previous question because there was an overlap

20 between you and the witness.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. I will again ask this

22 question.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Well, the same thing happened again. There is an

24 overlap between my questions and your answer. So I will have to repeat my

25 question.

1 So Simo Zaric, when he allegedly said that if you fail to do your

2 task that you should be hanged, he was not talking to you?

3 A. Yes, that is correct. He was not talking to us.

4 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask you one thing --

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. I think that time has

6 expired. Maybe we should take --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take our break and continue at --

8 JUDGE SINGH: Just one question.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: There's a question from Judge Singh.

10 JUDGE SINGH: So when he said, "If he fails to repair it, hang him

11 there," who is the "he" that Zaric is referring to?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was talking to the police

13 officers, and he was referring to me, that I should be hanged.

14 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll continue our proceedings at 1615 hours.

16 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, you're continuing.

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. [Interpretation] I presume, sir, that you remember where we left

21 off after our short break. We were talking about the events, and I asked

22 you if Simo Zaric addressed you and threatened you, saying, "If you don't

23 do this, I will hang you," and then you said that he wasn't talking to you

24 directly, that he was talking to the police officers.

25 If I understood you correctly from what you have said so far,

1 Simo Zaric was allegedly there. There were also the two police officers,

2 you and Sead Zigic. So five persons altogether; is that correct?

3 A. Sead was not there. He was at a certain distance away from me. I

4 was standing there with the police officers.

5 Q. So there were the two police officers, yourself, and Sead was a

6 little bit away from you.

7 This fact that you would have been hanged, I presume that you

8 would remember this fact quite clearly.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This is a fact that you would have mentioned in your statements.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In your statement dated the 14th and 17th of June, 1996, there is

13 no mention of an event such as this one and of Simo Zaric saying that you

14 were to be hanged; is that correct?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. Do you want me to check this with the assistance of the

17 Prosecutors in your statement of that date and then the Prosecution can

18 confirm whether this incident is contained in your statement or not?

19 Would you agree with that procedure?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I would kindly ask for assistance

22 from my learned colleague from the Prosecution just to check the statement

23 that this witness gave to the investigators of the OTP on 14th and 17th of

24 June, 1996, and to confirm the fact that this episode was not mentioned in

25 his statement.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio?

2 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm just attending to that, if I --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm just attending to that if I may have a quick

5 look through.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Actually, I have a question while Mr. Di Fazio is

8 doing that. And again this might just be the English translation, so

9 maybe you could clarify.

10 Mr. Lazarevic, on page 36, line -- page 36 -- yes, page 36,

11 line 16, in the English, I think you are asking the witness concerning

12 this episode and you used the words, you know, did Mr. Zaric say, "I will

13 hang you," okay? On the other hand, in the responses of the witness

14 earlier on and subsequent thereto, the English is slightly different.

15 He's saying, "The policemen are told you should be hanged." In my

16 knowledge of the English language there is a difference between, "I will

17 hang you," and, "If you don't do this, you should be hanged."

18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, definitely there is a difference and I will

19 clarify with the witness. For a moment I just lost this page of

20 transcript, and so I -- I haven't noticed that, but I will clarify this

21 with the witness in a very, very -- moment.

22 JUDGE SINGH: Just before you do that, can I also go back to

23 page 5095, when his evidence was first -- the first piece of evidence he

24 gave on this simply said if he refused, hang him there.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. In this line of examination, I will ask the

1 witness about the exact words that he heard that Mr. Zaric allegedly said,

2 and I believe that this is the best way to find as much as we can about

3 this incident.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you heard this discussion. There are some

5 things in the transcript and also in your previous statement or testimony.

6 Can you please now quote the words, the exact words that Simo Zaric used?

7 A. "If he fails to repair it, hang him there."

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe this clarifies the situation, so these

9 are the exact words according to the memory of this witness. And I'm

10 still waiting for my learned friend to confirm this.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio is still looking at the statement, yes.

12 JUDGE SINGH: One more question following from that. I mean, did

13 he appear to say that seriously or just to get you to do the work?

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. You heard the question that Judge Singh asked. Could you please

16 answer while the Prosecutor is checking the allegations? Did it seem to

17 you that it was said in earnest or that it was said by Simo Zaric in order

18 to make you do your work?

19 A. I don't know. It never was clear to me. I know that he did say

20 this, but what the intent was behind these words, whether he was in

21 earnest or whether he was joking ...

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] [no translation].

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: I've checked the statement --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise. I've checked the statement of the

2 witness and the notes taken by investigators, dated July 1998 and I

3 think --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it the notes or the statement made by the

5 witness?

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I've check both.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: No. The counsel was dealing with the statement of

8 the witness.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. Yes, I've checked the statement, and I

10 can say that in that statement, the statement of the 14th and 17th of

11 June, 1996, in that particular statement, there is no reference to the

12 episode.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, my learned colleague.

15 JUDGE SINGH: Following from that, are those the main -- are those

16 the two main statements that were taken, I mean the substantive

17 statements?

18 MR. DI FAZIO: No. There was one substantive statement, if Your

19 Honour pleases. That was the statement dated the 14th and 17th of June

20 1996. Thereafter, there was also provided to the Defence another document

21 which --

22 JUDGE SINGH: That's all right. I was just asking if those were

23 the substantive statements.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: If the Defence counsel wants to know what's in the

25 notes, he will raise it.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, throughout the entire period of the war, you

5 yourself experienced some very painful and difficult things, and you know

6 about many other such things that did happen. Can we agree about one

7 thing on the territory -- that on the territory of Bosanski Samac or

8 Odzak, it has never happened that anybody was ever hanged; is that right?

9 A. Yes, I agree with that.

10 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move to a different topic, and

11 that is Fadil Mustafic. You know about the episode that we talked about

12 and on which you gave a statement. You've already said that -- that he

13 was your badza, uncle, Simo's wife?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. We've already established here that Fadil Topcagic is the brother

16 of Simo's wife, is that true?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So Fadil Mustafic is also the uncle of Fadil Topcagic; is that

19 true?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So besides the fact that he's very close -- a close relative of

22 Fadil Topcagic, and he's also very close to Simo Zaric through his

23 in-laws, Fadil Topcagic was carrying out the -- Mustafic was carrying out

24 the work duty?

25 A. Fadil was detained in the police station.

1 Q. But I was asking about the work duty. He was performing that,

2 wasn't he?

3 A. As a detainee, a prisoner, he did go out to work. First of all in

4 Samac, he was repairing cars because he's a bodyworker, and then after

5 that he was taken to the SUP.

6 Q. After that, according to my knowledge, he was detained at

7 Batkovic.

8 A. Together with me.

9 Q. Besides the fact that he's closely related to Fadil Topcagic --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, you're -- yes, please pause. The pressure

11 on the interpreters --

12 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm sorry. Again I apologise to the interpreters.

13 Q. [Interpretation] So he was detained at Batkovic, despite the fact

14 that he was a close relative to both Fadil Topcagic and to Simo Zaric; is

15 that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In your statement, you said that Dino, Fadil Mustafic's son, paid

18 4.000 German marks to Fadil Topcagic so that he would bring him out; is

19 that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you please tell me how do you know this?

22 A. From Fadil Mustafic's son Dino.

23 Q. So you know it from Dino; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. According to what you know, did Dino give this in order to pay

1 Fadil Topcagic for a favour or was that supposed to be given to someone

2 else?

3 A. I know that Dino gave that to Fadil, according to what Dino said,

4 but I don't know to whom this should have been given.

5 Q. Can you also tell me when this conversation between you and Dino,

6 Fadil Mustafic's son, took place?

7 A. When I left the camp, I came to Orasje. One time I went to

8 Hungary where Dino happened to be, Fadil's son. He was there in -- as a

9 refugee.

10 Q. So this happened in Hungary. If you're able, could you be a

11 little more specific about the period?

12 A. At the beginning of 1995. I don't know whether this was in

13 January or February.

14 Q. Thank you very much. I would now like to ask you several

15 questions pertaining to the part of your statement relating to the

16 dismantling of the radiators and taking the central heating installation

17 and the radiators to a house in Odzak when Simo Zaric was also mentioned

18 in this context. On that occasion, Simo Zaric did not tell you personally

19 to go and to dismantle the radiators, not to you personally? Did he

20 address you personally and tell you so? You know the question. Did he

21 tell you that?

22 A. No, not to me. He did not.

23 Q. Did he ever -- did Simo Zaric ever address you and tell you

24 personally to do anything in Odzak in this context?

25 A. No.

1 Q. He also did not tell you that you should load all that into a

2 truck?

3 A. I was present when he was telling the driver, not to me.

4 Q. Just answer whether this was something that he told you

5 personally.

6 A. He did not.

7 Q. Also he didn't tell you where you should take this?

8 A. No.

9 Q. On that occasion, Stojan Blagojevic and Pero Krstanovic were

10 present, according to your statement; is that true?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You said that while you were dismantling the radiators Sead Zigic

13 helped you. Is that true?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. On that occasion, were any of the workers from the work duty also

16 present?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can you tell me their names?

19 A. I think one of them was the son of Safet Srna, the younger child.

20 I don't know his name. And there was also a man called Dzevad Simnica.

21 That's what we called him. He lived at the railway station in Samac.

22 Q. When you took those things which were dismantled, according to

23 your testimony, when you took them to Samac in a truck, was that the same

24 truck that transported the workers back and forth from work duty

25 assignments?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. On that occasion, were any of the other workers from the work duty

3 also taken to Samac except yourself?

4 A. There were a couple of them on the truck at that time because it

5 couldn't -- no -- no more people could fit in because there were so much

6 material on the truck.

7 Q. Can you remember names of those two people?

8 A. It was Smajlovic Bedrudin, Damir Zurapovic and Zamir Zurapovic. I

9 don't know. I don't remember the names, anymore.

10 Q. When you arrived at Samac, you unloaded those things out on the

11 street, is that true?

12 A. No. We unloaded it -- them in a courtyard.

13 Q. So it was in a courtyard. According to your testimony, it was the

14 courtyard of Fadil Topcagic's house. Is that true?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did -- was Fadil present on that occasion?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Was anybody else other than the people who were unloading these

19 things and yourself, was anybody else present?

20 A. Zigic Sead, myself, the son of Safet Srna, and Simnica and Stojan

21 Blagojevic and Pero Krstanovic, the police officer.

22 Q. So this wasn't delivered to somebody, these things that you

23 unloaded. They were not handed over to somebody, they were just unloaded

24 and left there.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I would now like to go back to your statement of the 14th and the

2 17th of June, 1996, and I would also like to ask for the help of my

3 learned friend the Prosecutor so that I wouldn't brother you so that we,

4 with his assistance, can note that this was not mentioned -- this incident

5 was not mentioned in your statement of the 14th and the 17th.

6 So could my learned friend Mr. Di Fazio help me in confirming that

7 this incident is not contained in the statement of the witness of the 14th

8 and the 17th of June, 1996?

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I can't -- if Your Honours please, I can't see it

10 in the statement of the 14th and 16th -- sorry, the 14th and 17th of June,

11 in that particular statement, no.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: No.

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, my learned colleague.

14 Q. [Interpretation] After that, you talked with my learned friends

15 from the Prosecution on the 13th of July, 2001. They went to Bosnia at

16 that time, and they talked with you; is that right? Do you remember?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. On that occasion, you mentioned this incident for the first time;

19 is that right?

20 A. I'm not sure if that was the first time, but I know that I did

21 mention it.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, that last question, I

23 wonder if Mr. Lazarevic is in possession of all of the material. I mean,

24 this business of disclosure is important, of course, and I wonder if he's

25 in possession of the notes from July of 1998. It may be of assistance to

1 him in this line of cross-examination on the previous or the absence of

2 these -- alleged absence of these matters in previous statements and

3 utterances given to investigators. Indeed, it puts to the witness it

4 wasn't until July 2001 that that was the first time the incident was

5 mentioned.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, that was my question, but to be honest, I

7 have never received any notes taken in 1998. I got two statements --

8 actually, this is one statement that was given in two days, on 14 and 17.

9 Then after that I received, just before the trial started, the notes taken

10 in July 2001. And these are -- and finally, I have received notes taken

11 by my learned colleague just before this witness started his testifying,

12 and these are in -- handwritten. Other notes, notes taken in 1998, I have

13 never received. Of course, you caught me in this moment. I must confirm

14 with other colleagues of mine, because I can just say in my name. But

15 obviously, I mean all my colleagues said that they have never received any

16 such notes. Of course, they would be very helpful, particularly in this

17 course of cross-examination, but there is, I believe, another issue with

18 regard to this.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: They may well be. In fact, I --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: -- I suspect that they would be very useful.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: These are Prosecutor's notes?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: These are investigators' notes headed "Informal

24 Statement," and as I understand and read them, they are notes taken by

25 investigators, reduced to writing, and provided to the Defence. Now, I'm

1 certain they --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: They're dated ...

3 MR. DI FAZIO: July 19, 1998.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Under --

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Present was a gentleman named John Mikulic [phoen]

6 and Yves Roy, investigator from the OTP.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Do you have any -- as far as the Prosecution is

8 concerned, you are saying that they were handed to the Defence.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: As I stand here I haven't done a check on this

10 particular document, but I understand that from the investigations made

11 last night that this is one of the sets of material disclosed to the

12 Defence. It's important, of course, that we ascertain that it's all been

13 disclosed and that the Defence are aware of it, because it's important to

14 them to know. And secondly, it might affect the way that Mr. Lazarevic

15 conducts his cross-examination.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I can well understand that.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. Because we've been through this problem

19 before --

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: -- of handing in a bunch of documents without

22 identifying each one of them and also without having anybody sign for

23 their receipt.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I can go and check this specific document,

25 but the issue arose yesterday, as you know, when Mr. Pantelic asked, "Do

1 we have all the documents," and the search was conducted, and as far as I

2 am aware, this is a document that was handed to the Defence, these

3 particular notes taken in 1998.

4 If you want me to say to you I have investigated and looked at our

5 records and have got evidence that they were disclosed, then I would need

6 time to do that, but --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because the way the Defence's position is that

8 they were never given any document it's up to the Prosecution to show that

9 on this date they were delivered by so-and-so and received by so-and-so,

10 because that's the way the parties are supposed to handle documents.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, I entirely agree. With respect, I

12 entirely agree. It's a question of my being able to do it at this

13 particular moment as I stand here.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: So Mr. Lazarevic's position is that you have never

15 received the notes by the investigators dated 1998.

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. This is exactly the position of

17 Mr. Zaric's defence. I have just spoke with Mr. Pisarevic. He never

18 received it. Also, I spoke to all the Defence counsels, and I have seen

19 the sign that was given to us by --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: The defendants, yeah.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- all the defendants, and they have never seen

22 anything like that. And this brings me into a pretty difficult

23 situation --

24 MR. DI FAZIO: It does. It does.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- to continue with this cross-examination,

1 because I really don't feel good about asserting something to the witness

2 that is not correct and something that I don't know about. So maybe it

3 would be helpful just for this moment for my learned colleague to show us

4 these exact papers, just to examine them briefly in these few minutes just

5 to see what it's about, and then there are very few more questions that I

6 have to ask this witness. Maybe there is -- it is not of that importance

7 for this moment, but generally the problem remains.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I entirely agree with what Mr. Lazarevic says.

9 It's important for him to have the material because obviously it's the way

10 he constructs his cross-examination is --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah, and also the credibility of the witness.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Exactly.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Because if an incident which appears to be important

14 is only mentioned very late, then the implication is that it's an

15 afterthought.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, exactly.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's not fair to the witness either.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not fair to the witness, and it's not fair to

19 the Defence, and it's not fair to us. So it's a matter that needs to be

20 sorted out.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I hope Mr. Lazarevic can look through and

22 perhaps -- unless he needs more time.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, can I please confer for one minute

24 with other counsel, because now I believe that now we do have some

25 problems --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes. You go ahead.

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- which enables me to continue with this

3 cross-examination.

4 [Defence counsel confer]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, the Prosecutors or the investigators'

6 notes do not have any evidentiary value as far as the trial is concerned,

7 so that counsel can go ahead.

8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I am fully aware of that, but there are some

9 information that -- well, for example, if I ask the witness this was the

10 first time that you said this and in this situation, it was obvious that

11 it wasn't the first time.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, on the other hand, I can confirm

14 now, on seeing this document, that this is the first time that I and all

15 other Defence counsel sees this document. [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted] So would this be considered as his informal statement or

18 notes taken by the investigators or Prosecutor's side, I still cannot

19 figure all that. And on the other hand -- please excuse me. I really

20 believe that I need to show this document to my client, because this is

21 something that --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: You have to get instructions.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- to get instructions because otherwise I really

24 don't feel it would be appropriate for me to continue with

25 cross-examination.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because it may raise some important issues

2 regarding the defence of your client.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Whether or not the Prosecution verifies as to what

5 date -- verifies that the notes were taken at the time they say they were

6 taken, you can understand the problem Mr. Lazarevic has raised.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I do. I do. I do understand. And I raised it

8 because I could see the way the cross-examination was going and it puzzled

9 me, and because of that I raised the issue.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: It's important he has those notes and he gets

12 instructions on those notes, and it's important from our point of view, of

13 course, to check whether or not --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: -- we've disclosed it.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, how much time do you think you need?

18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe some 30 minutes.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Lazarevic.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, Your Honour. Maybe some 20 to 30

22 minutes, nothing more than that. That's my estimation of finishing this

23 cross-examination. Also, maybe some new questions. Maybe I'll have to go

24 back to some issues after I check this, but I can assure the Court that it

25 wouldn't take much more than 20 to 30 minutes, although I cannot be 100

1 per cent sure.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. That's the time you need to consult with your

3 client, is it, or that's the time --

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: That is -- that was actually the time that I had

5 to --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: To cross-examine --

7 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- for cross-examination. But I believe that by

8 tomorrow I will be able to examine all these with my client and then

9 tomorrow --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: You may finish.

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- then I can go with this.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So in that case, we'll just have to

13 adjourn and continue tomorrow.

14 Yes, Mr. Weiner.

15 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, could we go into private session for a

16 matter --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 MR. WEINER: -- unrelated to this?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Okay. So the cross-examination is

20 adjourned until tomorrow at 1415.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: And maybe the witness could leave the courtroom.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll go into private session.

25 [Private session]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 5490 – redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 5491 – redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.05 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day

24 of January, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

25