1 Tuesday, 27 August 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 10.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning to everybody. Could we please hear

6 the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances, please.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Nicholas Koumjian with Ruth Karper for the Office

11 of the Prosecutor. Good morning, Your Honours.

12 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic,

13 John Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Before we ask the usher to bring in

15 our witness of today, can you give us an estimate of the length of time

16 you would need for the cross-examination?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honour. We can. Approximately

18 we believe it would take an hour to an hour and a half.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. This will be extremely good, possibly

20 then we can restrict our session of today to one and a half hour if it's

21 agreeable for the parties.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: It's agreeable.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then may the usher please bring in

24 the witness.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, Witness X.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We will hear now the questions of the Defence.

4 WITNESS: WITNESS X [Resumed]

5 [Witness answered through interpreter].

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

8 Q. Good morning, Witness X. My name is John Ostojic, and along with

9 Branko Lukic and Danilo Cirkovic we represent Dr. Stakic. I'm going to

10 ask you a series of questions here today. As the Court has previously

11 indicated to other witnesses, sir, you are still under oath.

12 If at any time you don't understand my question, can you please

13 let me know and I'll try to rephrase it for you. And you have to keep all

14 your answers verbal or oral, and not use shrugs of the shoulders or nods

15 of the head. Fair enough?

16 A. Yes. Fair enough.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 Sir, I had an opportunity to review three statements that were

19 provided to us by the OTP. Initially, from those statements, it seems

20 that you had given several additional statements to various entities. Can

21 you list for us the statements and/or interviews that you gave in

22 connection with your detention at Trnopolje camp as well as that which you

23 witnessed at Mount Vlasic in August of 1992?

24 A. All the statements I gave, I think, come down to the same thing,

25 but in the statements, different questions were asked. However, if you

1 read the three statements, I think they all boil down to more or less the

2 same essence, the same point.

3 Q. My question specifically, Mr. Witness X, is whether or not you

4 gave additional statements to any entities other than the three statements

5 that were presented to us by the OTP.

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I think part of the witness's answer

7 may require a closed session

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Closed session, please.

9 [Closed session]

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have visitors in the box today.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Private session actually. I didn't use the correct

12 word. They can remain, but it will be silent.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Sorry, let's change to private session.

14 [Private session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 6946 to 6954 – redacted – private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 [Open session]

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Confirmed.

21 MR. OSTOJIC:

22 Q. Mr. Witness X, we are now in open session. We covered some of the

23 statements that you had provided to the individual entities reflecting

24 your experiences at Trnopolje camp and Mount Vlasic, specifically I'd like

25 to ask you about the September 1992 ICRC statement. Do you recall that

1 statement, sir, at all?

2 A. Yes, I do. But not that clearly, not so clearly as to be able to

3 tell you exactly -- to repeat exactly what I said, what I said to those

4 people. In those moments when the guards prepared us in the room where we

5 were sleeping, the aim of that preparation was to conceal the truth, to

6 keep me from telling the truth for my own safety.

7 Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that the statement you gave to the ICRC

8 was not truthful or had some misstatements within that statement?

9 A. The statement was completely untruthful.

10 Q. Unfortunately, sir, I don't have the benefit of having that

11 statement with me at this time, but is it within that statement that you

12 identified yourself as being also a part of the Muslim resistance in the

13 Brdo region in 1992, and in fact you told them that you were wounded while

14 fighting against Serbs in that area. True or false?

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Does the OTP have a copy of this document? We

16 would appreciate also to have one copy of this document.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: We join in the Court's request. We don't have one

18 as well.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can the usher be asked to provide a copy before

20 proceeding.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, it was disclosed to the Defence on the

22 18th of June -- of January, excuse me, of this year. I only have with me

23 one copy of the English translation.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't know by whom a copy would be produced,

25 please.

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]. It's four years ago. If it's noted down there that you

10 announced that you want to send it, did you really send it?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. The Defence may proceed.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to clarify, I think I gave the Court what I

14 thought was the UNHCR statement. It's actually the statement given to the

15 Banja Luka state security. I have to look and see if I have that UNHCR.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, Your Honour, the UNHCR

17 statement is not what we're dealing with. It's the ICRC statement that

18 we're dealing with. It's referenced specifically just so we're all clear

19 on the May 19th, 1998 statement which is where we derived some of the

20 information, specifically on ERN number 03004395 under the third

21 full-paragraph answer where purportedly the witness states, I'll quote the

22 last sentence in there: "In addition, I gave details to the International

23 Red Cross at this time; however, I did not tell the truth here out of

24 fear." We were questioning on that specifically, although we would

25 appreciate from the OTP that they provide us both the ICRC as well as the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 UNHCR statements if in their possession. And just so the record is clear,

2 we did not receive according to our records receive the September 1992

3 ICRC statement as suggested in January of 2002 or have no record of it in

4 any event.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: To correct myself, the document that was

6 photocopied is the statement given to the Banja Luka police, and that's

7 what was disclosed in January of 2002. I read it too quickly. It was a

8 September 1992 statement, but it was a different source. It was to the

9 police in Banja Luka.

10 As for an ICRC or UNHCR interview, our computer check that I have

11 in front of me now indicates that we do not have either of those

12 interviews.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

15 MR. OSTOJIC:

16 Q. Mr. Witness X, respectfully, you state that the entire statement

17 given to the ICRC was false. Can you tell us why you gave them a false

18 statement?

19 A. I gave a false statement because I was forced to give a false

20 statement. I was not in a position to give a truthful statement because

21 of the guards watching over us at Paprikovac in Banja Luka. We were

22 ordered not to give a truthful statement, but just to make up a story in

23 any way we could. And that's exactly what I did.

24 Q. Share with us, Mr. Witness X, what story did you give the ICRC?

25 A. I told the ICRC that as a civilian, I lost my leg, that I was hit

1 by a shell and that a shrapnel hit my leg, and that was how I lost my

2 leg. And what you've mentioned already about being a member of a

3 paramilitary unit or army, that's not true.

4 Q. If I may turn to another subject, Mr. Witness X, in connection

5 with the police academy in Sarajevo, can you give me the specific name of

6 that entity in 1991 and 1992 in which you attended?

7 A. How do you mean "entity"? Can you clarify that, please. Do you

8 mean the name of the school? It was the police school at Vrace. That's

9 what it was called.

10 Q. Thank you. And that was a four-year programme. Correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And do you know how long that police school at Vrace was in

13 existence prior to 1991 or 1992?

14 A. It existed before the war. It was a regular police school or

15 academy.

16 Q. Let me ask you this: With respect to the disbanding of the

17 school, is it true, sir, that it disbanded on April 6th, 1992?

18 A. I can't give you the exact date. I don't remember whether it was

19 the 5th or the 6th of April. That's when it was disbanded. But I can't

20 remember because events are starting to fade from my memory. I think it

21 was the 5th or the 6th.

22 Q. That's close enough. We'll accept the 5th or the 6th for our

23 purposes. It's not necessarily that relevant. But in any event it was

24 about the time of the outbreak of the war; namely, the secession and

25 separation and independence of Bosnia from the former Yugoslavia.

1 Correct?

2 A. Yes, it was when Bosnia was recognised as an independent state by

3 the United Nations.

4 Q. Sir, following that disbanding of the police academy or the police

5 school that you attended, you returned to Prijedor in April of 1992.

6 Correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. And in fact, sir, did you not also register with the local police

9 to become a police cadet or a reservist?

10 A. We were told to report because the school had been disbanded, so

11 we were told to report to the nearest local police station to tell them

12 that the school had been disbanded and we all did that. And then I went

13 home.

14 Q. So you registered actually with the Muslim police chief

15 Fikret Kadiric, correct, in Prijedor in 1992? Correct?

16 A. At that time?

17 Q. Correct.

18 A. No. He was the chief of the police station at the time.

19 Regardless of ethnicity, regardless of his nationality, he was the chief

20 of police, and he was the person we were supposed to report to.

21 Q. I'm just reading from your statement, sir, given on the 19th of

22 May, 1998. ERN number 03004392, first full paragraph, third line. The

23 document is not paginated, Your Honour. The ERN number is 03004392.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Page 3 in my collection.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: The first full paragraph -- yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, page 3.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Page 3 of that document, the first full paragraph starting with

4 the word: "On 6 April, 1992..." --

5 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

7 MR. OSTOJIC:

8 Q. It states: "Hasan Balic our academy principal ordered the academy

9 be disbanded. He advised the police cadets to find their own way to

10 safety. I went back to Prijedor and registered as a police cadet with the

11 Muslim police chief Fikret Kadiric." There's another sentence. I'll read

12 that as well. "However I was not assigned to duties and so went to my

13 parents' home and spent the next few months there."

14 My question to you, sir, is it true that when you returned to

15 Prijedor, that you registered as a police cadet with the Muslim police

16 chief Fikret Kadiric?

17 A. It's correct that I did register and that I went home. That's

18 what we were ordered to do.

19 Q. Fair enough.

20 A. At that point in time, I had no idea that the war would break

21 out. I was planning to go back to that academy.

22 Q. Sir, help me with this: This is after you left the academy. You

23 in fact, in your statement state that war had already broken out and

24 that's why the school was disbanded, and that's why you returned back to

25 your home in Biscani. Correct?

1 A. [No audible response]

2 Q. So war broke out already. Correct?

3 A. Yes, it had broken out, that's true.

4 Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that this Fikret Kadiric was actually

5 the police chief or was he the chief of transportation for the police in

6 April 1992, or do you not recall?

7 A. I think he was the chief of police.

8 Q. From April 6th or thereabouts after the outbreak of war and your

9 departure from Sarajevo upon coming back home to Biscani in April of 1992,

10 can you tell me, sir, at any time from April until April 30th, 1992,

11 whether the population as a whole was asked to turn in their weapons?

12 A. Yes, when Hambarine was taken, when the incident at Hambarine

13 happened, then the population was asked to return weapons, to hand in

14 weapons.

15 Q. Just so we have it clear, sir, so from the takeover, April 30th,

16 1992, until May 22nd, 1992, which is the date that we've generally

17 accepted, I believe, as the incident at Hambarine, is it your testimony

18 that at no time did any authorities ask or seek that the members of the

19 population at large turn in their weapons?

20 A. I can't remember that.

21 Q. Help me reconcile this: On page 5 -- strike that. On page 4 of

22 your 19th May, 1998, statement which has the ERN number 03004394, I

23 believe it's the second paragraph in the answer midway into the answer,

24 sir, it states here and I'll quote: "I believe it was in April 1992 that

25 there was a meeting of the Muslim population in our village of Biscani.

1 Here we were told that the Serbs had demanded written statements of

2 loyalty from the Muslim policemen. They would also in the future have to

3 wear Serbian insignia on their uniforms. If this demand were not met, the

4 Serbs would take action as in Vukovar and would kill recalcitrant

5 Muslims. But we Muslims and especially the Muslim policemen did not heed

6 these demands which were also put forward in other Muslim villages."

7 My question to you, sir, just for clarification first, did this

8 happen before or after the incident in Hambarine?

9 A. I think it happened before the incident.

10 Q. Can you tell me, sir, what you meant when you said "but we

11 Muslims, and especially the Muslim policemen did not heed these demands

12 which were also put forward in other Muslims villages"?

13 A. Yes, we didn't want to wear Serbian insignia. We didn't want to

14 work wearing such insignia. We were opposed to this, and we all agreed

15 that we would not sign an oath of loyalty and wear Serbian insignia on our

16 uniforms and work wearing such insignia.

17 Q. This April 1992 meeting that you mentioned with the Muslim

18 population in your village, can you tell me how many people were present?

19 A. I can't say. I don't remember.

20 Q. Can you tell me, sir, how many such meetings you attended in April

21 of 1992?

22 A. Only one meeting of that type.

23 Q. Did this request to wear the Serbian insignia occur, sir, before

24 or after the takeover of the Prijedor Police Station on or about

25 April 30th or May 1st, 1992?

1 A. The police station was forcibly taken in the night leading up to

2 the 1st of May. I can't remember exactly whether this happened before or

3 after that. I'm not trying to conceal anything, I simply can't say

4 because it's faded from my memory.

5 Q. I understand that, sir, and respect it. And I'm just trying to

6 get clarification on this. On that same page 4 of your 19th May, 1998,

7 document ERN number 03004394, which we were just referencing, you state on

8 the last sentence of that document --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, it's page 5.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. On page 5 of that statement you state, again second paragraph last

12 sentence: "In what I believe was a response to this - meaning the request

13 for the Serb insignia - the Serbs took over the police station on 1 May

14 1992."

15 Does this, sir, help refresh your recollection as to whether or

16 not the request from the Serbs who purportedly demanded written statements

17 of loyalty and also requested Serbian insignia be worn on the Muslim

18 police officers' uniforms, did that happen prior to the takeover of

19 Prijedor by the Serb authorities?

20 A. According to what you've just read from the statement, it seems

21 that this happened before the Serbs took over the police station and all

22 the important institutions in the town. But I still say that this has

23 faded from my memory.

24 Q. From April 30th, 1992, through May 22nd, 1992, sir, was there ever

25 an attack on the village in which you lived in, Biscani?

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 A. There was no attack.

2 Q. Were there any arrests during that interval period of April 30th

3 through May 22nd, 1992, sir?

4 A. I remember that there were arrests, yes.

5 Q. And when, sir, and of whom?

6 A. I can't say exactly when, but I remember that whenever a police

7 car appeared, they were looking for people who used to be policemen or who

8 had some political posts, and these were the people who were arrested.

9 Q. Did you, sir, at any time from April 30th, 1992, through May 22nd,

10 1992, ever assist in the preparation of a barricade or checkpoint on or

11 around the village of Biscani where you resided?

12 A. I did not assist in the preparation of any sort of checkpoint.

13 The only thing I did was that together with my father, without any

14 weapons, I patrolled the area around our home to protect my mother and

15 sister. That was all we did.

16 Q. Do you know, sir, or are you familiar with where the checkpoint or

17 barricade leading to your village, Biscani, was in April and May of 1992?

18 A. I remember that there was a checkpoint on the Ljubija Road just

19 below Hambarine.

20 Q. And do you know when that checkpoint, sir, was established or set

21 up?

22 A. I don't remember.

23 Q. Do you know, sir, if that was a Muslim, a Serb, or a mixed

24 checkpoint?

25 A. I think it was manned by Muslims, because the population in the

1 area was exclusively Muslim.

2 Q. Do you know, sir, whether the Muslims who were controlling that

3 checkpoint, whether they were armed or not?

4 A. I never visited the checkpoint. I never saw it myself. I only

5 heard that it existed.

6 Q. Did you hear, sir, whether or not the men who were controlling the

7 checkpoint or barricade were armed or not?

8 A. I heard that they were armed, yes.

9 Q. Do you know, sir, how long that checkpoint that you're

10 referencing, how long it remained in existence after April of 1992?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Do you know or did anyone tell you, sir, why a checkpoint was

13 established on the outskirts of Hambarine?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Do you know or have you learned from any source, sir, who they

16 were trying to keep out, if anyone, from entering the Brdo region,

17 namely, Hambarine and Biscani, which required them to set up a checkpoint

18 and/or barricade?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. Let's move, if we can, sir, to the actual Hambarine incident on

21 May 22nd, 1992. You referenced yesterday on page 9, lines 15 through 18

22 approximately that you heard the news from men in a motorcycle or men in

23 motorcycles. Do you remember that testimony?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you know whether these men were actually people who were

1 representative of the Territorial Defence of the Brdo region?

2 A. These people -- I don't know whether they were members of the

3 Territorial Defence.

4 Q. Do you know, sir, if they were members of the local Crisis Staff

5 of the Brdo region?

6 A. I don't think they were. I think they were just ordinary people,

7 that they were neither members of the Territorial Defence, nor...

8 Q. Nor what, sir? Nor the Crisis Staff?

9 A. I assume they were members of neither the Crisis Staff nor the

10 Territorial Defence.

11 Q. On or about May 22nd, 1992, sir, is it true that the Muslim

12 population in the Brdo region actually maintained and had a Territorial

13 Defence as well as a Crisis Staff established?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. Did you, sir, ever become familiar with the individuals who were

16 members of the Muslim Crisis Staff from the Brdo region in May of 1992?

17 A. These were people who were secretaries in the local community, the

18 local commune, or who had some sort of post in the local commune.

19 Q. And do you remember any of their names, sir?

20 A. I remember because they were neighbours of mine.

21 Q. And can you share with us some of the individuals who were members

22 of the Crisis Staff in May of 1992 in the Brdo region?

23 A. I don't want to say.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: I would ask the Court perhaps to assist us, and

25 maybe go into private or closed session.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's please go into private session and let us

2 hear the comments of the representative of the OTP.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would just object on relevance. What relevance

4 are the names of the people who were on the Crisis Staff and justify

5 their -- if they were victims, if they were killed, it certainly wouldn't

6 justify that. I don't see any relevance to getting those names.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may reply, that objection actually is so far

8 afield from what this process is all about. The OTP has called witnesses

9 who have been in consistent denial about various issues that we believe

10 are very well known and should have been stipulated to by the OTP, not as

11 purposes of Defence and whether there was any justification for their

12 death, but actually for veracity of witnesses.

13 Here we have a gentleman that is willing to actually share with

14 us, I hope, in closed and private session, who these individuals are, and

15 it's our duty, I believe, respectfully to determine who were all the

16 players at the relevant time period. We cannot get more relevant than the

17 issue of May 1992. Which heard from many witnesses and I dare say that

18 those witnesses that this individual will identify are the same witnesses

19 that were before this Court. So how an objection on relevancy can ever be

20 made much less sustained is beyond comprehension.

21 Secondly, we believe that this issue with Crisis Staff has been

22 enormously and egregiously overstated. Crisis Staff, as the OTP would

23 like to attribute to our client was far different than the reality,

24 Your Honour. And I think this witness can help assist us in to

25 understanding why at times some individuals may have identified a Crisis

1 Staff and certain members who were Serbian within that Crisis Staff. Each

2 region may have had one. Each separate enclave may have had one. And we

3 think it's very relevant and important in this case because it goes to

4 issues not only of chain of command but superior responsibility because

5 we're accused of both 7(1) and 7(3) in the revised fourth amended

6 indictment as well as others issues relating to discriminatory intent as

7 well as factors relating to deportation and authorisation.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I didn't follow all the from that

9 argument how the names are relevant. We have never denied that there were

10 Territorial Defence units and Crisis Staffs in other parts of Prijedor

11 Municipality. The accused in this case is charged not because they used

12 the name "Crisis Staff" but because of what that body, that Crisis Staff

13 of the Serbian Municipality did. I still don't see how the names of the

14 particular individuals are relevant, and I submit it.

15 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the evaluation of evidence, it may be of

17 assistance to know about the names, and therefore we regard this as

18 relevant. But we have, of course, as regards the second part of your

19 statement, who warned -- it's not for us to warn Defence but to tell the

20 Defence that the notion of Crisis Staff itself has no meaning at all. We

21 have to look into different Crisis Staffs. We had about 1.000 Crisis

22 Staffs in Germany during the last month.

23 So, please, refrain from making any comparison of this Crisis

24 Staff and that Crisis Staff. And no doubt, that in such a situation, each

25 part tries to defend him or herself. And therefore, I would ask to go

1 in -- are we already in private session? If not, then we should go.

2 [Private session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 6973 – redacted – private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 [Open session]

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Confirmed.

20 MR. OSTOJIC:

21 Q. Mr. Witness X, we're again in open session. And thank you. Just

22 a couple questions for the period of April 6th or 7th when you came to

23 Prijedor from Sarajevo up until May 22nd, 1992. Do you know, sir, whether

24 the school continued to operate throughout that entire period up until the

25 incident at Hambarine, May 22nd, 1992?

1 A. You mean elementary schools or secondary schools?

2 Q. Either or both.

3 A. Secondary schools did not operate, because no one had access to

4 the town. That's across the bridge, because you had to cross the bridge

5 on your way from the villages to the town there was a checkpoint, and no

6 one went to school any more, not secondary school students.

7 Q. How about elementary school students, sir? Did they continue to

8 go to school up until May of 1992 and towards the end of May 1992?

9 A. I can't remember that, whether elementary schools continued to

10 operate in certain local communes.

11 Q. Following the incident on May 22nd, 1992, at Hambarine that we

12 have been discussing, you mentioned that there was an announcement made on

13 Radio Prijedor. Within that announcement, can you tell me, sir, who made

14 the announcement? Who was the individual or individuals who made the

15 announcement?

16 A. Radio Prijedor announced this, and I can't say who the person was

17 because I don't know. We listened to Radio Prijedor, and they announced

18 that there was a request for Aziz Aliskovic and his group to surrender.

19 Those were the people who had allegedly manned and secured the checkpoint.

20 Q. I understand that, sir. But is it your testimony that you don't

21 recall by whom this announcement was made?

22 A. The Prijedor Crisis Staff, I don't know. The announcement came

23 through Radio Prijedor which was under the Serbian authorities.

24 Q. I understand that, sir. I'm specifically asking you, and isn't it

25 true that you don't know and you don't recall specifically that there was

1 an announcement made by the Crisis Staff following the May 22nd incident

2 at Hambarine over Radio Prijedor? Isn't that correct?

3 A. What do you mean "Crisis Staff"? I can't seem to understand your

4 question. Could you please simplify it a bit.

5 Q. I'll try. And you made the same request of the OTP on page 10

6 yesterday in connection with this announcement, and we transformed it. It

7 was an announcement, correct?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. And that announcement, sir, that you recall following the incident

10 of May 22nd, 1992, at Hambarine, it was made by someone over the radio

11 broadcast, and you heard that announcement. Correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Isn't it also true, sir, that you don't recall, as you sit here

14 today under oath, that that announcement was made by the Crisis Staff, by

15 the military, by the police, or by any other civil authorities? Correct?

16 You just don't know who made that announcement; true?

17 A. I can't remember. The announcement came through Radio Prijedor,

18 but I can't remember who released the statement. And Radio Prijedor was

19 Serb controlled because they had taken over all the media on the same day

20 as the takeover of the town. Now, whether it was released by the police

21 or the Crisis Staff, frankly, I can't remember.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may, with respect to the

24 interpretation, we believe the witness said he wasn't sure if it was the

25 military police or Crisis Staff, but the transcription only reflects the

1 answer as being police and/or Crisis Staff, on page 31, line 10 through

2 11, to the extent that it may be important.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please feel free to ask another time for

4 clarification.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Witness X, just for clarification, as you sit here today under

7 oath, you do not recall whether this announcement following the May 22nd,

8 1992, incident at Hambarine, whether it was issued by either the Crisis

9 Staff, military police, or any other civil authorities. Correct?

10 A. I can't remember. I assume it was the Crisis Staff, but I can't

11 offer you any specific argument.

12 Q. That's fine. Can you tell us, sir, at the very least what the

13 contents of that announcement was?

14 A. The announcement said that Aziz Aliskovic and his group were to

15 surrender. If they didn't surrender, the village would be shelled.

16 Q. And the village specifically was Hambarine. Correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. From May 22nd, 1992, through July 20th, 1992, prior to the time

19 that you were taken to Trnopolje, was the village in which you resided,

20 Biscani, ever attacked in either May, June, or July 1992?

21 A. Yes, there were several attacks, artillery attacks, from the

22 surrounding villages.

23 Q. And sir, can you tell me when that was?

24 A. I remember the 11th of July, 1992. That's the Serbian holiday of

25 Petrovdan, and I remember they fired shells on that day all over Brdo, and

1 they burned houses in Hambarine.

2 Q. My question, though, sir specifically is relating to your town,

3 Biscani. Was that ever attacked in May, June, and July 1992?

4 A. The village of Biscani was also attacked that same night by

5 artillery.

6 Q. Other than that day, Petrovdan, any other days, sir?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can you list them for me?

9 A. I can't remember the dates, but I remember that within the same

10 time span that Hambarine was taken, around the 20th of July, most of -- in

11 the afternoon hours, there were attacks. There was shelling.

12 Q. Thank you, and let me just move in the interests of time to

13 another area. While you were at Trnopolje, from July 20th, 1992, through

14 August 21st approximately, 1992, is it fair to state, sir, that there was

15 no fence in Trnopolje camp while you were there?

16 A. There was a fence in Trnopolje, but when delegations of

17 international organisations arrived, the fence would be removed every time

18 and then they would put it back up.

19 Q. Help me with this, sir, on page 8, sorry, of your 19th May, 1998

20 statement, in the third paragraph you state as follows, which has ERN

21 number 03004397, and again, sir, to refresh your recollection, this is the

22 statement given to the federal office of criminal investigation.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: May I continue, Your Honour?

24 Q. It states there: "In Trnopolje, we were shut in an abandoned shop

25 for the first night. Later we were only able to stay outside on the grass

1 where we also slept. The camp was guarded. There was no fence, and there

2 were generally so many Muslims in the camp that it was thoroughly

3 overcrowded."

4 Can you reconcile, sir, your statement to the federal criminal

5 investigators on the 19th of May, 1998, and your testimony here today that

6 there was a fence?

7 A. I can't give you a precise answer, but I know that there was a

8 wire fence.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I have to interrupt. It's totally

10 misleading. It's not your fault. In the German version, it says: "There

11 was a fence." It's translated: "There was no fence." Sorry to state

12 this.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, we're just going by the English

14 version.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The German version, page 7, paragraph 3. Second

16 or -- third paragraph, sentence 3, it reads: "Es gas eimen Zaim," "There

17 was a fence." I don't know how it's possible that this translation

18 occurs.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think Mr. Ostojic should be sanctioned for that.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if we can just proceed if I may.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Before we proceed, because I see it's close to the

22 half hour, I do have a confession to make in that from counsel's earlier

23 questions, I was double-checking the disclosures. And there is a

24 transcript of -- can we go into private session.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please, in private session.

1 I hope this is settled, and you can rely, please, with some

2 assistance of another German native speaker, you can --

3 MR. OSTOJIC: We'll certainly accept the Court's reading on that.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 --- Recess taken at 11.26 a.m.

23 [Open session]

24 --- On resuming at 12.02 p.m.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

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 We can proceed.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are in open session now, just for

4 clarification.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness X. Thank you for your patience.

7 We're trying to clarify some issues, and we appreciate to the extent that

8 you can help us, that you do so. Obviously, as you have this morning, if

9 you don't recall, simply tell us, and I'll be glad to move to another area

10 or seek clarification by trying to either refresh your recollection or by

11 other means available and permitted to us by the Court.

12 Just so we can clarify the point on Trnopolje, and you heard

13 obviously the Court's comments on that in the German version, we have only

14 the English version that we are able to at least read. Since you were

15 there, sir, from July 20th through August 21st, 1992, is it true, sir,

16 that to the extent that there was a fence there that the fence did not

17 encompass the entire Trnopolje camp as you've identified?

18 A. I have already said that in the Trnopolje camp, there was a

19 primary school, and there was a gym in the school. There was also an

20 abandoned shop. The wire fence we are talking about was where there was

21 grass, not all the way around because there was already a metal fence in

22 front of the school, around the school and the gym, up to the road.

23 However, behind the school where there was grass, that's where the wire

24 fence was put up.

25 Q. Can you to the best of your recollection describe that fence as

1 well as its dimensions; namely, its height, length, and the type of

2 fencing it was that was put up.

3 A. It was barbed wire, and it was over 2 metres high. As for the

4 length, I can't remember because I didn't really walk around the

5 perimeter. I was only inside near the school and the gym.

6 Q. Another question with respect to your detention at Trnopolje camp,

7 it relates to the Red Cross. Do you remember whether or not the Serbian

8 Red Cross was present at the Trnopolje camp during the time that you were

9 there, July 20th through August 21st, 1992?

10 A. On the 20th of July, I arrived in Trnopolje and spent the night in

11 the abandoned shop. And on the following morning, two women wearing Red

12 Cross insignia turned up and registered all the inmates. After we were

13 registered, we were allowed to go into the compound of the camp. That's

14 where I saw the Red Cross.

15 Q. Did you, sir, see the Red Cross at any time subsequent to that

16 initial meeting on or about July 21st, 1992?

17 A. No, I didn't because I didn't leave the compound. After that

18 date, I never left the compound for a single moment. It was only people

19 who had an identity card who could leave the compound. I didn't have one,

20 so I could not go out looking for food the way other people did.

21 Q. Help me with this statement that was translated, and again, I

22 can't attest to the accuracy of the translation from the (redacted)

23 that, from the interview. I should ask the Court to strike that.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, it's already -- please, redact

25 this word.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, I apologise.

2 Q. Sir, it states on page 6 of this summary or translation of an

3 interview that you gave to a third country on ERN number L0074938, in the

4 lower portion starting with the word "Trnopolje" it's described as

5 follows: "Trnopolje was a village, a kind of big village, where people

6 worked before the war. They had their gardens that were left after they

7 had been forced to go away -- go away from their houses, and so the

8 soldiers decided to let us, who were in the camp, look for food and simply

9 kind of loot, plunder, the houses, look for flour, blankets, and

10 everything else we needed."

11 With respect to that statement, sir, can you quantify for us the

12 number of people that were permitted to go outside the Trnopolje camp or

13 Detention Centre to look for food, clothing, blankets, et cetera?

14 A. I can't say. I can't say how many. I wasn't interested in that

15 at all.

16 Q. Do you know --

17 A. People who needed to go went.

18 Q. Do you know, sir, if this was a daily occurrence?

19 A. At the very beginning, yes.

20 Q. Let me ask you again, if I may, with respect to the Red Cross that

21 may have been there. During the time that the convoy was assembled on

22 August 21st, 1992, when you left the Trnopolje camp, who was present

23 during that time?

24 A. After the 21st of August, you mean? Well, it was only uniformed

25 persons who were present.

1 Q. Tell me how many and to the extent that you know their names, list

2 them for me, please.

3 A. I can say how many there were, although I didn't count them. I

4 saw a school friend of mine, Dragan Knezevic. I saw Branko Topala. I saw

5 Dado. I don't know what his last name. He was a neighbour or a colleague

6 or a relative of Dragan Knezevic. I don't know about the others.

7 Q. With respect to this convoy that assembled -- strike that.

8 Sir, once you were at Mount Vlasic, you said that there were

9 soldiers who a day or three days subsequent to that incident on August

10 21st, 1992, that they approached you when they found you. Is it fair to

11 state, sir, that those soldiers did not beat or threaten you in any way?

12 A. That's correct. They treated me kindly.

13 Q. And tell me, sir, what the ethnicity of those soldiers was.

14 A. They didn't introduce themselves, but I assume they were of Serb

15 ethnicity because they were wearing olive-grey uniforms.

16 Q. Now, if I may just discuss with you the hospitalization on August

17 31st, 1992, when you were being treated for the injury that you sustained

18 regrettably to your leg. Sir, in your statement, on page 7, of September

19 12th through the 13th, 1996, given to the ICTY, again, page 7, third full

20 paragraph, you discuss that a Muslim doctor drained your leg by opening

21 the scar. Can you tell me, sir, what the name of that Muslim doctor was.

22 A. I don't want to say the name of that man. I can't say for reasons

23 of security because he probably played a key role in relation to my leg,

24 and he would -- or rather, had he not played that role, the consequences

25 would have been drastic. When I was released allegedly, I talked to that

1 doctor, and he said they were going to amputate my leg above the knee, and

2 then send me to the military medical academy in Belgrade to have my leg

3 amputated from the hip.

4 Q. To the best of your recollection, sir, was this Muslim doctor

5 actually the director of this medical clinic in which you sought treatment

6 in Banja Luka on the 31st of August, 1992?

7 A. I didn't ask to be treated. It just happened that way due to

8 circumstances. I don't know what the doctor's post in the hospital was.

9 I wasn't allowed to talk to the doctors directly in the hospital because

10 every time he appeared, he was escorted by a guard. And the guard was

11 always standing close to us, so we just had eye contact, but we didn't

12 speak.

13 Q. Help me understand how was it this conversation that was relayed

14 to you with respect to your amputation either being below the knee, above

15 the knee, or up through and to your hip. When did this occur if you

16 didn't speak to the doctor?

17 A. When I was released from hospital, and when I had gained a little

18 strength and was able to talk to people, it was then that he told me, and

19 he told me that the worst was over. That was in November.

20 Q. Of 1992. Correct?

21 A. Yes, 1992, yes.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I would ask that we go into private

23 session so that we could obtain the name of the doctor, and it goes I

24 think to a threshold issue that the OTP is trying to establish, or one of

25 their purported threshold issues, namely that there was a dismissal and

1 discharge of all Muslim intellectuals and professionals, and so I think

2 it's necessary at least to make that nexus.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please help me understanding, if it's undisputed

4 that there was a Muslim doctor, what's the relevance of the name?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: We think that we can establish, Your Honour, that

6 this individual was at all times the director and the person who was the

7 head of the clinic in Banja Luka during the entire period. We hope by

8 obtaining this name that we can get into contact with the physician so

9 that he can clarify, if not rebut the broad statements by the Prosecutor

10 that all Muslims who were educated or professionals were dismissed. And

11 we are contending that that is not accurate respectfully.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I think that the little relevance that

13 it has would be outweighed by misuse of time and the possible danger to

14 someone. Again, this is taking place in Banja Luka, not in Prijedor. So

15 its relevance to the particular case of Dr. Stakic is very, very limited.

16 And if this is admitted, one witness -- one name of one doctor who

17 remained working in Banja Luka, then, of course, all of our evidence

18 regarding all of the doctors in Banja Luka university, administrators, et

19 cetera, would then become relevant to rebut the fact that one Muslim was

20 allowed to continue working. And I think overall, that would not be

21 relevant and useful use of our time.

22 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The request of the Defence is dismissed.

24 MR. OSTOJIC:

25 Q. Mr. Witness X, with respect to the individual that you identified

1 yesterday in your transcript by the name of Edin Mrkalj, on page 44 and 45

2 of the transcript, and again, we are in open session, sir, so can you

3 please identify for me what this individual's father's name is.

4 A. Mrkalj.

5 Q. Can you tell me, sir, what the fate of this individual was,

6 because I don't think we received it when you were discussing it on

7 pages 44 and 45 of yesterday's transcript.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the question just be clarified, are we

9 talking about the father or son in the question?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. The son, Edin Mrkalj.

11 Q. What happened to him?

12 A. As far as I know, he ended up in camp after turning in his weapons

13 and uniform, he ended up in camp. I assume it was in Omarska.

14 Q. And what happened to him after that, sir? Do you know?

15 A. [No Interpretation].

16 Q. Do you know, sir, if he's alive or not?

17 A. He's alive.

18 Q. Is this an individual who was a police officer at one time in that

19 municipality? Correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I just have to ask you this question because it was unclear from

22 other information that I received. Had you ever, sir, seen the police van

23 that was used in the Prijedor Municipality in 1992?

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the

25 microphone.

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 A. Yes, I saw it in Trnopolje.

2 MR. OSTOJIC:

3 Q. With respect to this police van, sir, can you tell me how many

4 people can fit in the front seat?

5 A. I can't say. I didn't dare approach it. There was nothing else

6 for me to do there.

7 Q. Let me just a couple more questions with respect to the convoy of

8 August 21st, 1992. With respect to this August 21st, 1992, convoy, I'm

9 going to read from -- again, I apologise if the translation is not

10 correct. On page 9 of your 19th of May, 1998, statement, on the second or

11 the first full paragraph, ERN number 03004398: "I can only remember that

12 shortly before the 21st of August, 1992, he threatened that I would leave

13 the camp with this convoy. In hindsight, I believe that he not do this in

14 order to rescue me. Rather he knew very well that the men of this convoy

15 of 21st August would be shot, because this convoy was the last opportunity

16 to get prisoners out of the camp before they were registered by the

17 International Red Cross. There was indeed an official registration by the

18 Red Cross on 24 August of 1992."

19 With respect to that, sir, if you left with the convoy on the 21st

20 of August, 1992, how do you know that the International Red Cross was

21 present and actually registered detainees at the Trnopolje camp?

22 A. After the 21st of August, some neighbours of mine and some members

23 of my family stayed behind in the camp. Fortunately, they had not been

24 put on the convoy. And I had an opportunity to talk to them, so I

25 obtained this information from my relatives and neighbours who stayed

1 behind in the camp. After the 21st of August, that was a Friday, on the

2 following Monday, the Red Cross turned up and registered all the prisoners

3 left in the Trnopolje camp.

4 Q. So is it fair to say this was a different registration than the

5 one you experienced and testified that occurred when you were initially

6 brought to Trnopolje on July 20th and 21st, 1992. Correct?

7 A. That's correct. The first registration that was carried out was

8 carried out only by the local authorities. It was not by an international

9 organisation.

10 Q. Other than the one announcement that you heard over Radio Prijedor

11 on May 22nd, 1992, did you hear any other announcements or can you recall

12 any other announcements over Radio Prijedor following May 22nd, 1992?

13 A. The announcement about the turning in of weapons and military

14 equipment.

15 Q. Do you recall, sir, a couple days after the incident in Hambarine

16 there was a military announcement over Radio Prijedor which asked that the

17 checkpoints in Jakupovici be moved back 100 metres from the main road so

18 that the military convoy can pass through? Do you recall hearing that

19 over the Radio Prijedor?

20 A. Jakupovici, that's something quite different. That's not in the

21 area I come from. And that's a completely different piece of information.

22 Q. But sir, do you remember hearing that announcement over Prijedor

23 radio on or about May 24th, 1992?

24 A. I don't remember.

25 Q. Do you recall, sir, the time May 24th, 1992, or do you have any

1 information as to whether or not Muslims at a checkpoint in Jakupovici

2 attacked a military convoy that was passing through the Banja Luka and

3 Prijedor Road?

4 A. I had different information that the checkpoint in Jakupovici had

5 been attacked by Serbian soldiers or policemen. That's the information I

6 have.

7 Q. That information that you have, sir, did not come from Radio

8 Prijedor, right? It came from another source presumably?

9 A. Well, you know, we were free to talk and look at what was

10 happening around us.

11 Q. Help me with this, sir: On May 30th, 1992, do you have

12 information with respect to any attack on the actual city of Prijedor by

13 Muslims or Muslim citizens?

14 A. I had no information about that.

15 Q. Is it fair to state, sir, that this is the first time you're

16 hearing that there was an attack by Muslims citizens on the actual town of

17 Prijedor on May 30th, 1992?

18 A. I heard it only in the morning. When dawn broke, we heard

19 shooting. We were close to Prijedor, and we could hear the shooting, yes.

20 Q. Did you know or did you learn, sir, who was the participants on

21 the Muslim citizens side who attacked the town of Prijedor?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. Just one more I think area I need to cover with you, sir. Thank

24 you for your patience.

25 Can you tell me who Zoran Karlica is?

1 A. Zoran Karlica, what I heard is that he was a person with a

2 military rank. How should I put this? He was a senior officer, a senior

3 military officer, because the day when the ethnic cleansing took place,

4 all the people who took part in it were wearing insignia "Zoran Karlica."

5 Q. Sir, isn't it true, at least according to your statement of the

6 19th of May, 1998, that Zoran Karlica had been one of the most senior

7 military leaders from the barracks, he was killed shortly before the

8 ethnic cleansing in May of 1992"?

9 A. The most senior, I'm not sure that this is what I stated. He was

10 one of the senior officers of the army. On that day, the day of the

11 cleansing, that was what I heard from the other soldiers who wore the

12 insignia with the name "Zoran Karlica." They told me they wanted revenge

13 because apparently he had been killed during the attack on Prijedor.

14 Q. Now, is it true, sir, do you agree with me that any action that

15 may have been taken against the Muslims in Biscani occurred after your

16 arrest on the 20th of July, 1992? Correct?

17 A. It happened on that very day, the 20th, the day I was arrested,

18 and also after that day.

19 Q. But at no time prior to July 20th, 1992. Correct?

20 A. No.

21 Q. It's not correct?

22 A. Again, I fail to understand your question because I've told you

23 what had been happening up to that point, the 20th of July.

24 Q. Fair enough. Let me reconcile it. On page 6 of your 19th May,

25 1998, statement, you state, the last sentence of that first paragraph:

1 "The Serbs first took action against the Muslims in Biscani after my

2 arrest on 20th July, 1992." Is that true and accurate?

3 A. Not defined, took measures, I mean. There's no clarification

4 there in this quote, right, is there? What I know, the 20th of July,

5 that's when the ethnic cleansing took place.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you very much, Witness X. I have no further

7 questions.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Witness X, may I please ask you some

10 additional questions, just for completeness.

11 Questioned by the Court:

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Witness, are you married? Do you have a child?

13 A. I am married, yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the age of your child?

15 A. I have two children. One is 6, and the other 2 years old.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. What about your political activity

17 at that time, in 1992? Before 1992, have you ever been a member of a

18 political party?

19 A. While I was in my regular military service for the JNA, the

20 Yugoslav People's Army, I became a member of the league of communists.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In your statement of May 1998, once again,

22 mistake, you can see on the English version it's always stated May 1999,

23 no doubt it was May 1998.

24 You emphasise "passive member of the League of Communists of

25 Yugoslavia." Is that correct, "passive member," and what's the meaning of

1 "passive member"?

2 A. While I was the -- in the JNA, during my regular military service,

3 due to my merits there, my good work, I was asked whether I would like to

4 join the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and I said yes. However,

5 after my military service, I took no active part in the party's work. I

6 only had my membership document. It was the same with my father. He was

7 also a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I think it's easy to understand this

9 at that time natural link between work and being member of the League of

10 Communists.

11 Have you ever been a member of the SDA?

12 A. No, never. Nor did I ever wish to join the SDA.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why?

14 A. I simply had no wish to become a member of any of those

15 nationalist parties. I grew up and went to school with people who

16 belonged to all the different ethnic groups, Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and

17 that's the way I was raised. I was not taking into account the people's

18 ethnic background.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just one remaining question: I didn't really

20 understand the meaning of the word yesterday when you mentioned that a

21 person was armed with a CZ-99 firearm and a scorpio. Could you please

22 explain what a scorpio is.

23 A. It's an automatic pistol.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it was in addition to this other CZ-99?

25 A. No. I merely assumed that that was the name of the pistol, and

1 the person who carried the pistol was saying these words.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification.

3 One other minor issue: You spoke several times about currencies

4 yesterday. What was the ordinary currency you used at that time in 1992

5 in your country?

6 A. In 1992, I can't say. 1999, that was a long time after the war.

7 Perhaps you meant to refer to a different year.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I just wanted to refer to 1992, what was the

9 ordinary currency to -- probably it may assist that yesterday you

10 mentioned that there was a different currency introduced, and I want to

11 invite you to comment a little bit on this alleged introduction of a

12 different currency. You spoke about Serbian bank notes.

13 A. Yes, I remember there used to be bank notes which only existed in

14 Serb-held territory during the war in 1992. But I can't remember exactly

15 whether the name of that currency was dinars or what the name was. But

16 you could use -- you could only use that currency, that particular

17 currency, in Serb-held territory and territory under the Serbian

18 authorities.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what was the currency you had to use after

20 April 1992, say, in Prijedor?

21 A. That same currency.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the same was true in Trnopolje?

23 A. Correct.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On yesterday's transcript, page 51, line 8, you

25 stated: "And here I could hear the person saying `here we exchange dead

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 for the dead and living for the living.'" The question was which person

2 said that. Your answer was: "The same person that I believe is called

3 Dragan Mrdja." Would you be able to recognise this Dragan Mrdja, and did

4 you know Mr. Mrdja beforehand?

5 A. I could try to identify him, although that was ten years ago.

6 Memories fade. But what I noticed in that moment, I still have an image

7 in my head of that, so I would be willing to give it a try, but I can't

8 guarantee that I would be able to recognise the person. But I can try at

9 least.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Had you met this person beforehand? Sometimes

11 you mentioned "this person, this was my teacher in this or that school,

12 another person I met at this or that occasion beforehand. Did you meet

13 Mr. Dragan Mrdja beforehand on another occasion?

14 A. I can't remember, at least I don't have a striking memory. The

15 only image I still have of him that is relatively clear is the one I kept

16 after the execution.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you still have this image before you?

18 A. Yes, well, I do remember something.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you please be so kind and tell us if there

20 is something special you remember about this person.

21 A. Anything in particular. Well, maybe the eyebrows, wide, not that

22 much but perhaps above average.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's leave it with this for the moment.

24 A. Or perhaps the round shape of his head.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Probably we have to come back to this later.

1 Let me finally ask: Did you ever before 1992 or in 1992 hear directly or

2 via other persons the name of Dr. Stakic?

3 A. No.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you personally think back, and far away from

5 all legal aspects, what do you believe, who is responsible for that what

6 happened to you and for that what you had to tell us yesterday?

7 A. I can't specify. I can't point to an individual, but the orders

8 had to come from somewhere, from someplace. And then perhaps someone had

9 to pass on these orders, someone had to give the orders and someone else

10 had to carry them out.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Didn't you have any insight in the hierarchy of

12 the police forces in Prijedor?

13 A. The hierarchy, you mean, anarchy?

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I wanted to stay neutral and speak about

15 hierarchy. And at that time, when you came back to Prijedor following

16 that on perusal what you said earlier, especially in 1998, you found the

17 6th of April the police forces in a relatively coordinated shape. You

18 mentioned that only one month later, this person - unfortunately I forgot

19 the name - was exchanged. Is that true, that when you came back, you were

20 ordered to come back by Mr. Balic? This was already quoted to the

21 transcript by the Defence counsel. You met that person you named as chief

22 of police, Fikret Kadiric, and then you mentioned the 1st of May, 1992,

23 police station in Prijedor was taken over by Serbs and Mr. Kadiric was

24 dismissed. Is this correct?

25 A. That's correct.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And who took over, to the best of your

2 recollection, the post of Mr. Kadiric?

3 A. I can't remember who did.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Kadiric was a Muslim. Right?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have no further questions in the moment.

7 Judge Fassi Fihri? Judge Vassylenko.

8 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Witness X, in your statement made in 1996, you

9 reported about three episodes of killings of Muslims by Serbs. Can you

10 tell us how many persons were killed during these killings, and how these

11 persons, these victims, were selected?

12 A. I can't say exactly how many people were killed. First, they

13 killed the people who held official appointments and positions,

14 intellectuals. And then later, whether it was a random selection or

15 whether it depended on the feelings of those who had arrived there to kill

16 people or something like that, I don't know. But I can't say with

17 precision how many people were killed. However, many people were killed.

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

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any additional questions emanating from the line

20 of questions from the Judges?

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, not directly emanating from the line of

22 questions, but I would just ask leave of the Court to ask just one

23 follow-up question which relates to a name that the individual gave -- the

24 witness gave yesterday during the direct examination in open session, just

25 the transcript doesn't seem to reflect the first name of the individual.

1 And it appears on page 66, line 25. It's my recollection that he did give

2 the name, the first name as well as the surname, just that it doesn't

3 appear in the daily copy that we were given yesterday.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. There's this famous symbol for leaving out

5 a name. May I ask the registry, on the official version, can we see the

6 full name of this person?

7 Hopefully we can facilitate and just ask you, Witness X, yesterday

8 you mentioned a Mr. Kurstic. What is the first name of this person,

9 Kurstic?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's Kustric, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I read --

12 A. It's Kustric.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What's the first name?

14 A. Alija.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Alija Kustric.

16 Any further questions?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just one matter to clear up.

18 Q. When you talked about the chief of police, I believe you said

19 Fikret Kadiric, is that correct?

20 A. Chief of police, yes, I mentioned him.

21 Q. When you say chief of police, do you mean the chief of police for

22 the opstina of Prijedor or do you mean the chief of police in the town of

23 Prijedor, the head of the police in the town?

24 A. Chief of the police station in Prijedor, and all the rest, the

25 local ones were probably loyal to that police station.

1 Q. Did you know Mr. Talundzic?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Thank you.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: The only other matter I wanted to raise, Your

5 Honour, is to just to ask to go into private session and just for our

6 records to have the witness in private session state his name so we have

7 Witness X's name official.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please let's go in private session.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Wasn't it an idea by the OTP, did the OTP

24 already try to confront this witness during his stay here in The Hague

25 with Mr. Mrdja?

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour. I'm a little hesitant to address

2 it without Mr. Dimitrijevic, counsel for Mr. Mrdja. But I don't think

3 there's any harm. We plan -- I spoke to him on the telephone yesterday,

4 and I haven't directly talked to him because he's coming Wednesday next

5 week. But we would be setting up an identification procedure, or

6 attempting to, with this and at least one other witness in the future

7 since that case has been put off quite indefinitely, and because of

8 various problems, it was not --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Don't be so pessimistic.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Okay.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Does the Defence see any disadvantage by the

12 nonconfrontation with Mr. Mrdja, especially as regards the personal

13 responsibility for that what happened? Because if so, we have to arrange

14 the necessary.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Unfortunately, Your Honour, we haven't had a chance

16 to consult with Dr. Stakic, nor with Mr. Lukic specifically on this

17 issue. But when you asked the question of disadvantage, we do believe

18 that we are being disadvantaged by the OTP calling this witness, and then

19 providing us with a translated version of a videocassette tape that they

20 certainly have in their possession that was never given to us.

21 And we think from that, as well as the additional eight statements

22 this witness has, whether or not the OTP has it, I think it's incumbent

23 upon them to set out and give us copies of all of those statements. And

24 perhaps then once we obtain the totality of those statements we can

25 compare it to whether or not this witness believes Mr. Mrdja individually

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 under 7(1) or under 7(3), had any exposure or culpability with respect to

2 the crimes at Mount Vlasic. Until we get that, it's very difficult to

3 say.

4 Yes, I think this witness would be helpful and we think from some

5 of the statements it clearly shows that the convoy was taken on a detour

6 from yesterday's direct examination, that this was something that happened

7 as an immediate response of some sort. Even though there were some

8 conclusory remarks made by the witness and by the OTP, we dispute that,

9 and hope to present evidence to the contrary.

10 Since we don't have all the documents necessary to make an

11 informed decision, we can only speculate and ask the Court that we be

12 given a reservation so that we can inquire further only once we've

13 obtained those documents.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not difficult to foresee your reaction;

15 therefore, I'm really hesitant. What is the estimated time this witness

16 will stay in The Hague, Witness X?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: VWU I'm sure would take the witness, arrange for

18 his travel back either tonight or tomorrow, once he's completed his stay

19 here.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I really want to avoid a situation that with

21 some merits, the Defence can come with the issue that they are not really

22 prepared because they didn't have access to all these other documents, and

23 especially the video. How long would it take you to prepare these

24 documents and grant it, both to the Defence and the Bench?

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: All of the documents that -- statements of the

1 witness I believe are now disclosed. The transcript of the video we do

2 have a copy of the videotape if counsel wanted it, although it's in a

3 language that I believe counsel does not understand.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's -- we are in open session? It's -- the

5 language from a Nordic state?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please feel free to provide the Bench with some

8 knowledge of this language with a copy of this video. And probably we can

9 find out from our point of view if it's necessary.

10 And the second point, no doubt, is whether, and therefore, I made

11 reference yesterday to the question whether it's your intention to call

12 Mr. Mrdja and try to find out by confrontation whether or not this

13 witness, Witness X, is able to recognise Mr. Mrdja. And then, of course,

14 we have all -- it's not only a factual problem, as you've already

15 indicated, it's a problem of the legal responsibility; and therefore, one

16 might have the obligation at least to try whether or not Mr. Mrdja is

17 prepared to give testimony or not.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I realise I'm not --

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we have three issues: Video, confrontation,

20 attempt to hear the testimony of Mr. Mrdja.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: The video, we can provide to the Chamber, as a

22 courtesy, and to counsel, if they would like it. The confrontation or any

23 attempt to call Mr. Mrdja, no, we don't intend to do that. In my

24 jurisdiction, that actually would be a sanctionable offence by an attorney

25 to -- when I know that the attorney representing Mr. Mrdja has indicated

1 to me he does not want me to contact his client, for me to bring his

2 client or to make direct contact with his client.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it could be for the Chamber to call this

4 witness.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct. And as for the identification of

6 Mr. Mrdja, although it's certainly a very relevant to the case against

7 Mr. Mrdja, and this witness forms a very small part of that identification

8 evidence. I don't want to go into the other evidence we have in that

9 case, but the identification of that individual I don't think is

10 relevant -- of much relevance to this particular case.

11 The witness has been clear that these police officers were from

12 Prijedor that was escorting the convoy. Whether he can recognise one

13 particular individual or not, name that individual, I don't think is as

14 relevant as the issue in the Stakic is that these were members of the

15 police from Prijedor and members of this special police unit Prijedor

16 police.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the comments of the Defence in order

18 that we have a sound basis for the decision whether or not to call

19 Mr. Mrdja ex officio.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, the Defence, Your Honour, is still puzzled as

21 to the OTP's position in connection with Mount Vlasic and Mr. Mrdja. If

22 they are contending that there is any responsibility for the crimes that

23 are alleged to have happen on or about August 21st, 1992, under the

24 superior command decisional authority that's before us, then they have to

25 establish a nexus. If counsel can stand here before us and tell us that

1 they have additional information on Mr. Mrdja that he does not think it

2 relevant for this case I can't understand how that can at all be the case.

3 If Mr. Mrdja and the Mount Vlasic issue is directly related to the

4 Prijedor Municipality and Dr. Stakic, then all the evidence they have in

5 connection with Mr. Mrdja should and is relevant relating to Dr. Stakic.

6 But first, counsel not only being a representative of the OTP but

7 also being one of the attorneys who is in charge and directly responsible

8 for the prosecution of Mr. Mrdja could enlighten us and tell the Court

9 whether or not the indictment against Mr. Mrdja is both 7(1) and 7(3). In

10 that vein, if they are seeking from Mr. Mrdja that he is only individually

11 responsible, it would be helpful to us. It would be helpful for the Court

12 to understand that.

13 We don't know, and did not investigate the theory that the OTP may

14 have against Mr. Mrdja. This is a new development in this case. We think

15 that we should be given all the documents relating to that if they truly

16 believe there was even a remote possibility that there was an order given

17 to take a couple or several convoys from the Prijedor Municipality all the

18 way through Banja Luka and the Travnik area and execute individuals. They

19 should put forth that evidence as opposed to just giving a round about way

20 of telling us there was an individual who was in this specific police unit

21 without listing directly what the nexus or link is to the municipality of

22 Prijedor and possibly the leadership there.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you personally have any objections against

24 calling ex officio Mr. Mrdja as a witness?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: I personally, Judge, I can tell the Court

1 respectfully, most respectfully, that I do have an objection to it because

2 I think that the rules specifically state the OTP has the burden of

3 proof. And quite frankly, maybe it's my jurisdiction that we come from,

4 but the OTP, if they make a tactical or strategic decision and fail to

5 fulfill the requirements, that's a responsibility that they are going to

6 have to carry with them. Again, the Court can do and obviously we'll

7 accept whatever the Court wishes to do on this issue. But personally I do

8 have an objection to it.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The OTP?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: I just wanted to invite Mr. Ostojic to stop on his

11 way out and pick up the indictment of Mr. Mrdja if he want to know the

12 basis of the charges. They are 7(1). It's a public indictment.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Trial Chamber has to find out, and the

14 parties will see tomorrow what will happen. They can't say they are

15 surprised.

16 My only concern is could it be necessary that we have to recall

17 Witness X tomorrow on the basis of the not-read documents, the not-seen

18 videos, and for this purpose ask the responsible unit of this Tribunal to

19 ask Witness X to stay here one day longer.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: I know that the witness specifically told me he

21 wants to leave as soon as possible because of a work problem, both for he

22 and his spouse when he's gone. As I understand it, they were -- one was

23 working day and one was working night. And when he's gone, she cannot

24 work because there's no child care and he is obviously not working.

25 That's my understanding in speaking to him.

1 As for the documents, the 13 and a half page double-spaced

2 transcript was provided today. I think counsel has had a chance to read

3 there's nothing else other than the watching the videotape where the

4 witness is going to say what's in the transcript. If that's necessary,

5 the witness, we can hold the witness for that purpose.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, respectfully, we don't or would not

7 like to delay Witness X from going back to his family. But our objection

8 is really that these documents should have been provided to us earlier.

9 We're going to continue to object to that, and we're going to continue to

10 present it before the Court because it happens not only on an isolated

11 occasion, but it seems that it happens unfortunately more often than not.

12 So we will not ask this witness questions in connection with this

13 videotape, but we think it's necessary under the rules in this Tribunal

14 that the Defence be provided a complete list of all these documents and

15 all statements that they have in their possession, not at the eve of their

16 testimony, or in the middle of their testimony or during the completion of

17 the cross-examination. So we do object to that. We do not object to this

18 witness going home as soon as possible with his wife and children and to

19 attend to his personal needs.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I can understand that on the basis of those

21 documents given to you until now, and knowing that on the video you can't

22 see anything more than that what you can see on this 13 and a half pages

23 translated in a draft translation into English, there is no basis for you

24 for additional questions.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Not at this time, Your Honour, with the exception of

1 having an OTP witness who previously testified in other cases, Hanne Sofie

2 Greve, a former judge doing the interrogating or the questioning

3 purportedly, but I'll reserve those comments for either a Status

4 Conference or at a later time. Correct, with respect to this witness and

5 the information that's translated, subject to being translated correctly,

6 we would have no further questions of this witness based on that.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the basis of the statements of the parties,

9 we don't see any obstacles for Witness X to leave as soon as possible

10 The Hague. But we'll leave it open, at least to try to hear Mr. Mrdja at

11 the one or other point. Now it's not that urgent. The plan for tomorrow

12 will be?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry. Witness Number 2 will be testifying

14 tomorrow. Thank you.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And for what period of time estimated?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Mr. Waidyaratne will be handling the witness, but I

17 think our initial estimate was a day and a half.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And to come back to that what was

19 just recently discussed, we have all the statements and all exhibits

20 provided for this witness?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'll have Mr. Waidyaratne doublecheck that. And I

22 certainly agree with counsel that it's our obligation to provide that. On

23 this particular videotape, I take responsibility. But I think we missed

24 it on the initial check because a pseudonym was used for the witness

25 rather than the witness's name.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

2 Probably I'm wrong, but is it correct, Madam Registrar, that the

3 famous list number 6 we received immediately before court recess with

4 numerous 65 ter documents, these documents were not yet admitted into

5 evidence?

6 It starts probably, Ms. Karper, can help us out. For example,

7 65 ter 286, that's the first one.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: She indicates she does not believe it has been

9 admitted into evidence yet.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm afraid this is true. Then let's take the

11 opportunity during the following ten minutes to -- you have this in front

12 of you, this document?

13 MR. OSTOJIC: If the judge can identify, we don't have the exact

14 number. Perhaps we can identify it by the document.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's called List Number 6.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: We do not have it unfortunately in front of us,

17 Your Honour. We did not anticipate that it would be an issue this

18 afternoon. So we can at the break possibly get a copy or obtain it from

19 the locker that we maintain on this floor.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's no doubt -- what about the necessary

21 breaks? Would it be feasible if we have a break now until 2.00, and then

22 resume for another hour, no longer than this? Also with respect, did you

23 plan to discuss some issues with your client this afternoon?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: We would always like to take an opportunity to

25 discuss issues with our client, but in particular, other than that witness

1 list 6, unless the Court would like us to look at anything else, we'll

2 proceed in the manner which you'd like us to.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the trial stays adjourned until 2.00, and

4 then we resume for just one hour. And that the participants are prepared,

5 it's only on list 6, and if time so allows, we try to read out -- I

6 mentioned this already five weeks ago, 65 ter numbers 297, 314, 341, 363,

7 391, and 367. If there are any additional wishes by the parties, please

8 let us know. Thank you.

9 --- Break taken at 1.21 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 2.03 p.m.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

12 Let's come back to our beloved exercise, introducing documents.

13 We'll do it this way, the basis of the lists on top of this file, let me

14 go through the numbers, and let's try to concentrate on the necessary,

15 especially when it's part of an entire page of Kozarski Vjesnik, for

16 example, that we only admit this part where we have the translation into

17 English. And then I expect ex officio objections or nonobjections by the

18 Defence in order to come through this exercise as soon as possible.

19 So let's start, 286, which is, with your assistance, the article

20 in the lower part, in the middle, "Convoys for Resettlement." Is this

21 correct? And then this should be - please let me know - 248? S248 A, and

22 this -- only this article of Kozarski Vjesnik from the 10th of July, 1992,

23 248 B.

24 Objections?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. We do object.

1 First of all, list Number 6, which identifies 65 ter number 286

2 has as their source for this information "open source." Secondly, if we

3 look at the specific 65 ter number 286 provisionally identified as S248 A

4 and B, that there's no author to the document. So we would object on the

5 grounds of both authenticity as well as chain of custody, if you will,

6 because of the sourcing information which Mr. Inayat will hopefully

7 discuss with us at some length as well as to the fact that this newspaper

8 and publication is not only a secondary but a Tertiary source. And

9 relying in criminal trial in our opinion, Your Honour, on tertiary sources

10 without having the author present or any basis for making any statements

11 we believe is highly prejudicial and should not be permitted in any

12 sense. So those are our objections, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you still contest that in those editions of

14 Kozarski Vjesnik called "Ratno Izdanje," there are no authors any longer?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: There are no authors or no authority? I'm not sure

16 I understood the question.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No authors indicated.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Ratno Izdanje that we saw that was provided

19 in the original text, certainly from my recollection on page 2 of the

20 lower portion, that indicated who the editors were, who the participants

21 or contributors were to those articles. In that case, we probably would

22 modify our objection to exclude the fact that there was no authorship,

23 therefore reliability on the document may or may not be questioned.

24 We do continue to insist on the authenticity of some of these

25 documents as well as the reliability of those, as I've stated earlier,

1 tertiary sources. And to in a criminal, in my view, to have these

2 articles appear and be brought into evidence certainly does not meet the

3 standard necessary to have the defendant even respond or the accused

4 respond to such articles.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. There can be no doubt on this issue, but

6 it, of course, depends for what purpose you use this as evidence. For

7 example, for the purpose that people or some people in the area reading

8 Kozarski Vjesnik had access to this information, may it be wrong or right,

9 for this purpose, it may serve as evidence. Correct?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I am following the logic of the Court, so I would

11 agree thus far with that.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then I have to refer once again to our

13 guidelines from the beginning of the trial which apply here as well.

14 These documents are admitted into evidence as S248 A and B.

15 It follows then 290.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We just find out this is the article "Ratno

18 Izdanje" -- it's difficult for me. It's on the left-hand side the first

19 entire article. Right?

20 This would be then S249 A and B. The article on the war

21 presidency on the left-hand side, the first full article. Same

22 objections?

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, with 65 ter number 291, we have

24 the same objection.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: 65 ter number 291 is already admitted. It's S238.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we can delete it from this list?

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, we actually showed it to a witness, and it was

3 admitted after the list was compiled. Yes.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: The only reason to keep it on this list is that the

6 sourcing documents prepared by Mr. Inayat will include that document.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it will be easier to discuss for the Defence

8 this entire file when we have it in the order. So if you could assist us

9 once again, it's --

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: S238.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 297. This would be, then, S250 A and B. I'll

12 listen to the objections.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, we do object to this particular

14 document insofar as it's not signed and seemingly not dated near where the

15 signature page appears, meaning the last sentence, or the last page, I

16 should say. And third, we have a particular problem with Michael Keegan

17 and the Office of the Prosecutor which we think will be developed further

18 with a witness that should be called later this month by -- or later the

19 next month by the OTP, namely the 18th or 19th of September.

20 Particularly Mr. Keegan in our view has distorted, clouded, and

21 poisoned if you will some of the process that goes through the ICTY;

22 namely, we hope to establish which has already been given under oath by a

23 witness called Edward Sebastian Vulliamy who is expected to testify that

24 prior to the testimony of Mr. Vulliamy, he was asked by Michael Keegan,

25 both here at the ICTY in The Hague, the Netherlands, as well as in the

1 United States, and I believe it was in Washington D. C. to interview

2 Simo Drljaca, the late Milan Kovacevic, as well as Dr. Stakic.

3 We think it's important author these documents which involve

4 Michael Keegan with respect to our client, the accused Dr. Stakic, that we

5 be given further information and analysis as to his conversations and

6 meetings that he had with Mr. Vulliamy, why and how it is he directed this

7 individual reporter to go out and take statements which are currently and

8 were used prior to this trial as admissions against interest by various

9 clients, and particularly we are surprised to see that it was Mr. Keegan

10 who actually was the person who was able to compile or most of the Crisis

11 Staff -- alleged Crisis Staff materials.

12 And for those reasons, Your Honour, we have a specific objection

13 to these documents where the sourcing was Mr. Michael Keegan. But also we

14 believe that the objection should be sustained on the grounds that the

15 documents are not authentic, are not signed, and have not been established

16 to be signed at any time by the individual it purports -- whose name

17 purports to be on the document.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any observations by the OTP?

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Not at this time. I think as to the authenticity,

20 the Court has indicated many times that that goes to the weight, and we

21 have other witnesses coming and we will be directing our attention to that

22 on all these Crisis Staff decisions regarding their publications in

23 various gazettes and other indicia of their reliability.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm quite sure we come back to this document.

25 And for these purposes, the document has to be discussed in Court. It is

1 admitted into evidence as S250 A and B.

2 309.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence also has the same objections as outlined

4 with respect to 65 ter number 297. We believe they are applicable to 65

5 ter number 309. In addition, however, we believe that there should not be

6 a question on this, but perhaps there is. This document was not, and it

7 never be established, was given to the accused, our client Dr. Stakic, in

8 this case. From the face of the document, it certainly appears it was a

9 document prepared by another individual, namely, the late Simo Drljaca.

10 The document is obviously sent to another hierarchical entity which we

11 contend it was not sent to our client Dr. Stakic at any time. So we

12 object in addition to the objections with respect to the prior exhibit, we

13 object on those grounds as well.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have to take into account that we are -- we

15 still have to decide on charges of joint criminal enterprise. And this

16 opens all doors. Therefore, no doubt that under the auspices laid down in

17 our former rules on the admission of evidence, this document has to be

18 admitted into evidence as S251 A and B correspondingly.

19 311.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined with

21 respect to Exhibit 248 A and B.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reasons, admitted into evidence,

23 S252 A and B. Only this article in Kozarski Vjesnik, 252 B.

24 314, didn't we have this already earlier in connection with a

25 witness who was asked to contact Dr. Stakic in Prijedor following his

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 witness statement? It's only from the top of my head. Please help me.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Our records don't show that it was shown to that

3 witness. I know which witness Your Honour is referring to.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Again, Your Honour, if the Court remembers, there

6 was a witness also on their 92 bis whose number I can't recall. I think

7 specifically addressed the issues outlined here. We don't know why this

8 letter in particular would be brought forth. It does open issues in our

9 opinion because, again, I recognise it's a bishop, and with all due

10 respect, I'm not sure if they are going to call this bishop, but to

11 unilaterally simply allow letters to be presented without telling us the

12 basis for which the OTP is relying on these letters leaves us somewhat in

13 the dark.

14 I can tell from reviewing the letter that they do mention

15 General Talic in this letter. That may have some ramifications for us.

16 We would like to the extent possible to be able to clarify an issue if it

17 goes to joint criminal enterprise or any of the other elements within the

18 fourth amended indictment to be given that opportunity. To merely admit

19 this document into evidence I think will give us less probative value and

20 create a greater prejudice against the accused Dr. Stakic and do not

21 believe that it's necessary since the OTP has a specific witness which was

22 accepted by the Court who testified on the issue of a Croatian priest

23 being at a certain Detention Centre or camp. So we, in addition to the

24 objections outlined, believe that it would be cumulative and would have no

25 probative value.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honours will note that the accused is one of

2 the persons copied on this letter, so the letter has particular relevance

3 in showing Dr. Stakic's knowledge of the rest of the allegations -- of the

4 information contained in the letter regarding reprisals against Catholics

5 and specifically the imprisonment in the Omarska camp of a Catholic priest

6 for no apparent reason. If the Defence is willing to stipulate that

7 Dr. Stakic had that knowledge, I'll withdraw the letter. Otherwise, I

8 think it's relevant.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, that's precisely why we do object,

10 Your Honour, and that's the very essence and it's the threshold issue.

11 The OTP can't testify, nor can they verify whether or not Dr. Stakic

12 received or obtained this letter or information.

13 They can, through direct sources in the power and the subpoena,

14 from this Court, ask people to come in and testify as to whether certain

15 factual items occurred. That's their obligation. They should not be, in

16 our opinion, allowed to unilaterally submit letters and suggest that

17 indeed those copies were given to Dr. Stakic or not given to Dr. Stakic

18 because, quite frankly, we will then, and it's certainly not in our

19 response we're saying we will submit letters of certain kind from various

20 hopefully bishops and metropolitans who will say probably the opposite.

21 If they have witnesses and evidence to suggest that Dr. Stakic had some

22 knowledge, they need to lay the proper foundation, not through a copy of a

23 letter from a bishop in Banja Luka.

24 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S253 A and B. First,

1 I don't have the microphone. Second, is it -- there are two documents in

2 English, and two documents in B/C/S. Is there a special purpose why these

3 two different versions appear?

4 MR. OSTOJIC: From our review, Your Honour -- oh. There seems to

5 be -- I just like to help him on these minor points. It only seems to be

6 a translation issue, where on the second page on each of the documents

7 specifically the last sentence, there seems to be a little difference in

8 the interpretation or translation if you will of the --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To facilitate --

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think that's not the explanation. I think

11 because there are separate ERN numbers on the two originals or the two

12 B/C/S copies, my interpretation would be that two copies were seized,

13 although Mr. Inayat's spreadsheet shows that they were seized or that the

14 document was seized from the police station in Prijedor. I'll double

15 check with him. Because they are sequential, I presume that there were

16 two copies sequentially in a file. Both copies were seized and both were

17 ERNed, and that's why we have the ERN range.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In order to facilitate our life, and to give

19 some leeway for interpretation for Mr. Inayat, let's give the first

20 English document S253 A-1, and the second 253 A-2. And the same in B/C/S,

21 with B-1 and B-2.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I do see Mr. Ostojic is right. Apparently it was

23 submitted twice for translation, so we have two different translations.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's always good to find out how difficult it is

25 to work in so many different languages as we saw already this morning.

1 And this should really caution all of us when working with translations.

2 Now, let's turn to 326. Objections?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. In addition to the objections

4 that we outlined with respect to the document 65 ter number 297, which we

5 incorporate for this document as well, we do not have or seemingly do not

6 have the translated version from B/C/S of a stamp that's in the lower

7 centre portion of the B/C/S document. I'm not sure that they could have

8 translated it because at least the copy we have is illegible, and we would

9 like for that reason to at least be given an opportunity to view the

10 original or the formal copy that is in their possession in connection with

11 this.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. No doubt, this is convincing, and

13 therefore we would ask in this case to present the original and at least

14 to try to translate also the content of this stamp we can see here on this

15 very bad copy. This would go, then, as S254 A and B correspondingly, but

16 we expect, as mentioned, B in the original version, and A in an additional

17 translation.

18 327.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection as that outlined in our objections to

20 S --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection as those previously outlined with

23 respect to Exhibit S248 A and B.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reasons, admitted into evidence as

25 S255 A and S255 B, only the article on the lower right-hand side.

1 328.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined in

3 our objection on S248 A and B.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, we are faced with two translations.

5 Which one do you prefer?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: I like the one in 224. It's a better copy.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then --

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: I like the first one ending in 224.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 03017224 admitted into evidence as S256 A. The

11 next English translation goes. And then S256 B is the article on the

12 left-hand side of this B/C/S version.

13 330. Objections?

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. We would object to Exhibit 65 ter

15 330 on the same grounds as those outlined on 65 ter number 326 with the

16 exception of the translation, because there seems to be something faxed,

17 and it's that fax upside down if you look at that number, doesn't seem to

18 be translated, at least from my preliminary review of the document.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It was faxed the 22nd of August at 13.20, fax

20 number MUP, BiH, Banja Luka. Right? You missed these two fax

21 transmission lines. Is it really necessary to translate it or can't we

22 read it ourselves from this B/C/S version?

23 MR. OSTOJIC: It certainly seems that we can read it from the

24 B/C/S version, Your Honour. If the Court wants me to -- we're still

25 maintaining our objection on it, not with respect to the fax that is

1 upside down on the B/C/S version.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then for the reasons mentioned before,

3 admitted into evidence as S257 A and 257 B.

4 Let's now turn to 331.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Again, Your Honour, objection --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have one fax line and one document. I don't

7 know how they belong together. It would be interesting indeed. Can we

8 have first of all before we hear objections any explanation from the OTP?

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I note that these two pages, the fax

10 line and then the following document are sequentially numbered in the ERN,

11 which would indicate to me that these were seized together, two separate

12 pieces of paper. We could get the original if Your Honours would like to

13 look at those, but that's my interpretation.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's indispensable, and sometimes we

15 should come back to the rules of ordinary courts working with originals

16 only. And therefore, please let us have a look on the original. Probably

17 we can then provide a better copy.

18 For these reasons, it's only the question whether or not -- well,

19 we can't admit a translation if we don't have the foundation. And

20 therefore, we have to leave open 331. But for the purposes of a clear

21 order, let us give this document provisionally the numbers 258. They are

22 not admitted into evidence.

23 341.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: It seems, Your Honour, from the last exhibit that I

25 do somewhat better when I don't comment or object because the other ones

1 were overruled. But nevertheless, in all seriousness, with respect to

2 341, we maintain the same objections that we have -- that we've outlined

3 for the Court with respect to Exhibit S250. In addition, we would

4 incorporate that the signatures -- we do not have on the original B/C/S

5 text on page 8 any signature for our client Dr. Milomir Stakic, although

6 we do see it, as we have in the past, the typewritten SR letters appear,

7 which is by his own hand, yet no signature appears.

8 In addition, the translator from the B/C/S version to the English

9 version likewise was unable to find the signature of the second

10 individual, the secretary. They found his signature illegible as well.

11 So for those reasons, we would object.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it would be a good idea to have Mr. Dusan

13 Baltic as a witness in this courtroom?

14 MR. OSTOJIC: My only observation is if I had the burden of proof,

15 I would be thinking in the same line that the Court is.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As mentioned before, no doubt there is a

17 document, and whatever the probative value of this document will be has to

18 be decided later. These documents are admitted into evidence as S259 A

19 and B.

20 May we have a short look on the B/C/S version. Is it right that

21 we have the same document twice?

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: On 345, 65 ter number.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It starts in B/C/S. The first one was 0038584,

25 and this continues until 591, and then 592. It is -- at least it seems to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 be the same.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any specific purpose for duplication?

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, again. Apparently two copies were seized that

6 were sequentially next to each other. That's why they have a sequential

7 ERN number. But I don't think it's necessary to have both copies. The

8 only thing is we can check the originals. One may be a better copy or --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it may be appropriate to check because,

10 for example, the rest of the signature of Mr. Dusan Baltic seems to be a

11 little bit different. But in order to create no more confusion, the first

12 goes as S259 B-1, and then starting with the number 592, this will be then

13 B-2. I think we have to make a reservation of about two days for the

14 witness statement of Mr. Inayat.

15 Let's turn now to 342.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections as those outlined on Exhibit S248.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For reasons given above, admitted into evidence,

18 S260 A and B correspondingly.

19 Then the S260 B, it's the article at the top of this page and

20 limited to this only.

21 350.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: We do have an objection to item 350, Your Honour. I

23 think this is an attempt to try to have a witness testify as to purported

24 conversations that this individual Robert Fisk may have had with the

25 accused, and I think we have an undisputed right to cross-examine him on

1 the substance of the conversations that Mr. Fisk alleges should be

2 attributed to Dr. Stakic.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are some merits of this contribution.

4 Could the OTP please --

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: I certainly understand the point of the Defence

6 counsel, particularly because it involves quotations from conversations

7 with the accused. Your Honours know that the Rules of Evidence in this

8 Tribunal allow hearsay to be admitted, but the weight that it's entitled

9 to is determined by the Trial Chamber. And I simply submit it to you that

10 we realise we do not have Mr. Fisk here testifying.

11 I think, though, that this article, and perhaps Your Honours and

12 the Defence can correct me if I am wrong, because I wasn't present, but I

13 seem to recall from reading the transcript that when one of the witnesses

14 from the monitoring mission, from the ECMM testified, there was a

15 discussion of this article by Mr. Fisk. And it may have some relevance

16 simply to corroborate that testimony.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be your intention to cross-examine

18 Mr. Fisk?

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Most definitely, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Against this backdrop, is it proportional to

21 admit this document into evidence, or is it dispensable?

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's not indispensable. I would note that the

23 Defence could also call Mr. Fisk. But, Your Honours, I understand the

24 Defence's objection and I certainly understand Your Honours' concern with

25 an article giving weight to the statement of the accused without the

1 opportunity of the Defence to cross-examine and for Your Honours to hear

2 the witness testifying live in front of you. I submit it to you.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you go so far to withdraw 350?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour, I'll withdraw it.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Of course, it's for the Defence to

6 call Mr. Fisk if you so want. To be serious, come back to 352.

7 Objections?

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections, Your Honour, as those outlined in

9 S248.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reasons, admitted into evidence

11 S261 A and 261 B.

12 357.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: With respect to 357, Your Honour, we would

14 incorporate and adopt our objections as outlined on S250. And in

15 addition, just point out that we also object to relevancy in connection to

16 this document as well as the signature of the person who happens to be --

17 or allegedly the chairman of the commission, Dragan Savanovic.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the observations of the OTP.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I think this document may be of some

20 assistance to the Trial Chamber in answering questions which Your Honours

21 have raised regarding the term of office of the accused. And you see on

22 page -- the translation page number 03035938 that indicated that

23 Dr. Stakic was appointed as president of the Serbian Municipal Assembly of

24 Prijedor on the 7th of January, 1992, for a period of four years.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following our general guidelines, admitted into

1 evidence as S262 A and B.

2 358.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined

4 previously on Exhibit S250, as well as those outlined in the prior exhibit

5 as S262.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this document has to be at least

7 discussed. Therefore, admitted into evidence S263 A and B.

8 363.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined on

10 S248.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You don't agree with the headline?

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Certainly not a question as to whether we agreed

13 with the headline or not, Your Honour. There is a text in the article

14 which specifically mentions Dr. Stakic, and we believe that an

15 international criminal proceeding that to have an article submitted by an

16 unknown author while the Office of the Prosecution may try to attribute

17 some conduct to him, we believe that doing it by way of articles submitted

18 from secondary and - as I stated earlier - tertiary sources should be

19 inadmissible. So again, formally, we may not and we may take from these

20 article various items that may or may not help us, but we think that it's

21 respectfully somewhat inappropriate to allow those articles into evidence

22 at this time.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As mentioned earlier, it may be at least for the

24 probative value that documents like this were distributed at this point in

25 time in the area. But I think for clarification and also for the

1 assistance of the accused, we should try to have a better photocopy in

2 B/C/S. I think it's not readable at all. S264 B, this should be

3 substituted in our file. But nevertheless, admitted into evidence with

4 this declaration.

5 366.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined on

7 65 ter number 309, which I believe was S251.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following our general principles, admitted into

9 evidence, S265 A and S265 B.

10 367.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined in

12 S250 and S251.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S266 A and B

14 correspondingly.

15 389.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: We object, Your Honour, to this document as well.

17 In addition, it seems from the cover page, at least of the English text

18 for this document, that it goes beyond the time period alleged in the

19 indictment. We would add that to the objection as well as -- that must

20 have been a...

21 Here's my problem, if may be I could state it a little clearer if

22 I may. If you compare the English draft translation to the B/C/S text

23 which follows it, on 65 ter number 389, the bottom portion of the B/C/S

24 version seems to have a date of January 1993, which is outside the time

25 frame of the indictment. That same date seems to appear on the first page

1 of the English text which bears the ERN number L0048208, January 4th,

2 1993.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the relevance?

4 MR. OSTOJIC: That would be our argument as well -- oh.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, Your Honours specifically asked us for

6 information as to the dates in which the accused was in the position of

7 president of the Municipal Assembly. This is part of the -- it was

8 exactly for that reason that this document was selected, simply to show

9 that in a document apparently dated December 20th, 1992, Dr. Stakic was

10 listed as the president. And in the document, they set a session of the

11 assembly for the 4th of January, 1993. So we have evidence through this

12 document that the accused held the position of president of the

13 municipality at least through the 20th of December, 1992.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As to the fact that indeed, the two different

15 B/C/S versions are hard to read, I would invite the OTP to present the

16 originals, both ending 153, 159, and then probably the translation could

17 be adopted. Therefore, 389 remains open until further notice.

18 Nevertheless, for the purpose of maintaining the order in this document,

19 provisionally these documents bear the numbers S267 A, English; and S267

20 B-1 and B-2 in B/C/S. The final decision on the admission into evidence

21 will follow later.

22 391.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, to this document as

24 outlined on Exhibit S250 and S251. In addition, we would incorporate the

25 arguments that were made with respect to the prior exhibit which was

1 65 ter number 389, I believe.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. That it's from January 1993, but it covers

3 the last nine months of 1992.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct, Your Honour. Maybe I should expand.

5 Number one, it does not show that Dr. Stakic received this information.

6 Number two, on the theories that the Prosecution has alleged in this case

7 as to whether the accused our client Dr. Stakic knew or should have known

8 of events that transpired, they would at the very least in our opinion

9 have to establish that any such communication from Simo Drljaca or others

10 in the police and/or military were specifically given to Dr. Stakic as

11 they have attempted to allege with the letter from the bishop that the

12 Court admitted.

13 Secondly, we believe since this document is outside the

14 indictment; namely, it was prepared and submitted sometime in 1993,

15 assuming arguendo. And in the alternative, if they established that this

16 document was given to Dr. Stakic, it's outside the parametres of the

17 fourth amended indictment which would then have absolutely no relevance

18 whether Dr. Stakic knew or should have known something in January 1993

19 since the indictment specifically questions his conduct from April through

20 September of 1992.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you agree that this report covers, or at

22 least tries to cover, the period of time covered as well by the

23 indictment, the last nine months of 1992?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: It certainly seems to suggest that, yes,

25 Your Honour.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, admitted into evidence as S268 A and

2 B.

3 392. 392.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: We object, Your Honour, to this document as well

5 because it is outside the parametres of the fourth amended revised

6 indictment, namely, the 5th of January, 1993.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it necessary to have in this case two English

8 translations?

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's delete the one ending with 186. And

11 this will be, then, admitted into evidence as S269 A and B.

12 393.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections, Your Honour, as those outlined with

14 respect to Exhibit S269 A and B.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the position of the OTP. Here, we

16 can't identify anything on Dr. Stakic.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe this was included -- I selected this

18 because it does indicate that there has been a change of leadership as of

19 this date in that Dr. Kovacevic has been replaced by Bosko Mandic, and I

20 believe evidence will develop -- it's my understanding that the two,

21 Dr. Stakic, and Dr. Kovacevic, were replaced statement. So we're simply

22 going to the questions that Your Honours raised as to the date of the

23 change of leadership of the Serbian Municipality of Prijedor.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S270 A and B.

25 396.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I suggest for the same reasons, admitted into

3 evidence, S271 A and B.

4 412, it seems to be already S229. Correct?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, I believe that came in through Ms. Tabeau.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 413. I think we can leave this one -- or was it

7 already admitted?

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, S273.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S2 --

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: 273. I'm sorry, my microphone wasn't on, S273.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 416.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined on

13 Exhibit S250 and S251 as well as the argument with respect to Exhibit S269

14 wherein it's outside the parametres of the indictment, namely, it's a

15 report dated September of 1993, almost one year after the allegations that

16 are asserted against Dr. Stakic.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I would kindly ask the OTP to provide us with

18 some readable documents in B/C/S. And as well as we don't have readable

19 documents in B/C/S, we can't admit anything into evidence.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour --

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are several pages not readable.

22 428.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: We object to this document, Your Honour, with

24 respect to -- incorporate the arguments made in connection with

25 Exhibit S248 with the exception of the author of the documents. This

1 obviously doesn't seem to appear on the headline.

2 Secondly, we think that the document goes well beyond the time

3 period and parametres of the indictment, namely, May 20th, 1994. It's an

4 interview that relates to a brigadier general by the name of -- or

5 brigadier colonel by the name of Radmilo Zeljaja, and we think that it's

6 far removed from the events and allegations that are made against

7 Dr. Stakic.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think there can be or there could be, at

9 least, some probative value on the development of this 43rd Prijedor

10 Motorised Brigade. Therefore, admitted into evidence. Please correct me

11 now, we are 274? Madam Registrar, 274?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I may have confused things, I'm sorry. But I think

13 Ms. Karper tells me that the last, 413, is that correct, did not have a

14 previous number. I said it was previously S274. But I think that should

15 be marked at this time. The Registry could correct me.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, 413. Yes, I was surprised. This should be

17 27 --

18 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise, Your Honour. Because we accepted the

19 representations by the OTP as well that this was previously admitted. We

20 do object to this document. And I understand that Dr. Tabeau may have

21 relied on the sourcing information that appears on the bottom of this.

22 But this is a document that they would have to tell us who prepared it and

23 where was it found and whether or not Dr. Tabeau actually relied on this

24 information. It goes hand in hand, I believe, with the prior document

25 which was marked previously as S229. But certainly, we would maintain an

1 objection to the extent that we didn't when Dr. Tabeau tried to rely on

2 the document.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt, but it has to be discussed. And

4 therefore, for easier reference, 65 ter number 413 goes as S271.

5 We are now with 65 ter 428, and this is S272 A and B

6 correspondingly.

7 436, if I'm right, it is already admitted into evidence as S228 in

8 the presence of Madam Tabeau. This is correct.

9 So we can finalise our homework for today with Document

10 Number 449.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour, as those outlined in

12 arguments relating to Exhibits S250 and S251.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Here, I'm only surprised to have one relatively

14 short B/C/S text, one short English text, one long English text and, once

15 again, a short English text. What shall we take? I think the second one

16 has nothing to do with our B/C/S text before us.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, I think it's only the... Your Honour is

18 correct. I'm trying to determine -- yes, it should only be the first page

19 as an English translation under the numbers ending in 884, 9884 of the

20 B/C/S which ends in 3338. And the middle one is a separate document that

21 we apparently do not have attached here, the B/C/S, but we could obtain

22 it.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can for the purposes of today delete it from

24 this file, List Number 6. And the former 65 ter number 449, for the

25 general reasons, admitted into evidence as S273 A and B. And in the

1 English version, it's only the ERN number 03009884.

2 I thank all participants for the patience that we were able to

3 fulfill this work today, especially to the interpreters, so that we were

4 able to conclude at a quarter past 3.00 instead of 5.00. Thank you very

5 much for this.

6 Anything else mandatory for tomorrow?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour. Your Honour did request some

8 originals. Two of them did arrive already. I don't know if you want to

9 save this for tomorrow. And also, we can distribute now and discuss

10 later. Your Honour was correct about the Official Gazette. Not only was

11 there a first edition of the Official Gazette, but it was on our 65 ter

12 list as number 168, and we have copies to distribute.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please distribute it.

14 Are there any objections to admit the Official Gazette as S274?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S274.

17 This really and finally concludes today's session. The trial

18 stays adjourned until tomorrow, 9.30.

19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

20 3.15 p.m., to be reconvened on

21 Wednesday, the 28th day of August, 2002,

22 at 9.30 a.m.

23

24

25