1 Friday, 7 June 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.28 p.m.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Good afternoon, everybody.

7 May we please hear the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T,

9 the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian

12 assisted by Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.

13 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Branko Lukic assisted

14 by Danilo Cirkovic as case manager.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Can we start immediately with the

16 cross-examination.

17 WITNESS: IBRAHIM BEGLERBEGOVIC [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Beglerbegovic. My name is

21 Branko Lukic. And together with Mr. John Ostojic, I represent the Defence

22 of Dr. Milomir Stakic before this Tribunal.

23 Yesterday, you answered the questions of the Prosecution. So I

24 would like to ask you to please help us today to clarify a number of

25 points. First of all, when you spoke about the meeting you had with

1 Mr. Stakic in 1996, what purpose was this meeting held for, can you please

2 tell us?

3 A. This meeting was organised by an international organisation. I

4 can't remember whether it was the OAC, or which organisation. They wanted

5 to establish some sort of a contact between the Prijedor Merhamet and the

6 Red Cross for Republika Srpska, or more precisely, the Prijedor branch of

7 the Red Cross. At this meeting, we spoke about the then forthcoming

8 elections. We discussed some figures, how many people were expected to

9 vote, but not that I can remember too many details from the meeting right

10 now.

11 Q. Yesterday, you also spoke about the founding of the party founded

12 by the Belgrade lawyer Veljko Guberina and whose member Dr. Milomir Stakic

13 also became in Omarska. Do you know that this party had a common list for

14 the elections with the SDS for the 1990 elections?

15 A. I did not know this, and I did not know that the lawyer Guberina

16 was involved. I knew that there was a gentleman called Guberina involved

17 and he was quite famous in the former Yugoslavia, but I didn't know

18 anything about the common list with the SDS.

19 Q. As even before the conflict you had lived in Prijedor, do you know

20 anything about the conflicts within the SDS, or anything about the

21 different factions within the SDS?

22 A. Unfortunately, I know nothing about this. I was not in a position

23 to learn anything about it.

24 Q. Do you know that Dr. Stakic was fired from the position of the

25 president of the municipality in October 1992?

1 A. I know that he was fired, but I don't know the reasons. I know

2 that he was replaced by a man called Kurnoga.

3 Q. Do you perhaps remember -- I'm not saying that you should

4 remember, but if you would just try to remember -- after the takeover on

5 the 16th of May, there was a festive assembly of Prijedor municipality,

6 some Bosniak intellectuals took part, too?

7 A. I can't remember that. I do remember that the 16th of May was a

8 holiday in Prijedor municipality, the liberation of Prijedor. But the

9 meeting you are talking about on the 16th of May and any Bosniak

10 intellectuals taking part, frankly, I can't remember that.

11 Q. Did you know of the existence of a crisis staff of the Party for

12 Democratic Action as opposed to the Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality?

13 A. No, I'm not familiar with that. And I was not a member of the

14 SDA. From my position then, I did not know anything about any such staff.

15 Q. Did you know of the existence of the Crisis Staff of the Serbian

16 Democratic Party as distinct from the Crisis Staff of the Prijedor

17 municipality?

18 A. I didn't realise that there were two different Crisis Staffs

19 there, that those were two distinct Crisis Staffs. I only know that there

20 was the Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality, and all the members of that

21 Crisis Staff were also members of the SDS, at least as far as I know.

22 Q. Did you ever see a decision of the Crisis Staff of the Prijedor

23 Municipal Assembly?

24 A. I heard about a number of those. It's difficult to say now

25 because on Prijedor radio, there were certain appeals and certain

1 proclamations always on behalf of the Crisis Staff. But whether I have

2 seen any of those, I was told by people who had been dismissed that their

3 dismissal was on the behalf of the Crisis Staff. But I never had an

4 opportunity to actually myself look at any such decision. I never held

5 any of these in my hands.

6 Q. Can you please help us with the following: What did these

7 proclamations relate to, excepting the issue of turning in weapons as you

8 said yesterday?

9 A. There was a number of operational issues, some suggestions were is

10 made, some solutions were proposed. And in the intervals between such

11 messages, there were pamphlets. That's what I called them. Flinging mud

12 at certain Muslims, well-respected citizens. So the intention was to

13 paint them as extremists to the citizens of Prijedor. So, for example, a

14 man who was working in the secretariat of national defence, a man named

15 Becir Medunjanin, a teacher from Kozarac, the statements made on the

16 radio, they didn't call him Medunjanin, but rather "Medunjani", which was

17 supposed to be associated with some sort of Albanian ethnic origin

18 purportedly. Ganic, Ejup Ganic they didn't call him Ganic, they called

19 him "Ganici", which was supposed to connote something even more

20 antagonistic to the Serbs. So by adding these different overtones to

21 their family names, the aim was to emphasise animosity or hostility

22 towards the Serbian people.

23 Q. Was the Crisis Staff behind these pamphlets?

24 A. I don't know who wrote these pamphlets, but I know that many

25 things were done on behalf of the Crisis Staff. But I couldn't say for

1 sure whether these pamphlets were written by the Crisis Staff. But it all

2 came from the same frequency, from the same radio station. First the

3 message, the announcement by the Crisis Staff, and then immediately

4 following the announcement, this sort of message.

5 Q. You told us yesterday that after the takeover, you worked for a

6 while but that you were IDed on the way to your work, to the hospital.

7 Was everyone IDed at the checkpoints? Before people were IDed, could you

8 tell who they were?

9 A. There were a number of checkpoints. If you mean at the hospital

10 reception, everyone was IDed there. But, for example, the checkpoint at

11 the crossroads, it very much depended on who was manning the checkpoint,

12 whether he knew the person approaching or not. So I allow for the

13 possibility that there were certain people who were not IDed.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, could we just remind the witness to

15 pause briefly before answering the question because we need to hear the

16 translation before he begins his answer.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Dr. Beglerbegovic, it might seem a bit unnatural. We're used to

19 reacting immediately.

20 A. I'm sorry. I apologise.

21 Q. Yesterday, you also said and explained that quite many Muslims and

22 Croats could not go to work because roads were blocked and checkpoints had

23 been set up along the roads. However, is there any legal possibility to

24 fail to report to work for six days in a row without being dismissed? You

25 were the head of a unit at the hospital, so you must know about the -- you

1 must know about the legal provisions in such cases.

2 A. The reason those persons failed to report to work were not only

3 the checkpoints, but there was no public transport, no bus lines, no

4 railway lines. Everything simply stopped. People couldn't even use their

5 own cars, perhaps due to the checkpoints. But those who commuted to work

6 by bus or by train could not come because there were no means of public

7 transportation. It had all stopped. Whether this was unjustified, if

8 you're only talking about six days of failure to report to work, but if

9 for six days there were objective reasons that these people could not,

10 were not able to, come to work, I think it is very questionable if this

11 can be seen as a justified excuse to dismiss someone from their position.

12 Q. Yesterday you mentioned Dr. Radojka Elenkov. Do you know which

13 ethnic group she belonged to?

14 A. As far as I know, she was a Serb.

15 Q. Isn't Elenkov actually a Bulgarian surname?

16 A. Yes, but this was actually her husband's family name.

17 Q. Thank you. Did your wife work in Prijedor after the 30th of

18 April, 1992? And then on until 1995?

19 A. Yes, she did. She worked in Prijedor.

20 Q. Will you please tell us what sort of work she had?

21 A. When you mentioned the 30th of April, that was the time of the

22 takeover in Prijedor. She worked throughout the whole of April. That is,

23 until the end of April. Hold on, just can I have a minute to try to

24 remember. Yes, she worked until the very end of April. And then when the

25 takeover took place, she no longer worked. But what you're probably

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 aiming at, what you probably want to get at, until 1990 [as interpreted],

2 she worked in a private pharmacy privately owned by a man name Mihajlo

3 Bundic [phoen] who was, by profession, a car mechanic or a driver,

4 something like that. Under the circumstances, he found it convenient to

5 open a pharmacy. And in order to open a pharmacy, there had to be someone

6 qualified involved, and my wife was unemployed at that time. He

7 practically forced her to take up the job. It was not of her own free

8 will. There were a number of ugly scenes there. Unfortunately, this man

9 is no longer around. But at the time he was so arrogant, we take off our

10 shoes when we enter a house. That's our custom. And he walked into a

11 house with military boots on with a grenade at his belt and a pistol. He

12 laid his pistol on the table and began to talk.

13 So one of the reasons he gave for her to start work, she was

14 telling him that she didn't feel like doing that sort of job. It was a

15 difficult job. She didn't want to leave the house. But then he said:

16 "The Turks -- the Turks were torturing us for 500 years, but now it's

17 time for us to get back on you, and now you will have to work for me." He

18 was sitting at the window. He looked across the road, and he said: "This

19 house is not really much of a house, because I can throw a hand grenade

20 here or that window there." The suggestion was basically if she turned

21 down the offer, the job offer, he wanted to show us what would happen to

22 us. So that was a very ugly episode, and she was forced, basically, to

23 work for him.

24 Q. Did your wife receive a salary for her work?

25 A. Yes, she did, except when the last salary was due, but probably

1 the owner of the pharmacy knew that we would be expelled, he kept the

2 salary back, and we were expelled. She was supposed to get her salary on

3 the 1st of October, so he never paid this salary to her.

4 Q. You also said yesterday something about your obligation to report

5 to work during the time you spent on standby. Were the Serbs, who had

6 been put on standby, also obliged to report to their companies at certain

7 intervals?

8 A. As far as I know, yes, they were.

9 Q. If you had failed to report to the hospital, would you have been

10 arrested for that reason, or did you only continue to report to the

11 hospital only to keep your rights?

12 A. I don't think I would have been arrested. That was not a

13 prescription really. I had to report to work to keep my place there,

14 because whoever did not fail to report to work, his employment did not

15 continue but at least he stayed there. So between two reports to work,

16 many people left Prijedor in different ways. So a failure to report very

17 often meant that a person had left Prijedor, and he was automatically

18 eliminated from work.

19 MR. LUKIC: Can the Registrar please show Dr. Beglerbegovic

20 yesterday's evidence, exhibits, bearing the numbers 124B and 125B.

21 Q. Doctor, you can see what we are talking about. You saw these

22 documents yesterday. Was yesterday the first time you laid eyes on these

23 documents?

24 A. Yes. The names in the documents, but I knew about the existence

25 of these documents.

1 Q. Both these decisions, if you will agree, talk about interns, about

2 specialist trainees?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you know that -- whether Mirsad Osmanovic and Miss or Mrs.,

5 Dr. Majda Sadikovic, do you know if they were in Prijedor at that time, or

6 were they outside Prijedor somewhere, taking courses?

7 A. I find that very difficult to say.

8 Q. If you can tell us, it's all right. If not, not.

9 A. I couldn't tell.

10 Q. Do you know that also Serb employees who failed to report to the

11 work obligation were dismissed?

12 A. Yes, I do know that.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 I would just like to go back to the 30th of May, the day of the

15 attack on Prijedor. You told us that you had no time on that day to turn

16 in the weapons that you -- that were legally in your possession, as you

17 meant to. You only mentioned that a soldier walked into your house, took

18 the gun, and left. Were you arrested on that occasion?

19 A. No, I wasn't. They only walked into my house, not one soldier but

20 rather two or three soldiers. They passed through my house. They had a

21 look. They didn't really search the house, but no, I was not arrested.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: The question, the previous question, I'm sorry I

23 should have objected earlier, I believed, and I could be incorrect, he

24 incorrectly stated the witness's answer from yesterday. I don't think he

25 said the gun was taken during the search, but that he -- I don't want to

1 lead the witness. I believe he explained yesterday what happened with the

2 gun.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's easy, for the reason that we have a

4 transcript. Could the Defence counsel please tell us --

5 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Page 34.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Page 34.

7 MR. LUKIC: Line 19.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Line 19.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Doctor, I will read this in English now so you get a proper and

11 accurate translation.

12 [In English] "So I didn't turn it in where I was supposed to turn

13 it in, but it was taken from me with no written certificate. One of the

14 soldiers just took it and left." [Interpretation] Is this correct?

15 A. Yes, it's correct.

16 Q. Were you or any of your relatives maltreated on that occasion?

17 A. No. No one was maltreated. The group that was staying close to

18 my house at a checkpoint, they were the people who came in and took the

19 gun. Aside from the gun, they only took the battery for my car because

20 there was a car that they weren't able to start. So they took the battery

21 from me, but there was no physical maltreatment.

22 Q. The same day, the day of the attack on Prijedor, you said that the

23 attack appeared to have somewhere from the direction of the bridge on the

24 Sana. Is Stari Grad too in the same direction?

25 A. From where I live, yes, it is the same direction, Stari Grad and

1 the bridge. Perhaps 2 or 300 metres distance, perhaps not even that much.

2 Q. You also spoke about announcements on the radio, announcements

3 that were released after the attack on the 30th of May, 1992. On page 27,

4 line 1, you state: [In English] "They explained they extorted. And one

5 such announcement that got me really worried at that moment was an

6 announcement requesting all the citizens of Prijedor to recognise the

7 authorities. But they said at the end of the announcement that the safety

8 of the Muslims was not guaranteed."

9 [Interpretation] In connection with this announcement, I would

10 like to ask you the following question: After this announcement, that is,

11 immediately after this announcement, did anyone come over to your house to

12 kill you, maltreat you, or beat you? Did your family suffer any

13 consequences of this announcement?

14 A. The same night, or the night after the announcement, there was no

15 one. I barricaded myself inside my house as best I could, in case anyone

16 tried to break into the house. However, after several days, perhaps four

17 or five days, a man from the group, the group who had come to my house and

18 taken the battery from my car, met me in the garden outside my house and

19 told me: "Doctor, you've done pretty well so far, haven't you? My people

20 wanted to kill you, but I wouldn't let them. You should get 500

21 deutschmarks ready for me. I'll be back in 15 minutes. If you don't,

22 they will be back tonight, and you will meet a very cruel fate." Before

23 he told me this, the reason he had given was he was asking whether I had

24 an aspirin for a friend of his who had problems urinating, and I knew the

25 man. I went back to the house. I brought some medicine, and I tried to

1 help him. And as I was searching in my bag for the medicine he had

2 requested, he told me what I have just said. And then he left.

3 I was dead scared. And clearly, I was not in a position to wait

4 for him. In my neighbourhood, there was a checkpoint. I went to the

5 checkpoint, and I reported this incident there. My Serb neighbours were

6 at the checkpoint. They knew me. They came to my garden, and they waited

7 for him. And eventually he came. They caught him and took him to the

8 garrison. There was -- I'm not sure whether that was for a military

9 purpose because he, too, was wearing a uniform. So they didn't take him

10 to the civilian police station, but to the garrison on Urije. And

11 according to the accounts of those who had taken him, they beat him there,

12 and they even took his TV set. They came to me to ask me whether it was

13 my TV set, and I said it wasn't. But due to the intervention of the

14 people who were manning the checkpoint, unfortunately he didn't do

15 anything bad to me. I was afraid afterwards that they would release him

16 from the garrison where he had been taken. But fortunately, he never

17 showed up again.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 You spoke yesterday about the white flags and blankets that

20 Bosniaks and Muslims were ordered to put up outside their houses. Did

21 people obey this instruction? Did they put up these flags and blankets?

22 A. Yes, they did.

23 Q. How long did that last for, these flags and blankets? Were they

24 removed later?

25 A. Yes, they were.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Can you tell us, please, approximately how long this lasted, the

2 flags and blankets outside the houses?

3 A. It's difficult to say with any degree of precision, but for about

4 four or five days.

5 Q. You spoke about your stay in Omarska. I mean, the camp, not --

6 I'm not referring to the time you worked there as a doctor. You said you

7 were put in the glass house. Can you tell us about the makeup of the

8 people who were in the glass house?

9 A. I think I already said this yesterday. Those were people who were

10 different in some way, whether they were wealthy people, well-respected

11 people, or perhaps some had, like me, someone they knew who gave them this

12 privilege to be in the glass house. As I said, the conditions in the

13 glass house were much superior to those in any other facilities in the

14 camp.

15 Q. I know that you were brought to Omarska rather late, but I will

16 try to ask you something about the beginning of the functioning of this

17 camp, in case you heard about it from other people. Do you know that for

18 the first ten days or so, a lot of the people who were interrogated were

19 released from Omarska, about 70 people a day? Did you hear something like

20 that?

21 A. Yes, I did. I even saw those people. A large number of people --

22 of those people were from the village of Puharska, and they had to pass by

23 my house on their way back to the village, and that's when I saw them.

24 Q. Thank you. You said that you managed to have your brother moved

25 to the glass house, that you were afraid for him because he was exposed to

1 view there. Do you know whether the -- he was ever called out or

2 maltreated because of the fact that he had been put into the glass house?

3 A. I think not. However, at that moment, going there, as I said

4 yesterday, was a wrong move. But fortunately, our fears were not

5 realised, and he did not have any negative consequences because he was

6 moved there. It never happened that they called out his name because he

7 was there, but of course the same thing happened to him as happened to

8 everybody else who was there.

9 Q. Did your brother leave Omarska alive?

10 A. Yes, my brother is still alive.

11 Q. When you were released from Omarska, and you explained how this

12 came about, you said that they would not let the people, the Serbs from

13 the village of Omarska take you away, but that they insisted you be taken

14 back in an official vehicle together with the inspectors from Prijedor.

15 You then explained that on that day, you did not get a certificate that

16 you had been released, but on the following day, you again went to the

17 SUP, that is, to the police, and that Simo Drljaca issued this certificate

18 for you. Did Simo Drljaca ask permission from anyone to issue you with

19 this certificate, or did he do this in front of you, without consulting

20 anyone else?

21 A. I don't know whether he asked anyone, but I didn't see that during

22 the time I was in his office. I didn't see him contact anyone or ask

23 anyone anything, so I can't tell you whether this happened or not. But it

24 was he who issued the certificate.

25 Q. Very well. Thank you.

1 On your release from the camp of Omarska, did you return to your

2 flat or house -- forgive me, I'm not sure what sort of housing you had.

3 But did you go back to the same housing you had before?

4 A. I have my own house where I live, and yes, I did go back there.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 You said that the Serbs were looking for excuses to start a

7 conflict.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we have just for the record --

9 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Sure, that's page 67, row 21, Your Honour,

10 yesterday's transcript.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Doctor, I will read this again to you in English. [In English]

14 "They were looking for excuses to start a conflict. Some sort of attacks

15 were mounted. A scenario was created in several places, and all this

16 leads me to conclude that none of it happened by chance."

17 [Interpretation] When you say that "none of this happened by

18 chance," do you mean the incident at Hambarine on the 22nd of April, the

19 attack on the military column on the 24th of April in Kozarac -- I

20 apologise, it was the 24th of May -- and also in the case of Hambarine, it

21 was the 22nd of May --, and the 30th of May, the attack on Prijedor, or

22 were you referring to something else?

23 A. You mentioned three events, Hambarine, Kozarac. I know very

24 little about those. But I heard the official version that was broadcast

25 over the radio, that is, the Serbian version, one might say with some

1 reservations, of these events. But I have to explain what I mean. Dr.

2 Esad, known as Eso, Sadikovic, just before the conflict in Prijedor spent

3 a lot of time with a military centre Radmilo Zeljaja, I don't know what

4 his rank was, and with someone else who was perhaps a colonel. I'm not

5 sure about the rank. His name was Arsic. The two of them were members of

6 the JNA which was already, I think, the Army of Republika Srpska, although

7 I'm not sure about all these dates. I may get confused about the dates,

8 so please forgive me if I do. It's not my strong point, remembering

9 dates. But Zeljaja and Eso went around town together. They sat in cafes.

10 They kept company. And there were some initiatives to prevent the

11 conflict because the conflict was in the air. It was imminent, and Eso

12 was a man who had authority, not only among the Muslims. He was

13 well-respected. He was a well-known citizen. He used to write articles

14 in the newspapers, the Kozarski Vjesnik, and he had -- well, it wasn't

15 exactly a column, but something of that sort. And people would wait for

16 Friday in order to buy the Kozarski Vjesnik to read Eso's articles. So

17 I'm telling you all this to show you what sort of man this was, how

18 well-respected he was. And I am sure that Eso wanted to do this.

19 On one occasion, he told me that Ratko Mladic had called Zeljaja

20 on the telephone and had cursed him, used the foul language, and said:

21 "What are you waiting for? Why don't you begin?" This is what leads me

22 to conclude they were looking for an incident, for an excuse, to begin.

23 Because I do not believe that Eso would have told me this if he hadn't

24 been told by Zeljaja.

25 Q. I will ask you again. I do allow for the fact that you don't

1 know. But did you hear that the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

2 issued an order to attack facilities and columns of the JNA?

3 A. I never heard of such an order.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 In April, May, June, was the area then known as the Autonomous

6 Region of Krajina cut off from the other parts under the control of

7 Serbian forces, and do you know that in order to connect the Autonomous

8 Region of Krajina with Yugoslavia, there was fighting in Posavina in order

9 to create a corridor?

10 A. I don't remember the period when this happened, but I know there

11 was a time when it was cut off and that there was fighting to establish a

12 corridor. But I wouldn't be able to tell you when this was.

13 Q. Do you know whether people left Prijedor before the takeover of

14 power on the 30th of April? Do you know that there were buses going to

15 Croatia and to western countries?

16 A. People did leave. I wouldn't say there were buses taking people

17 to Croatia. I think many of them used the air transport to Belgrade

18 because very quickly the bridges over the River Sava were destroyed. So I

19 think there was no communication, although I'm not sure. But since you

20 ask me, I remember people leaving by plane more than by bus.

21 Q. Since you were unable to move around during the curfew, do you

22 know who was able to move around during the curfew? If you don't know --

23 A. No, I don't know. According to the rules, then it's quite clear

24 who has the right and who did you not have the right to move around during

25 the curfew. But who actually did move around, I really wouldn't know.

1 Q. Thank you. Did you ever hear Dr. Stakic holding any sort of

2 speech before the Serbs took over power in April 1992?

3 A. I don't remember.

4 Q. Thank you. Let me just remind you of some things you said in your

5 statement of the 13th of January, 1992, and then I will ask you to

6 comment. On page 1 of the B/C/S version -- in fact, it's page 4524, the

7 last paragraph, you say: "All through the crisis years of 1990, 1991, and

8 1992, SDS claimed to represent all Serbs in Bosnia. The Prijedor branch

9 of SDS made the same claim with respect to the Serbs in Prijedor

10 municipality."

11 First of all, can you explain to us why in all three years, 1990,

12 1991, and 1992, in your opinion, why all these three years were crisis

13 years?

14 A. I don't remember whether I said "crisis years." It's possible.

15 If that's what it says, then I did. But they were crisis years because

16 they preceded the events that followed. So they must have crisis years

17 because they led up to the war and everything that happened. And the SDS

18 was the most numerous Serbian party, the best represented after the

19 elections. Its members found themselves in elected positions, and of

20 course they were in a position to carry out and implement the policy of

21 the SDS.

22 Q. Do you know that at the same time, the SDA and the HDZ also

23 claimed to be the only legitimate representatives of their respective

24 ethnic groups?

25 A. It's possible, although there were other parties, but it's

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 possible. They did make that claim.

2 Q. On page 4525 of the same statement, you say, commenting your

3 previous statement made to the Tribunal investigators: "In my last

4 statement, I said that in a way, SDS became the most powerful factor in

5 the municipality, more than the president of the municipality. The most

6 obvious persons who represented the SDS were Srdjo Srdic and Simo

7 Miskovic."

8 What led you to this conclusion, Doctor?

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]... In the

10 English version, it's page 3, entire paragraph 4. Paragraph 4, entire

11 paragraph 3. Thank you.

12 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 A. May I answer?

14 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.

15 A. I concluded this because they were at the head of the party one

16 after the other. They spoke most often in the media on behalf of the

17 party. And it was from their mouths that I heard words that were later

18 implemented and put into practice. That's why I mentioned them.

19 Q. Doctor, we are reaching the end of your cross-examination. I will

20 ask you for just a little more patience. I would like to mention some

21 names to you. You know these people. I would like to ask you only

22 whether you know what they are doing today, whether they are alive and

23 whether you know anything about their fate today. You lived during the

24 war in Prijedor. Do you know whether Mr. Alicehajic, Satko, also lived in

25 Prijedor during the car?

1 A. Cehajic? Alicehajic, Alicehajic, Sead, Satko, who was a car

2 electrician, a panel beater. He lived in Prijedor throughout the war and

3 he still lives there, yes. If necessary, his wife's sister, his

4 sister-in-law, is married to Srdjo Srdic's son.

5 Q. Is Mr. Alicehajic a Bosniak?

6 A. Yes, he is.

7 Q. Mr. Sead Alajbegovic, tradesman, do you know?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Did he live in Prijedor throughout the war and does he still live

10 there?

11 A. Yes, yes, he did, and he does.

12 Q. Mr. Sead Pesic [as interpreted], he was the chief of the public

13 security centre station in Prijedor, and later on in Banja Luka. Do you

14 know where he is?

15 A. Yes, I do. His name is Besic, Sead Besic. He is still in

16 Prijedor. He spent some time in Banja Luka during the war. He was

17 hiding. He wasn't in Prijedor. It could have been between 1993 and 1995,

18 but I'm not a hundred per cent sure. All I know is that he was not in

19 Prijedor for a time.

20 Q. Mr. Alajbegovic and Besic, are they Bosniaks?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Mrs. Dinka Tatarevic, a journalist?

23 A. Yes, I know her, too. Her married name is Kovacevic. Tatarevic

24 is her maiden name. Kovacevic, her husband is a Serb, and he is related

25 to Mico Kovacevic. And Mr. Alajbegovic and Mr. Besic are both in mixed

1 marriages with wives who are of Serbian nationality.

2 Q. Mrs. Senija Dzafic, an announcer on Radio Prijedor?

3 A. Yes, I know she was there, and she was there throughout the war.

4 Q. Ms. Fatima Karagic, a teacher?

5 A. I don't remember her.

6 Q. Mr. Iso Bucan. Before the war, he was a chief in the defence

7 department?

8 A. Yes, I know Iso.

9 Q. Is he in Prijedor?

10 A. I think he is.

11 Q. Mrs. Azra Hajdukovic, a secondary school teacher?

12 A. She is married to Ziko Hajdukovic, a secondary school teacher, who

13 is a Serb by nationality. Yes, she is in Prijedor.

14 Q. Mr. Edin Susic, another secondary school teacher?

15 A. Yes, I know him, too. He is also in a mixed marriage, and his

16 wife is a Serb.

17 Q. Mr. Ismet Katardzic, a teacher?

18 A. Well, it's the same case as before. He is in Prijedor, and he's

19 married to a wife who is a Serb.

20 Q. Very well. I won't trouble you any further. Thank you. Thank

21 you very much for answering our questions also.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This concludes our cross-examination.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The trial stands adjourned until

24 4.00 sharp.

25 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

1 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. May I now ask for the

3 questions of the Office of the Prosecutor.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

5 Re-examined by Mr. Koumjian:

6 Q. Doctor, I just have a few questions to clarify what you told us

7 this afternoon. You talked about Dr. Sadikovic telling you that he met

8 with Zeljaja to discuss avoidance of the conflict and that Zeljaja told

9 him that he had received instructions or some comment from Ratko Mladic

10 "what are you waiting for," that Mladic had said that to Zeljaja. When

11 you talked about Ratko Mladic, is that General Ratko Mladic who became the

12 commander of the VRS, the Army of the Republika Srpska?

13 A. Yes, indeed. I was talking about that man.

14 Q. Second area is: You talked about an incident where a soldier

15 demanded from you 500 deutschmark or indicated that something could happen

16 to you if you didn't pay 500 deutschmark and that your neighbours took

17 this man to the military barracks. Did any investigators from the police

18 or military ever interview you about this incident?

19 A. No, not about this incident.

20 Q. Thank you. Finally, you mentioned an incident with your wife or

21 the fact that she had been asked to work for a man who came to your house

22 with a grenade -- I don't want to repeat everything that you said. But it

23 was not clear to me when that incident occurred. Can you tell us in what

24 year, and if you know, what month approximately that incident occurred?

25 A. It may have been in the autumn of 1994, as far as I can remember.

1 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't have any further questions.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you

4 Questioned by the Court:

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Finally, the Judges have some questions. In

6 answering a question of the Defence this afternoon, you mentioned that Dr.

7 Stakic was fired October 1992 and replaced by Mr. Kurnova [sic]. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. What I know is that Dr. Stakic was not the president of the

10 municipality for a while. I don't know the exact period, but I'll allow

11 that what the Defence said was true. And I know that he replaced Mr.

12 Kurni [as interpreted] as the president. That was the man's last name. I

13 don't know his first name.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: He replaced or he was replaced by?

15 A. I don't think I could tell anything about the circumstances under

16 which this occurred.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be quite clear, Dr. Stakic was replaced by

18 this Mr. Kurnova [sic]. Is this correct, in October 1992?

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just, the Witness has indicated he's not sure of

20 the date --

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not a question of date. It's a question of

22 who was replaced by whom.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: I understand.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Because on the transcript, you can read the

25 contrary.

1 A. Kurnova [as interpreted] came to replace Stakic.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Thank you. But you don't know anything

3 about the details. Correct?

4 A. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about the details.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yesterday, in your statement on the transcript

6 in English page 38, you said the following, I quote in context: "The next

7 day when I got up in the morning, I was in the glass house. I saw Zeljko

8 Meakic, who was the commander of the camp. He was wearing a uniform and

9 he gave a sign, beckoned me through the glass to come out, and then I came

10 out. And he said: 'I have good news for you. It is 98 per cent certain

11 that you will be released and go home. And as for the 2 per cent of

12 uncertainty, wait until I come back from Prijedor,' which means that he

13 had been told that I was to be released but he had to go to Prijedor to

14 double check. So that's how he explained the situation to me." From page

15 38.

16 And then on page 43, you continued, line 4: "Yes. When Meakic

17 arrived with his news from Prijedor that a definite decision had been

18 reached to release me, the word went around and a group of people from

19 Omarska who were not guards but simply residents of Omarska who knew me

20 from before I arrived in the camp wishing to take me away because the news

21 spread very quickly through the village, through the neighbourhood."

22 Did you discuss with Mr. Meakic or did you learn by chance why he

23 had to go to Prijedor and with whom he spoke in Prijedor?

24 A. I did not talk to him about this. He didn't tell me anything, and

25 that is simply what the situation was like. Excuse me. I was happy to be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 released, and I was interested in nothing further. And he didn't tell me

2 anything. So I really couldn't say who he talked to, who he went to

3 consult, and who issued the approval for my release.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is undoubtedly your testimony that you say he

5 went to Prijedor and came back telling you that the decision was taken,

6 and therefore you were released?

7 A. Since the moment -- between the moment he told me he would go to

8 Prijedor and the moment he told me a decision had been reached, there may

9 have been three or four hours in between. I never saw him get into a car

10 or go to Prijedor or return from Prijedor. But that's the time that

11 elapsed between the moment he told me the one thing, and then the other

12 thing.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you remember very well that he said, and it

14 is in the transcript in quotation marks, that: "As for the 2 per cent of

15 uncertainty, wait until I come back from Prijedor." This is right? This

16 is your memory? Thank you.

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's now turn to your statement you gave the

19 13th of January, 2002. One can find on the cover page that the languages

20 used in the interview were English and Bosnian. One can find under the

21 English version your signature. Did you read this document in the English

22 version, and could you understand this in the English version?

23 A. The document was read out to me in Bosnian language. My

24 understanding of English is quite poor. I don't speak English. I

25 understand some English. But I don't think I can have been able to read a

1 text like this in English. But the text was translated to me, interpreted

2 to me, consecutively, and then I signed the statement. The interpreter

3 was interpreting my statement to the investigator, so I had every

4 confidence that what the interpreter said was true and correct.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, please, allow me that we really can be

6 sure that what is laid down in this document is your testimony also today,

7 to read out several paragraphs of this document. And I will do it slowly

8 and stop after each sentence. And in case you have to add something or

9 something might be wrong, please intervene immediately.

10 On page 3, the English version, full paragraph 4, taking into

11 account that full paragraph 3 was already read out by the Defence, I

12 quote, and then sentence by sentence: "I would like to point out that

13 following the takeover, there were no conflicts between the president of

14 the municipality and the SDS."

15 A. I couldn't state this with certainty. I mean, that I really did

16 state this. I was not in a position to know whether there were any

17 conflicts or not.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question is not whether or not -- of course,

19 this is a point of departure whether or not you can identify a discrepancy

20 between this document and that what you really know. But you will

21 understand that what we are interested in is what you really experienced

22 at that time in 1992. And therefore, as you did it here, please add your

23 comments to these single sentences.

24 To continue: "They were acting as one and the same. Milomir

25 Stakic, in his capacity as president of the municipality, implemented the

1 plan of the SDS."

2 A. Yes. I think that's correct.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "When I said that 'the most obvious persons who

4 represented the SDS were Srdjo Srdic and Simo Miskovic,' I meant to say

5 that these two persons most often spoke on behalf of the SDS."

6 A. Yes, I agree.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "The reason for this was that these two persons

8 held in succession the position of president of the SDS in Prijedor

9 municipality."

10 A. Yes, that's true.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "I do not remember which one of them was

12 president of SDS first and which one later. I would also like to point

13 out that while it was the SDS who called the shots, its plan was

14 implemented in reality by one of its main leaders Milomir Stakic acting in

15 his position as president of the illegal Prijedor Serb Municipal Assembly

16 and as president of the municipal Crisis Staff."

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "Although I did not myself see any documents

19 issued by the Crisis Staff, I heard and learned from others that Crisis

20 Staff decided on all important matters."

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "Crisis Staff was in charge of everything that

23 happened in the municipality."

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "May and June 1992, before I was prevented from

1 working any longer, I learned, including from colleagues and media such as

2 Radio Prijedor and Kozarski Vjesnik, et cetera, that all matters

3 concerning employment, police, administrative services, and the war in the

4 municipality were being controlled by the Crisis Staff."

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "I remember Stakic appearing in the media,

7 acting as the president of the Crisis Staff, but I cannot recall when and

8 in what specific situations this happened."

9 A. Yes.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "Stakic's position as the president of the

11 Crisis Staff was a well-known fact, and it was not something that would

12 make me take any special notice."

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "However, from having seen Stakic in the media,

15 I concluded that he was very proud of his position and his role, and felt

16 that he was doing the 'right' thing and that he was destined to do it."

17 A. Yes. I'm not sure about "destined." But on the whole, yes, this

18 is what I said.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "By doing the 'right' thing, I mean that he was

20 in full agreement with the policies that he was implementing."

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "I do not remember any specific instances in

23 this regard, but I saw Stakic on TV, speaking as president of the Crisis

24 Staff and read about him in the press, and that is the impression I was

25 left with.

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you go into some detail when you remember

3 Stakic speaking on the TV as president of the Crisis Staff? What was this

4 about? Do you remember this, by chance?

5 A. It's very difficult for me to remember now. That was a long time

6 ago. I'm sorry, but I don't think I could say anything very specific. I

7 can't remember.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you remember him acting as the president of

9 the Crisis Staff and speaking in this capacity on television. Is this

10 correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Proceed. "Stakic implemented the SDS plan,

13 which was to ethnically cleanse the Prijedor municipality."

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "I believe that the SDS had its aim the creation

16 of a unified Serb state which would include parts of territories of

17 Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro."

18 A. I'm not sure about the parts. I can't remember now, but I was

19 talking about a unified Serb state with parts of Croat, Muslim -- this is

20 not quite clear to me that I could have -- the phrasing strikes me as

21 strange. I'm not sure if it's something in the translation, but the aim

22 was to create Greater Serbia and not a state with parts of these regions

23 and territories included. So this is unclear.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's the purpose of today's exercise, to get

25 it clarified and to understand what you really wanted to express and what

1 you wanted to make part of today's hearing, your testimony.

2 A. I can't remember having said anything like that precisely, that

3 the aim was to create a state including parts of Croatia and Muslim,

4 Montenegrin. This is a clumsy phrase, or maybe a mistranslation, but I

5 don't think I ever said anything quite like this.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you say anything about the creation of a

7 unified Serb state?

8 A. You mean to the investigator?

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you have the impression, and based on what

10 facts, that you may have said: "I believe that the SDS had its aim the

11 creation of a unified Serb state."

12 A. Yes. We can say that. But that phrase "with parts of Croatia" or

13 something Muslim, I can't remember having said that. But the unified Serb

14 state, yes, I did say that.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore my question: What do you understand

16 and what was your assessment in 1992 what would form the unified Serb

17 state?

18 A. This unified Serb state would include parts of Croatia, maybe

19 that's what the phrasing was about. The part of Croatia usually referred

20 to as the Serbian Krajina, bordering near Knin and Bosnia-Herzegovina and

21 then all the way to Slavonija, what was referred to as the Serbian

22 Krajina. Parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, most of those parts that were

23 Serb-controlled. Maybe that was what caused the confusion, and then

24 Montenegro would have been included, too. But this refers to parts of

25 Croatia, so I think it must have been a mistranslation after all. This

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 unified Serb state would have been composed of parts of Croatia, parts of

2 Bosnia, and parts of Montenegro. Those parts of Bosnia where Serbs were

3 predominant and those parts of Bosnia that they had taken militarily. I

4 hope I have made this clear enough now.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you very much for this clarification.

6 You added then, and I continue the last line of page 3 of the

7 statement from 2002: "The SDS plan implemented through Milomir Stakic

8 acting in his capacity of president of Crisis Staff was to remove all or

9 most non-Serbs from the territory of Prijedor."

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "Removal of non-Serbs was accomplished through

12 several means including denial of employment, harassment, beatings, the

13 detention of Muslim men and even women in camps, rapes, burnings of the

14 houses and large-scale killings, both in and out of the detention camps."

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "These actions all together created a physically

17 and psychological environment which non-Serbs themselves became desperate

18 to leave."

19 A. Yes.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification.

21 Judge Fassi Fihri.

22 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] You told us you would have to

23 expatriate yourself. You were forced to leave.

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Did you come back to Prijedor

1 later?

2 A. Yes, I did return in the year 2000.

3 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Are you still there?

4 A. I live there when I don't work, and I work in Sanski Most which

5 means I spend weekends and afternoons there. I have two places of

6 residence. I spend the morning and early afternoon in Sanski Most where I

7 work at the health centre, and after work and on the weekends, I'm at home

8 in Prijedor.

9 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Your family lives in Prijedor,

10 too?

11 A. My wife and I live together, and my children are in (redacted) for

12 education. I have two sons.

13 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] And your domicile nowadays is

14 in Prijedor, your house, your family house?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You told us that

17 Dr. Stakic was a gentleman.

18 A. Excuse me, but I don't quite understand the question.

19 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Yes. Do you still have this

20 opinion, appraisal? Do you still think that he's a respectable man, a

21 gentleman?

22 A. I did say this, but in the context of selecting a candidate as a

23 representative of the Serbian people for the position of the

24 vice-president of the municipality. So maybe this is the context you were

25 referring to when you used the word "gentleman." I meant -- what I meant

1 is to have in such a position a man with a university degree, a

2 well-respected person. If that's what you were referring to, yes, indeed,

3 I did say that.

4 JUDGE FASSI FIHRI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just for clarification in the meantime, I asked

6 the registry to redact from the transcript the country where our witness

7 lives today.

8 Judge Vassylenko.

9 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Mr. Beglerbegovic, yesterday you testified

10 transcript page 78, English version, the last lines of the page 7 and the

11 first lines of the page 8: "At the time of the campaign for the founding

12 of new parties, radical or liberal or a combination of these two

13 parties -- I can't remember -- were created. But the president of that

14 party was the man named Guberina. And the head of the party for this area

15 of Omarska was then Mr. Stakic." And today, you also mentioned Guberina

16 as a very famous person in the former Yugoslavia, a lawyer. Can you dwell

17 upon in detail about this party, about the person of Guberina and the role

18 of Dr. Stakic in the creation of this radical party?

19 A. Unfortunately, there isn't much I can say about that party. I'm

20 not even sure what its exact name was. When I said that the person at the

21 head of the party was someone called Guberina, I was not aware at the time

22 that this was the eminent Belgrade lawyer Guberina. I only heard that

23 here in the courtroom from the Defence. I knew it was a man called

24 Guberina. As far as I can remember, from what the people who attended the

25 rally said, the party platform was a nationalist one because I know a man

1 who told me that he was upset by certain things that Mr. Guberina said at

2 the rally. And the man who told me this is a democrat, and he does not

3 agree with a nationalist platform.

4 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And what particularly Mr. Guberina said that

5 was -- that upset your friend?

6 A. I don't remember what it was exactly, but I do know that his

7 reaction was such that he switched on his chainsaw so as to make a noise

8 to drown out the voice of this Guberina. He was so irritated. But I

9 don't know what the details were and what it was that prompted some of

10 those present to do something like that.

11 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And what was the relation of Dr. Stakic in

12 regard of the founding of this party and the activity of this party, and

13 especially the leader?

14 A. I don't know that. I don't know what the connection was or how it

15 came about that he was at the head of that party in the area of Prijedor.

16 These are matters of which I know nothing, and somebody else might be able

17 to clarify this for you.

18 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Then Mr. Beglerbegovic, you said that the most

19 obvious persons who represented the SDS were Srdjo Srdic and Simo

20 Miskovic. It's page 3 of your testimony in January this year. Then how

21 can you explain why Dr. Stakic, not Srdjo Srdic or Simo Miskovic, were

22 elected vice-president of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly before the

23 takeover and president of the Crisis Staff after the takeover, and then

24 the president of Municipal Assembly of Prijedor in 1996 again?

25 A. I think I said that yesterday. Dr. Stakic was from Omarska, or

1 rather the villages from the Omarska area. This covers a large part of

2 the Prijedor municipality inhabited purely by Serbs. And this area in all

3 political negotiations had a right to have its own representative in the

4 government. I think that this is why it was not Srdjo Srdic or Simo

5 Miskovic who lived in the Prijedor, while Dr. Stakic actually came from

6 that area. In these talks, they insisted that their be a representative

7 from the area of Omarska, at least that's what I think.

8 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you. I have no more questions.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Finally, as we have only little evidence on the

10 personality of Dr. Stakic, could you please try to tell the Tribunal what

11 was your assessment, what kind of person was Dr. Stakic, a more calm

12 person? An energetic person. Please use your own words. How would you

13 describe Dr. Stakic in the time you met him. And were there any changes,

14 and please tell us then the exact time.

15 A. I had few contacts with Dr. Stakic, so I'm not in a position to

16 describe his personality. I met him on two occasions. One before the war

17 when, as a young colleague, a doctor, he would come to my surgery. I was

18 already a specialist. He came from Omarska and introduced himself. He

19 was seeking an intervention for a relative of his. This relative wanted

20 to retire early probably and needed a specialist to examine him. And he

21 said that he had heard many nice things about me in Omarska and in his

22 village and that it was his ambition to achieve the same sort of career

23 that I had achieved, working in Omarska.

24 After that, I don't know if we met very often, but we were on

25 friendly terms. He always treated me very politely, very pleasantly, and

1 I had the impression that this was a decent person. After that, the

2 events that we have talked about here took place, and I was a little

3 surprised to see what position he was in at the time, because I didn't

4 know much about his political activities. And the meeting I had with him

5 in 1996 was such that he actually didn't look at me. He was frowning. He

6 was arrogant. He didn't look me in the eye. He was evasive. He ignored

7 me. It's very hard to describe his character because I had few contacts

8 with him apart from what I have just described.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for that.

10 I think your testimony can't be finalised without asking you

11 another question, paraphrasing that what you said yesterday, one got the

12 impression, and I believe you yourself made use of the notion of

13 privilege, looking now back to the period of time in 1992, did you find

14 out any reason why you opposed to so many other persons in Prijedor got

15 this treatment one could regard, without being cynical, as a privileged

16 treatment?

17 A. I don't know the real reason, but probably I had worked in Omarska

18 for ten years before the war and had contact with people, with patients

19 and their families. And it was probably this that prompted the people who

20 were either guards or at higher-ranking positions to respect me. And

21 that's probably why I got the treatment I did. But I never really found

22 out, and I don't know today, who it was that actually made the decision

23 that I should be released. Nobody ever told me this, and I don't know.

24 But that's how it was.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you have the impression that you had a kind

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 of guardian angel in Prijedor?

2 A. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about something like

3 this. I can't think of any specific person who might have been my

4 guardian angel. Perhaps it was God. I don't know.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. It's only fair to ask the parties

6 whether there were any additional questions right now.

7 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Your Honour, after your reading from the

8 statement of the witness, we would probably need the whole day for the

9 cross-examination of this witness again because you opened many questions

10 which were not part of examination-in-chief. So I think -- I really don't

11 know what to say now, but I think that we'll need another

12 cross-examination. Our complete strategy of cross-examination of this

13 witness would be completely different if we knew that this would be

14 mentioned.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence was aware of the statement. We all

16 had before us, and you yourself quoted a paragraph that was part of the

17 statement.

18 MR. LUKIC: I did, but only that which was part of

19 examination-in-chief.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please feel free to add questions if you want.

21 MR. LUKIC: Can we at least have a break so I have half an hour to

22 prepare another set of questions?

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: First, the other way around, that you also can

24 include possible other questions put forward by the OTP. Let's ask first

25 the OTP, do you have any other questions?

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then the trial stands adjourned until 5.15.

3 --- Recess taken at 4.44 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 5.19 p.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

6 Defence counsel, the floor is yours.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

8 Further cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Beglerbegovic, I promised to no longer

10 maltreat you with questions, but it seems that we must continue and

11 socialise in this way for some more time. Would you please be so kind and

12 muster up some more strength.

13 A. Ask away, but don't maltreat me.

14 Q. I'll try not to. We shall have to analyse the part of your

15 statement that His Honour Schomburg read out to you. So the same way as

16 he did, I will just go sentence by sentence.

17 A. Can I please have a translation of that statement in front of me

18 because when sentences are read out like that, one by one, it can become

19 very confusing. It gives only partial understanding, and it's very

20 difficult to follow so that's why I would really like to have one, if it's

21 possible.

22 Q. As we can't see the page numbers in the B/C/S version, it's on top

23 of the page, can you please turn to page number -- last three numbers

24 4525. His Honour Schomburg started out with the sixth paragraph on that

25 page. The first sentence which reads: "I want to emphasise that after

1 the takeover, there was no conflict between the president of the

2 municipality and the SDS." You have already explained this and said that,

3 in fact, you didn't know whether there was a conflict or not, nor were you

4 in a position to know, considering the overall situation in Prijedor at

5 that time. Can we therefore conclude that you did not know and do not

6 know now whether there was a conflict at that time between Dr. Stakic and

7 the president of the municipal board of the SDS of Prijedor?

8 A. This sentence precisely demonstrates what creates all the

9 confusion when you read out sentence by sentence. When you read the

10 sentence, I want to emphasise that there was no conflict between the

11 president of the municipality and the SDS after the takeover, if you take

12 it out of the context, it can be questioned. But if you then follow up

13 with they acted as one, then it's clear, and he did, in his capacity,

14 carry out the SDS plan. Honestly, I never knew of any conflicts within

15 the SDS. That's what I also stated in my first statement. I didn't know

16 of any conflicts, but from what I can tell and from what was happening,

17 that was not the impression I had. I had the impression that all was

18 functioning well.

19 Q. Do you believe that Mr. Miskovic was a powerful figure within the

20 SDS?

21 A. From the very beginning of the party and its work, I think he was.

22 Gradually, I think he became less prominent. But at the time when he was

23 president of the party, yes, he was a very powerful man.

24 Q. As you have said that you knew that Dr. Stakic had been replaced,

25 believe me, I too, forgot the name of the man who replaced him.

1 A. Kurnoga.

2 Q. Yes, that's correct. So Mr. Kurnoga replaced Mr. Stakic in the

3 position of president of the Municipal Assembly in the autumn of 1992.

4 Does this show that there was a faction within the SDS that was powerful

5 enough to replace the president of the municipality before his mandate

6 expired?

7 A. I'm not sure about the circumstances in which he was replaced.

8 I'm not sure about any factions. I only know that a man was replaced,

9 Stakic was no longer there, and Kurnoga came along. What the

10 circumstances were or who was involved, I really couldn't say.

11 Q. Next paragraph, the one about Srdic and Miskovic, I will make no

12 further comments on that because there is nothing to be commented on in

13 that passage, at least I think so. However, I would like to ask some

14 clarifications in connection with paragraph number 8. "I also want to

15 point out that while the SDS was in power, plans, party plans on the

16 ground were carried out by one of the leaders, Milomir Stakic who held the

17 capacity of the president of the illegal Municipal Assembly of Prijedor

18 and the municipal Crisis Staff."

19 Do you know that even if he was the president of the Crisis Staff

20 and the Municipal Assembly, did he have the real power or was the real

21 actual power in the hands of people who were in the background? Can you

22 answer this question?

23 A. I know nothing about any people in the background. But it was

24 logical to expect that if someone was at the head of the municipality,

25 which is executive power, so that's also how he came to be the head of the

1 Crisis Staff. It was to be expected, and as far as you are asking me

2 whether I can provide an answer or not, I don't know.

3 Q. Do you know that Mr. Stakic was not even invited to SDS meetings?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. Thank you. In the next paragraph, that is, the last paragraph on

6 this page, you say that you never seen the documents issued by the Crisis

7 Staff. That's the first sentence. Is this correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you know that the Crisis Staff of the Municipal Assembly of

10 Prijedor took over the powers of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly because

11 it was unable to meet?

12 A. Yes, I think that's happened and that it was precisely because of

13 this circumstance and others that the Crisis Staff was established, and it

14 had the same role as the Municipal Assembly.

15 Q. Do you know what the powers of the Municipal Assembly were on the

16 one hand and the president of the Municipal Assembly on the other hand?

17 A. I wouldn't know that. I'm not all that familiar with it. I could

18 speculate, but I wouldn't really know. It's something that is prescribed

19 by law, but it would be difficult for me to interpret. I don't know.

20 Q. Is there any possibility, although you have told us you don't

21 know, so I will not insist on this, but let me just put one additional

22 question about this: Would it be possible for the Municipal Assembly or

23 the Crisis Staff to command the army?

24 A. Well, I think in the prevailing circumstances, when there was a

25 state of chaos, it would be possible, although I would not be able to

1 assert that because the people in power, the people in the government, and

2 the people in the army were very close. Maybe they could not formally,

3 legally issue a document ordering the army to do something, but I think

4 that it was possible for them to influence the decisions that were made

5 both ways.

6 Q. It was possible for them to influence each other, but can you tell

7 me whether you know if they were able to issue orders to each other?

8 A. Well, it would be hard for me to assert this categorically because

9 I was not in a position to know that. I think I have been clear enough

10 about that.

11 Q. Very well. Thank you.

12 Do you know how decisions were reached within the Crisis Staff?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you know whether the Crisis Staff had any other powers apart

15 from the powers of the Municipal Assembly, whose powers it explicitly took

16 over?

17 A. I wouldn't know that.

18 Q. Do you know when the Crisis Staff of the Prijedor Municipal

19 Assembly was established?

20 A. I don't know exactly.

21 Q. Do you know when Dr. Stakic appeared in the media for the first

22 time as the president of the Crisis Staff?

23 A. I don't remember. I don't know that either.

24 Q. I will put only one further question, with the leave of the Court,

25 which calls for conclusions by the witness. I will put the question, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 leave it to the Court to decide whether the witness should answer or not.

2 The question would be as follows: Had you known about the conflicts

3 within the SDS and the conflicts about the SDS policy, would that have

4 changed your attitude or your opinion that it was Milomir Stakic who was

5 implementing the policy of the SDS?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: My objection to the question is that it indicates a

7 fact that there's no proof of, that there were conflicts within the SDS.

8 The question is "had you known about conflicts within the SDS."

9 MR. LUKIC: [In English] I withdraw the question, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Dr. Beglerbegovic, once

12 again. I hope I will not question you again. Thank you.

13 [In English] I have no further questions, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. No further questions?

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: No further questions. Thank you.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you very much.

17 Then it's up to us to thank you very much for coming here, for

18 giving us these answers for two days, and we wish you a good trip home.

19 Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the parties can in the meantime prepare the

23 continuing work on list 2, please. Apparently the OTP has...

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: No.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Fine.

1 We should make a clear distinction now. It's now only on the

2 question of the admission of evidence or into evidence, and not on the

3 question of signatures. We'll come to this, back to this later.

4 Yesterday, we had before us Exhibit Number 54. This is list 2. And we

5 proceeded until the 65 ter number 257, which was admitted into evidence as

6 S81. May we now come to the former document 267, provisional 82. This is

7 called "Announcement on the Cancellation of Job Openings."

8 MR. LUKIC: I think that it's not --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's a little bit difficult. I wonder whether

10 or not we should have at least in B/C/S two different numbers, because on

11 the one hand side, we have this alleged piece of the newspaper, and then

12 in addition, the document that reads at the end with number 997. So my

13 proposal would be to have this piece from the newspaper as 82B.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps we could mark it /1.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG:-1, as we did it. And the English version,

16 therefore, A-1, and the B/C/S version B-1. And it follows that the other

17 sheet of paper, to be as neutral as possible, gets B-2 in B/C/S and A-2 in

18 English. Objections?

19 MR. LUKIC: For us, it's not possible to see what's the source of

20 the document.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think as regards the letter, the objections

22 are, in substance, the same as yesterday.

23 MR. LUKIC: That's right, Your Honour. Yes.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And as regards the first announcement, can we

25 hear something from the OTP, indicating that what one probably can read

1 already from Exhibit Number 54.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: It indicates that it was seized from the Municipal

3 Assembly building in 1997.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Without additional source, just as the outclip

5 of a newspaper, and nobody knows what newspaper this is. Right?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's correct.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then being aware of the

8 limited -- probably limited value of such a piece of evidence, it is

9 admitted under the numbers as indicated before.

10 Document 268, now 83. We discussed already that there are several

11 sides of Kozarski Vjesnik, due to the fact that photocopies in A4 were

12 taken from the entire page.

13 So any objections?

14 MR. LUKIC: This interview has never been authorised, Your Honour.

15 And it does not reflect the authorisation, either.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is an objection to the content. But as a

17 document, it should be admitted into evidence. Of course, it has to be

18 debated and discussed what it's about with the contents of this document

19 and on the authenticity, no doubt. But then it's admitted into evidence

20 as S83A and B.

21 Turning now to 278, we face some problems because it seems to be

22 the same document as we have it under... Wait a minute. It's the former

23 279. Seems to be the same.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, it appears to me that two separate

25 pieces of paper were seized during the same search from the same location.

1 That's why they have two different ERN numbers. And actually, although

2 it's -- the typewriting appears to be the same, the handwriting in the

3 upper right appears to be different. I can withdraw, for the purposes of

4 clarity, I can withdraw the 279. I won't offer that into evidence, if

5 there's a challenge to the authenticity and it's somehow relevant, we can

6 reoffer it.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

8 Objections?

9 MR. LUKIC: Signature on this document is completely illegible, so

10 we can't even confirm it or... But to be cautious enough, we object to

11 this document as well.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then following this policy as regards

13 this aspect, document with 65 ter number 278 is admitted into evidence as

14 84A in English and 84B in B/C/S. And 279, it was withdrawn. And thereby,

15 nothing has to be admitted into evidence. It is not tendered by the

16 Defence, as I understand correctly.

17 Not to confuse our numbers, we should maintain the old numbers

18 and, therefore, have no 85 at all.

19 Let's then proceed to 299 where we actually have the problem that

20 the B/C/S version appears twice with different numbers. I can't identify

21 the reason.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Two pieces of paper were seized from the same

23 location, probably back to back, from the numbering. So the same document

24 was just -- they seized both pieces of paper. And looking at the print,

25 it appears that one was a copy of the other because the first one clearly

1 has a better-quality print, I believe, than the second.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we proceed in the same way as regards the

3 last document, withdraw one?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, although that may be a little confusing since

5 they only have one number at the moment. You want me to withdraw just the

6 ERN number of 00633790, yes, I will withdraw that.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections to the remaining parts?

8 MR. LUKIC: This document, it's not clear whether we had a Crisis

9 Staff with War Presidency at the same time, so we object to this document

10 as well.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Nevertheless admitted into evidence under 86A,

12 and the former document ending with the number 89 is now 86B. And the

13 other piece of paper is withdrawn.

14 Turning now to 303, objections?

15 MR. LUKIC: We really cannot identify the document. No seal, no

16 signature, so just to be on the same side as previously, we object to this

17 document also.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then this is admitted into evidence as 87A and

19 B.

20 305, if you could just assist us which part of the document. It

21 reads as if it would be Kozarski Vjesnik. It's translated.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think Mr. Lukic could probably help us with that.

23 I think it's the one on the right-hand side on the top, top right.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't try. I should not.

25 MR. LUKIC: It's the top one actually. In the middle.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the middle.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Then the translation is admitted into

4 evidence as S88A, and the article in the middle of the page, top and in

5 the middle of this page, 88B in B/C/S.

6 Then 365. Objections?

7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. No signature --

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Oh --

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think we have 306.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 306, sorry. First 306.

11 MR. LUKIC: 306, it's the same article, the same page from the

12 papers. Maybe another article. I'll just check.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

14 MR. LUKIC: Now the article is on the right-hand side.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the right-hand side.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then former 306 goes. The English translation

18 admitted into evidence as 89A, and then the following page number ending

19 with 83, the article on the top right-hand side as 89B.

20 Then 365.

21 MR. LUKIC: We object to this one as well. No signature appears

22 on it.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 90A and 90B.

24 A long document, former 440, Prijedor radio tapes. Objections?

25 MR. LUKIC: This document, we don't know whether it has ever been

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 authorised, whether those people were speaking, so yes, we do object.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we ask the OTP whether or not this document

3 is available as a tape?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's available as tape?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, it is. I believe the Defence has. It's been

7 disclosed.

8 MR. LUKIC: I cannot recognise the voices, so it means nothing to

9 me.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Probably the OTP will take the necessary steps

11 in assisting us to admitting already the original tape into evidence, or

12 tender this first of all. Okay, nevertheless, the English translation

13 will go as number 91A, and the B/C/S version starting with the end number

14 49, this will be 91B.

15 Then we come finally to an undated document, 455. Objections?

16 MR. LUKIC: No signature on this document, Your Honour, so we do

17 object.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 92A in English, and 92B.

19 This concludes list number 2.

20 We have to turn now to Exhibit Number 55, which is list number 3.

21 First of all, former number 21.

22 MR. LUKIC: Can we reserve the right. Maybe we can accept this

23 one, but we have to check the signature of the signee, Srdjo Srdic.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We appreciate your comments. Admitted into

25 evidence under 93A and 93B.

1 As regards former 65 ter number 25, it was admitted into evidence

2 in part already as SK12. But nevertheless, not to confuse, we should --

3 this is my suggestion -- have the entire document with a new number.

4 Objections?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think that actually, in my opinion, it would

6 confuse things more if we have the same document with two different

7 numbers.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Because it's only in part. This was my problem.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Only part was read out, right. But why can't we

10 now -- if Your Honour wishes, that's fine.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no, I appreciate your comments. We only

12 should be aware that part of this document is already admitted into

13 evidence under SK12. And --

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: I see, SK12. A different number.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then -- sorry, probably you can't answer

18 this question. We have a handwritten part in B/C/S, and then a typed

19 part.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm somewhat speculating, but I believe that

21 there's handwritten minutes, and then a typed summary of those.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then shouldn't we proceed this way? I remember

23 we discussed it already with Dr. Donia, that for clarification, the entire

24 document should go as, in the English version, under 94A. Then the

25 handwritten part 94B-1. And the typed part, 94B-2.

1 Objections?

2 MR. LUKIC: The same objections as we had on that SK12, Your

3 Honour.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Then admitted into evidence under these

5 three numbers.

6 Now the former 42. Objections?

7 MR. LUKIC: Same objections. No signatures.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And admitted into evidence under S95A and B.

9 69 we have a problem. Under this former 65 ter number 69, we can

10 find two translations and two documents.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct. Two translations and two originals.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Two translations, two originals. Apparently two

13 different, I would say at least photocopies. Nobody knows. On one, we

14 can see one stamp; on the other, two stamps. And unfortunately, even the

15 translation differ, or say, at least, vary.

16 MR. LUKIC: No objections on this one, Your Honour, because Dr.

17 Stakic recognises his signature.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On both documents, so therefore it's only a

19 question of the correct translation. Would it be too much if I ask

20 you -- I would ask you to read this because unfortunately I'm not able to

21 read this, and to avoid any confusion with the translation immediately, it

22 would be very, very kind.

23 MR. LUKIC: Shall I read from the top?

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would just suggest, Mr. Lukic could pick the

1 translation he wants. To me, the differences seem to be inconsequential.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In order to also have a correct translation into

3 French immediately.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Okay.

5 MR. LUKIC: Shall I still read it?

6 [Interpretation] "The municipality of the Serbian people of

7 Prijedor municipality, Prijedor, number 003 plus 92.

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. Slash 92.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "Date, 17th of April, 1992. Pursuant

10 to the regulations on work of the Assembly of the Serbian people of

11 Prijedor municipality, at a session of the assembly held on the 17th of

12 January, 1992, hereby adopts the following decision: On the annexation of

13 the Autonomous Region -- on the annexation to the Autonomous Region of

14 Bosanska Krajina, Article 1, the assembly of the Serbian people of

15 Prijedor Municipality unanimously adopts the decision to enact the Serbian

16 territories of Prijedor Municipality to the Autonomous Region of Bosnian

17 Krajina. Article 2, this decision enters into force on the day of its

18 adoption at the session of the Assembly of Serbian people of Prijedor

19 Municipality." The seal, the SDS seal at the bottom of the page, it's a

20 stamp. We have two stamps, a big stamp and a small stamp. Both are SDS

21 stamps.

22 The text reads: "The president of the assembly of the Serbian

23 people of Prijedor Municipality. Dr. Milomir Stakic." Signed by Dr.

24 Milomir Stakic.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it is my understanding that you acknowledge

1 this signature as the one of Dr. Stakic?

2 MR. LUKIC: [In English] Yes, and that one has been recognised by

3 the witness as well, as Dr. Stakic's signature.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Only for avoiding any confusion, I

5 have to emphasise -- we discussed it already -- that one really can't read

6 whether it should read 17 January or 17 April. And in one translation,

7 the January, there is added a question mark probably from the context --

8 MR. LUKIC: The first sentence. The second row in the original it

9 says, so it's readable.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, right. So it should read, in the headline

11 also, the 17th of January.

12 MR. LUKIC: That's right. Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Thank you for this kind assistance.

14 May we now turn to 76.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Has it already been admitted? I'm sorry. I was

16 thinking of a different document. Sorry.

17 I think this one was admitted during Dr. Mujadzic's testimony.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Registry, could you please clarify.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Maybe there was not a final decision on the

20 admission.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I tried to find out this morning, but I really

22 couldn't find.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: In any event, for clarity, we move it into evidence

24 at the present time.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections?

1 MR. LUKIC: Dr. Mujadzic recognised one of the signatures as his,

2 but we don't know about the rest. We don't have any objections on this

3 document.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S97A and B.

5 Then 79. Objections?

6 MR. LUKIC: Bear with me, Your Honours.

7 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]

8 MR. LUKIC: My client cannot confirm that he has ever seen this

9 document, so I cannot accept it by myself, so I have to object, Your

10 Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Under the same policy we had before, admitted

12 into evidence as 98A and B.

13 Former 81.

14 MR. LUKIC: Same as previous, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 99A, 99B.

16 83.

17 MR. LUKIC: Objection, no signature.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 100A and 100B.

19 84. There seems to be a signature.

20 MR. LUKIC: No objection, Your Honour. This is Dr. Stakic's

21 signature.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This document, admitted into evidence as 101A

23 and 101B. The problem here is that we have one, two, three B/C/S

24 versions. And is it the understanding that all three signatures are

25 acknowledged by the Defence as the ones of Dr. Stakic?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. LUKIC: Bear with me, Your Honours. I showed Dr. Stakic only

2 the first one.

3 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. All three signatures are Dr.

5 Stakic's signatures.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. Then, for

7 clarity, the document having the number ending with 24 follows as 101B-1.

8 The one ending with 25, admitted into evidence under 101B-2. The one

9 ending with 26 under 101B-3.

10 Coming now to the former document 120. This was admitted into

11 evidence the 2nd of May at 16.31. It was read out the same day at 15.14.

12 So therefore, there is no need. It is Document S26.

13 In order not to confuse the order of documents, we leave out this

14 new -- the number 102. There will be no document bearing this number.

15 And we turn to 133.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: The only problem I might have -- I have with that,

17 that it might create for all of us, is if I'm not mistaken, this document

18 was shown under this number to Dr. Mujadzic. So in the transcript, I

19 believe it will refer to the S102. That's at least my recollection off

20 the top of my head. I recall him commenting on the document regarding the

21 appointment of the commander of logistics. We'll check with the computer

22 and run a search for that number.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We cross-checked this this morning, and we found

24 out it was admitted under S26.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: The only problem would be when someone is reading

1 the transcript and sees that testimony refer to S102, if it did, I believe

2 it did, then there will be confusion because 102 is not admitted. But we

3 can --

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It reads clearly from the transcript that we

5 agree, and therefore I pointed out the precise time when it was admitted

6 and was read out that we have it in both languages available. Three

7 languages, I have to add, it is available.

8 Let's now turn to 133. Objections?

9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, Dr. Stakic cannot remember Dr.

10 Kovacevic's signature, so I'm not sure whether this is his signature or

11 not. So I have to object.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Understandably enough. Admitted into evidence,

13 103A and 103B.

14 Former 139. Objections?

15 MR. LUKIC: No signature, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as 104A and 104B.

17 May we now turn to 140. Here, once again, the same situation.

18 Now we have four times a signed document in B/C/S.

19 MR. LUKIC: This is Dr. Stakic's signature. No objections.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All the four times?

21 MR. LUKIC: I'll have him check all of them. I showed only one.

22 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]

23 MR. LUKIC: All four, Your Honours. No objections.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for the clarification. Then the

25 English version goes as 105A and is thereby admitted into evidence. And

1 the same is true for the B/C/S versions. For clarification, the Document

2 Number ending with 69 goes as 105B-1. Ending with 70 goes as 105B-2.

3 Ending with 71 goes as 105B-3. Document ending with number 76 is admitted

4 into evidence under 105B-4.

5 Then 171.

6 MR. LUKIC: It's not signed by the accused, and we cannot confirm

7 the signature so we do object.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is a point, of course, we have to discuss

9 in depth. Nevertheless, admitted into evidence under 106A and 106B.

10 Former 200.

11 MR. LUKIC: Bear with me, Your Honours.

12 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]

13 MR. LUKIC: We only have one reservation. It might be that this

14 document originally is not signed by Mr. Stakic, although it says that it

15 is. Otherwise, we do not object to this document because it's published

16 in the official gazette.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think counsel is looking at the wrong document. I

18 have a different document. It's one signed by Drljaca. 107 --

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Signed by Drljaca.

20 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. I was too fast. I was on 108.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to the interpreters. We shouldn't

22 overlap.

23 MR. LUKIC: I have to go back to Document 106 where I said that

24 this document is not signed by Dr. Stakic. And it is not, although it

25 says that it is on 106. This is obviously not his signature. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 regarding Document 107, that's the objection we had previously. That's

2 the document which is not signed and did not reflect the name of Dr.

3 Stakic. So we cannot confirm the authenticity of this document. We have

4 to object, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Are we really discussing the same document,

6 because in B/C/S I can read that there is typed "Drljaca".

7 MR. LUKIC: That's right. Does not reflect the name of Dr.

8 Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then --

10 MR. LUKIC: We cannot confirm the signature. We have to object.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We speak about the same document dated May 31st

12 of 1992.

13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's right.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is admitted into evidence 107A, 107B

15 respectively. And we now turn to another document where we have some

16 problems. 220. And if you could be so kind and immediately go to the

17 former 264, I'm afraid they are identical.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm very impressed by Your Honour. That appears to

19 be correct. We can just withdraw the second.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no. Please don't. First look at the

21 translation. The second is a better translation that includes also the

22 headline, whereas the first doesn't.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct. The second translation is better.

24 Correct. The document under 65 ter number 264.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, we will have in future no document

1 bearing the number S108.

2 May we now turn to the former 222. Extremely long.

3 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then admitted into evidence as 109A and B.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just -- I would inform Your Honours, I believe this

6 same document was admitted in the Brdjanin/Talic case. So there should be

7 already a French translation.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you could --

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm not a hundred per cent sure. I know there's

10 counsel that speak French. I'm not sure whether they are requiring French

11 translations or not but I'll check.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for that.

13 261.

14 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S110A and S110B.

16 262.

17 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 111A and B.

19 263.

20 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence S112A and B.

22 264, we discussed already but I didn't ask whether or not there

23 are objections.

24 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S113A and 113B.

1 276.

2 MR. LUKIC: We object to this document. We cannot confirm the

3 signature, and it appears completely different from another one bearing

4 the same typed name. So we do object to this document.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]... Conclusion.

6 Nevertheless, under our policy, admitted into evidence as S114A and S114B.

7 Then 289.

8 MR. LUKIC: Objection. No signature, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted. S115A, S115B.

10 298. We discussed this document already the 28th of May.

11 MR. LUKIC: Did we object at that time, Your Honour? Because we

12 do now.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You should ask your client, not me.

14 MR. LUKIC: It bears the -- it appears that the Crisis Staff and

15 the War Presidency were functioning at the same time, so we really object

16 to the authenticity of this document.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Admitted into evidence, 116A, 116B.

18 Then my file was closed, but on list 3, we have 305. I think

19 didn't we have this famous article "Together to Victory."

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'll check on that.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence has something under --

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think it's S88. It's already marked or admitted.

23 It appeared twice in our submission, so we took it out the second time.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. And there is no need for any decision on

25 this. Correct that we have concluded the work on the lists 2 and 3?

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have to say that the cooperation shown by the

3 contribution of the Defence and the accused in person, of course, will be

4 taken into account. Nevertheless, we have to come back to the question

5 whether or not other documents, especially other signatures, will be

6 acknowledged or not. We have four different categories before us. The

7 first category of documents indicating in typewriting that there should

8 have been maybe a signature of Dr. Stakic. The second category is one

9 where we have print versions of contributions or decisions before us

10 indicating the name of Dr. Stakic. Second line -- third line of documents

11 where one can read the name Stakic. And the fourth category, a line of

12 documents with the signature Milomir. And the question is, of course,

13 whether or not, first of all, the Defence and thereby the accused,

14 acknowledges the signatures with the name "Milomir" only as the ones of

15 Dr. Stakic?

16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, Dr. Stakic recognised only three his

17 signatures on Documents S96, S101, and S105. We also found all the

18 signatures from S64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, S80,

19 S81, S84, and S85, but Dr. Stakic couldn't recognise these signatures as

20 his.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could we slowly proceed on the basis of list 2.

22 We have documents from the category type signed as 158, 172, 201.

23 MR. LUKIC: 58, 72.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 201, type signed.

25 MR. LUKIC: It does not have any signature as I can recall.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 158.

2 MR. LUKIC: No signature at all, Your Honour, on this document.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 158, this is --

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think counsel is simply indicating there's no

5 handwriting. The Court is saying it's typewritten.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Sorry. My mistake, indeed, it starts

7 with 172 where it's only typed, yes, right. 172, 201. That's the

8 question whether or not -- to be concrete on this point, whether or not

9 this document ever was edited or prepared by Dr. Stakic, or whether or not

10 this is contested?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think the record should be clear. I know Your

12 Honour has said this off the record, but that the defendant does not have

13 to answer that question.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no, it's quite clear. It's only the

15 question of whether or not -- I think we all agree and we are all aware

16 that there's no obligation at all to the contrary. It's the human right

17 of the accused and thereby exercising this right by the Defence to remain

18 silent. I only came back to this because we discussed this before,

19 whether or not a document can accepted as a document in the past edited by

20 Dr. Stakic or not. And this is 172 and 201. Of course, bearing no

21 signature at all, in the form we have it before us.

22 MR. LUKIC: I have to be honest, I discussed with Dr. Stakic only

23 the signature issue, not the issues of the documents as they are.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I understand. Therefore, it's, of course, it's

25 up to you and your decision and the decision in the -- after discussion

1 with your client. I identified the following documents where the Tribunal

2 would be interested whether or not Dr. Stakic recognises these documents.

3 I read the numbers out: It's 172, 201, 228, 229, 237, 248, 253, 257, 278,

4 365, 455, 171, 220, and at the same time 264, 261, 262, 263. And this

5 concludes the list of documents only type-signed or indicating that they

6 are edited by Dr. Stakic. But I understand if you cannot at all, or not

7 today, give any comments on this.

8 MR. LUKIC: For sure, I cannot do it today.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Quite sure. I understand this. And only to

10 indicate what is open, if you want to comment on this.

11 As regards now signatures, the following documents are before us:

12 207, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 246, 247, 267, 69, 84, 140 we got

13 already the acknowledgment. And this concludes the list.

14 In general --

15 MR. LUKIC: I have different numbers. I went with the S numbers,

16 so I have to compare them first, Your Honours.

17 Sorry for this delay.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

19 MR. LUKIC: As for numbers -- again, I have checked everything in

20 my numeration. As for number 207, it's not Dr. Stakic's signature. 219

21 is not Dr. Stakic's signature. 224 is not Dr. Stakic's signature. 225 is

22 not Dr. Stakic's signature. 226 is not Dr. Stakic's signature. 227 is

23 not Dr. Stakic's signature. 230 is not Dr. Stakic's signature. 246 is

24 not Dr. Stakic's signature. 247 is not Dr. Stakic's signature. 69 is Dr.

25 Stakic's signature.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Wait a minute.

2 MR. LUKIC: 69 is actually --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next one would be 267, or S82.

4 MR. LUKIC: I know the answer, but I have to check because I

5 didn't check this one with Dr. Stakic.

6 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It followed 279, S85.

8 MR. LUKIC: S82 is not Dr. Stakic's signature.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. S82 not, yeah. Then S85, or 279?

10 MR. LUKIC: Is not Dr. Stakic's signature. S101 and S105 are Dr.

11 Stakic's signatures.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S105 --

13 MR. LUKIC: Is Dr. Stakic's signature.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And 101.

15 MR. LUKIC: That's right.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And did you mention a third? What about 96?

17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it is.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then there was only one additional we had to

19 take into account, and this is -- hopefully I will find it.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: It was 84, Your Honour, I believe indicated

21 earlier, the ter number.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 84. May I just have --

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: S101, sorry.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just have the total exhibit list. I think

25 I have it before me.

1 Here it is. Once again, I forgot to mention it before. Under the

2 category whether or not the content of a document bearing indeed no

3 signature would be accepted. This was Document S46A. But this falls in

4 the category where the Defence already said, "we can't answer this

5 question if we want, we can't answer today." S46A, the document in

6 photocopy provided by Witness Murselovic.

7 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid that I don't have that document with me

8 today.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no.

10 MR. LUKIC: I'll put it on the list, yes.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Any other signatures the OTP regards

12 as important for the purpose of recognition or acknowledgment?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: We did have a larger list because it includes

14 documents not yet presented for evidence, but on the 65 ter list. I just

15 have the 65 ter numbers, which I could read out. But I've already given

16 it to counsel.

17 MR. LUKIC: Did you?

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think yesterday we gave it to you. Ms. Karper

19 wrote it down with you yesterday.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be agreed between the parties that we

21 leave these additional signatures for Monday? Mr. Lukic, do you have

22 possibility to meet your client during the weekend?

23 MR. LUKIC: No, we don't, Your Honour. We cannot visit our client

24 during the weekend.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think the dispute is pretty clear already with

1 the numbers that we have gone through, and the way I understand it is the

2 signatures that Your Honour described as Milomir, I'm not sure I can read

3 that, the Defence is denying. Or Mr. Lukic is denying. One thing I want

4 clear is whether what that denial has. That's not evidence. Your Honour

5 indicated that there is a possibility open to the Defence of some

6 procedure to have the accused testify, which we would welcome, because we

7 want to cross-examine him on that issue if there's going to be any

8 evidentiary value given to that by counsel. We're confident that's his

9 signature.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I believe it wouldn't be fair to request an

11 answer late Friday evening on such an important question, or --

12 MR. LUKIC: Until now, our standpoint was that our client would

13 not testify. I don't know. It might change, but I doubt it.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I indicated earlier that there were several

15 possibilities. You took one possibility out of these, of course. But I

16 have to recall that in this Trial Chamber, it is the right of the accused,

17 in any appropriate point of time, to take the floor and to make a

18 statement if he so wants. Notwithstanding, of course, his right to remain

19 silent. But if he wants to take the floor, Dr. Stakic you may know that

20 you have this right and you may exercise this right in this Tribunal.

21 But I think it -- as mentioned, it wouldn't be fair to go into

22 details of this part. If the Defence wants to make any additional remarks

23 to the list of documents I mentioned before and the signatures provided

24 by -- it will probably once again provided by the OTP, then please feel

25 free to do so not later than Wednesday next week. I hope that you will

1 have time to visit your client until then.

2 Any other observations for today?

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just very briefly. If the Defence decides to leave

4 the matter as it now stands, we would very strongly argue that the denial,

5 there is no denial in evidence, that there is absolutely no evidentiary

6 value to counsel. I mean, I appreciate focussing on the issue, but

7 there's no evidentiary value to counsel making a statement, "this is not

8 my client's signature" because under the rules, evidence comes from

9 witnesses, not from counsel, any more than my making the statement that it

10 is his signature is evidence.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We may exchange our different views on this

12 possibly later on. And as I said already, the Trial Chamber is grateful

13 for the contributions given by the Defence counsel.

14 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, if I may, only one remark.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

16 MR. LUKIC: I cannot meet my client next week either because we

17 are in the trial the whole day, from the morning until the afternoon. So

18 we might use that lunch break maybe. I don't know if it would be

19 sufficient, sufficiently long.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Probably we'll give you the possibility by

21 having a longer break, if necessary and if helpful in the interests of

22 justice.

23 I can't see any other requests. And thereby, we conclude our

24 today's session and we meet again Monday morning. Thank you.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

1 6.57 p.m., to be reconvened on

2 Monday, the 10th day of June, 2002,

3 at 9.00 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25