1 Thursday, 9 January 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated.

6 I heard the reason why the witness is not yet present is that the

7 OTP asked for the floor.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Does Your Honour want me to address that

9 before the case is called or after?

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before the case has come to an end or...?

11 Immediately, please.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Regarding the subpoena or the order to have

13 Ms. Plavsic testify, I was requested on behalf of both apparently the

14 attorneys for Ms. Plavsic and the attorneys prosecuting the former

15 Krajisnik and Plavsic case to ask the Court to make an order similar to

16 the order the Court made on the recent summons, and perhaps -- well, I

17 don't think I need to say the name. The Court recently summoned a witness

18 and issued an order dated the 20th, a confidential order dated the 20th of

19 December. The attorneys, both the Prosecution and the Defence

20 representing Mrs. Plavsic, is asking for a similar order which would

21 outline the general areas of the questioning of the witness.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are prepared to do so. And just to clarify,

23 because I once again read the word "subpoena" on the transcript,

24 yesterday's press release reflected not that what has been said here in

25 the courtroom. It was the order that Ms. Plavsic should testify as soon

1 as practicable, but to avoid that she has to come another time to The

2 Hague, therefore as soon as possible after her sentencing judgement. And

3 no doubt, the parties -- we will do so, as requested. And in addition, we

4 informed the other Trial Chamber seized with the sentencing judgement of

5 what is planned in order to give Defence counsel and Ms. Plavsic the

6 possibility to appear voluntarily if she so wants, maybe even before the

7 sentencing in her case. But this is the decision of the Defence and

8 Ms. Plavsic herself in her own case.

9 When we discuss already practical issues, we -- I am grateful for

10 this -- the motion of the Defence for leave to amend the witness list. I

11 understand correctly that from this, it follows that four witnesses are

12 exchanged. The other witnesses listed under paragraph 4, I had an

13 opportunity to crosscheck it, they are already admitted in the list of

14 witnesses. Correct?

15 So that we can expect five witnesses for the next week.

16 Are there any problems for the Prosecution?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: We're not yet prepared, but we're working on it for

18 those four witnesses. If there's a chance we may ask if it's possible to

19 alter the order so that -- but at the moment, we're trying to just be

20 ready in that order that the Defence proposes.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If there should be any problem, please let us

22 know.

23 Without further ado, let us continue on the cross-examination of

24 today's witness. May I ask the usher to escort the witness into the

25 courtroom. Thank you.

1 I get just as a judicial hint that it is appropriate to call the

2 case. It can't be wrong. Would you please be so kind and call the case

3 for the transcript.

4 THE REGISTRAR: This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the Prosecutor

5 versus Milomir Stakic.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And at the same time, the appearances for the

7 transcript.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, Nicholas Koumjian, Ann Sutherland,

9 assisted by Ruth Karper for the Office of the Prosecutor. Good morning.

10 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic, John

11 Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, Madam Markovska.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're prepared to continue with your testimony?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I just have to recall that the solemn

18 declaration you gave yesterday is still valid. And may I ask the

19 Prosecution to proceed.

20 WITNESS: NADA MARKOVSKA [Resumed]

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Koumjian: [Continued]

23 Q. Good morning, Madam. Can you tell us --

24 A. Good morning.

25 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us the names of prisoners that you recall

1 seeing in Omarska, people that you knew?

2 A. I just know a nickname, Kiki. I don't know the name of the

3 person.

4 Q. Okay. That's the one name that you recall, but it's correct that

5 at the time, you recognised other persons, but ten years later --

6 A. Yes, I did recognise them, but I can't remember their names.

7 Q. Okay. These were people that you knew, but ten years later, it's

8 difficult to remember now which persons you saw?

9 A. No, I still remember their faces. But I can't remember their

10 names.

11 Q. You were aware that people were being tortured in the Omarska

12 centre. Correct?

13 A. No, I am not aware that they were tortured. I was aware that they

14 were beaten. I heard them screaming, and I saw some of their injuries.

15 So I could guess that they were beaten. Whether they were tortured, I

16 don't know. I wasn't aware of that.

17 Q. Well, you heard screams coming from the interrogation rooms; you

18 saw people coming back badly injured from the interrogations; you saw the

19 condition of the prisoners that you passed by; you saw the day that the

20 delegation came and they were forced to sing. All of those things you

21 saw. Correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And in fact, this person you knew, the driver, Mr. Nedimovic, he

24 was only there one day?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And you said he was shocked and embarrassed by the conditions of

2 the prisoners and threw them cigarettes. Is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Can you tell us now the incidents or the instances that you recall

5 seeing Dr. Stakic?

6 A. I don't understand. What do you mean by "incidents" or

7 "instances"? What I told you was that the delegation came in cars, and

8 the cars pulled over, and I didn't see Dr. Stakic amongst the members of

9 that delegation. That's what I've already told you.

10 Q. Yes, now I'm not talking about that. You said that you had seen

11 Dr. Stakic before that. Is that right? Or after that?

12 A. No, I saw him in Prijedor after the elections, when he was

13 appointed vice-president.

14 Q. Tell us about how many times and under what circumstances you had

15 seen Dr. Stakic in Prijedor, both before the time you worked in the

16 Omarska camp and after the time you worked in the Omarska camp.

17 A. I didn't have any contacts with him. I have told you that my

18 building is across the road from the municipality building, and from my

19 window, I could see the entrance into the municipality building. And

20 that's where I would occasionally see Dr. Stakic as he was passing by or

21 entering the municipality building.

22 Q. And what was the distance from your window to the entrance to the

23 municipal building. Can you give us some idea?

24 A. I really can't do that. I don't know. Somebody else maybe who is

25 more familiar with distances would be able to give you a better answer

1 than me.

2 Q. It's more or less across the street at an angle. Is that correct?

3 A. No, it's not at an angle. My window was directly facing the

4 entrance, not at an angle.

5 Q. From your window, by the way, is that the area below your window

6 where the women would line up that summer, those persons wanting to leave

7 Prijedor or find out information about the people in the camps?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Isn't it true when you would arrive to wait for the bus -- I

10 believe you said you waited for the bus in front of that building -- that

11 there were lines of women, Muslim women?

12 A. No, that is not what I saw.

13 Q. So the only times that you saw Dr. Stakic was walking in and out

14 of the Municipal Assembly building, from your window. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. Now, on the day that the delegation came, I'm a little confused.

17 At that time, did you notice, did it seem unusual to you or did you make a

18 mental note, that Dr. Stakic was not there? Was that something that

19 occurred to you at the time, "Gee, I notice Dr. Stakic is not here"?

20 A. No, no, it didn't occur to me. I'm just telling you now whom I

21 recognised at the time. I wasn't aware of the persons who were not there.

22 Q. Well, my question is, I understand you can recognise Dr. Stakic.

23 But perhaps you can help us. Why is it you remember the absence of

24 Dr. Stakic ten years ago from that delegation? There were many people in

25 those cars. Why is it that you're sure that Dr. Stakic was not among the

1 people that you saw?

2 A. I've already told you what is the characteristic of Dr. Stakic,

3 and that's why I knew I didn't see him. Zupljanin also had something

4 typical, and I had known him before. And I recognised him.

5 Q. But isn't it a fact that there probably were policemen with

6 Mr. Drljaca, for example, his driver may have been in that delegation?

7 But you're not sure about that, because you can't recall whether you saw

8 him there or not, even though you can recognise him. Correct?

9 A. He was wearing a uniform. There were other policemen. There was

10 also Mrkic, Mrkic [As interpreted], and they all went to the headquarters

11 with him.

12 Q. I don't think you mentioned that yesterday. Mr. Meakic was the

13 commander of the Omarska camp. Correct?

14 A. [No Interpretation]

15 Q. Why is it that you say Mr. Meakic was not the commander of the

16 Omarska camp? Let me make my case clear to you. It was widely known, and

17 it was absolutely clear, that Zeljko Meakic was the commander of the

18 Omarska camp. Isn't that true?

19 MR. LUKIC: Objection, Your Honour.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he was the --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear your objection.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Counsel is testifying that

24 something is widely known. He should ask the questions, not to testify.

25 And she already answered his question.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I already understood it that the representative

2 of the OTP put his case to the witness, and we got a clear answer, in

3 fact. Whether this answer is reliable or not has to be decided later.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN:

5 Q. You knew Mr. Gruban, didn't you?

6 A. Gruban was a reserve policeman. I believe so. Did he have a

7 nickname? Was it Ckalja? Because I mostly knew them by their nickname.

8 Is that the person you're referring to?

9 Q. Yes, first name Momcilo, nickname Ckalja. Forgive my

10 pronunciation, the name you --

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 Q. He was one of the persons commanding the guards when Meakic was

13 not there. Isn't that correct?

14 A. No, he didn't act as a commander. He provided security. He was a

15 member of the security.

16 Q. Tell us, Mrs. Markovska, who was in charge of the Omarska camp?

17 Who was in charge of the guards that were taking such care of the

18 prisoners?

19 A. I've already told you, Zeljko Meakic was the commander of the

20 department of the police in Omarska, and he was the one who was in charge

21 of the policemen on duty. And he put together their schedule. So there

22 were policemen who acted as investigators; the others were providing

23 security for the building, and that's what Zeljko Meakic did. He would

24 put together their schedule of work.

25 Q. Let me repeat my question. Who was in charge of the guards? Who

1 was their commander? You mentioned he put together -- Mr. Meakic put

2 together their schedule. Are you saying Mr. Meakic was in charge of the

3 guards? Or are you saying that no one was in charge of the guards?

4 A. That is not like he was in charge. He did the same things as he

5 did in his police department. He was the commander of the police

6 department, and the guards did the same thing as they did in Prijedor. And

7 I did the same thing. I typed just like I typed in Prijedor.

8 Q. Okay. Forgive me, but I do not quite understand you. Let me ask

9 you a third time. Who was in charge, commanding the guards, at the

10 Omarska camp?

11 A. I don't understand your question. There was no commander.

12 Everybody had their duty and did their job according to the schedule that

13 was put together. So everybody knew what they were supposed to do

14 according to that schedule.

15 Q. And if someone did not do what they were supposed to do, who was

16 responsible?

17 A. Well, then they would have to write a statement, and then they

18 would have to give that statement to the commander of the squad or the

19 department commander.

20 Q. And who would those people be? If guards did not do what they

21 were supposed to do, who would discipline them? Who would be responsible

22 for that?

23 A. The guard himself would be responsible for not performing the

24 duty. And then there was the so-called disciplinary committee or board

25 who would hear the case.

1 Q. Who was in charge of that disciplinary committee?

2 A. It was the chief who appointed members of the disciplinary

3 committee. So it was the chief of the security centre.

4 Q. Mr. Drljaca?

5 A. No. We were a public security station, and our centre was in

6 Banja Luka.

7 Q. In the entire time that you worked at the camp, basically from

8 June until the camp closed, can you tell us about the reports that you

9 typed up regarding investigations of crimes committed by Serbs against

10 prisoners in Omarska? Did you ever type up any such reports?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Are you aware of any investigation of the disappearance, the

13 torture, or the killing of prisoners at the Omarska camp?

14 A. No, I'm not aware of any such thing.

15 Q. By the way, at the camp, did you see Mr. Knezevic; Dusko is his

16 nickname?

17 A. No, no.

18 Q. When you would arrive at the camp, you went through the restaurant

19 usually. Is that correct?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. How many women prisoners did you see in the camp?

22 A. I didn't count them. We just passed through. Most of them knew

23 me. I would pass through, and I wasn't looking. I was embarrassed for

24 being there. I was embarrassed because of the work that I had to do,

25 because of the conditions of work. So I tried to get to my office as

1 quickly as possible, and I took every day as it came.

2 Q. That I can certainly understand. Can you tell us, madam, in the

3 reports that you typed up and the interrogations, what were these women

4 accused of doing from what you learned that caused them to be imprisoned

5 in the Omarska camp?

6 A. I don't remember whether I typed any of the reports concerning

7 women. I remember the reports concerning men. That's the organisation of

8 attacks, possession of weapons, and other things. But I can't remember

9 exactly what they were.

10 Q. So you don't recall any report indicating that any of these women

11 had committed any offence or was a military threat to the authorities that

12 had taken power on the 30th of April?

13 A. I don't remember.

14 Q. On page 49 of the LiveNote of yesterday's transcript -- don't

15 worry about the page number, I'm just saying that so the other attorneys

16 can follow -- you were asked about a meeting following a dispatch that was

17 brought in by Mr. Milos Jankovic. Were you present at that meeting?

18 A. Yes. I mean there were a lot of employees, so we, from the ground

19 floor just next to the entrance, perhaps even a bit outside. There were a

20 lot of employees there.

21 Q. So it wasn't in a room. It was in a corridor or outside?

22 A. No, no, no. The hall was full, it was crowded. There wasn't room

23 for everyone to get in, so the door was left open, and there were people

24 standing just outside the hall, too.

25 Q. And were there Muslim and Croat police officers present at this

1 meeting?

2 A. Yes, I think so. Everyone was there. All the employees.

3 Q. Do you recall any of the names of the Muslim and Croat police

4 officers who were present?

5 A. How am I supposed to remember? I don't even remember the Serbs.

6 I told you already, it's a weakness I have. I don't tend to memorise

7 names. Sometimes I can't even remember my own name. Really, I'm very bad

8 with names.

9 Q. You remember the names of people you worked with for years, Muslim

10 police officers in the police force, don't you?

11 A. Well, yes, sure, I do remember some. But...

12 Q. Were those persons present or you don't recall?

13 A. Well, yes, all the employees were present, like I told you.

14 Q. Okay. Give me the names of the Muslim police officers whose names

15 you recall who were present at that meeting. Muslim or Croat.

16 A. As I've told you already, I can't remember any of the names.

17 Q. Okay. How about Mr. Talundzic? Was he present?

18 A. Yes, yes, he was.

19 Q. So why didn't you remember that a moment ago?

20 A. Well, they weren't exactly the people I worked with directly.

21 Q. How about Mr. Drago Tokmadzic, Croat, was he present?

22 A. Well, he must have been. But I didn't really, you know, do rounds

23 there looking at their faces and counting who was there and who wasn't.

24 Q. In other words, it's very difficult ten years from now to remember

25 who was present in a group of people when you're not asked for ten years

1 who it was. It's easy to forget.

2 A. No. That wasn't a group of people. It's a big hall full of

3 people, crowded to capacity. We're not talking about ten people; we're

4 talking about perhaps a hundred or more people assembled there.

5 Q. Okay, thank you. Did you know Mirhad Mrkalj?

6 A. I believe so, yes.

7 Q. Did you see him in -- did you know Edin Mrkalj?

8 A. I must have.

9 Q. Did you see them in the Omarska camp?

10 A. I can't remember. As I've already explained, they may have seen

11 me, but I told you about how exactly -- the way I came in to the

12 investigation centre.

13 Q. And what about Sasa Karagic, did you see him, a fellow employee

14 from the Prijedor police station, did you see him in the Omarska camp?

15 A. I don't remember having seen him, Sasa Karagic, no.

16 Q. Are you aware that Mirhad Mrkalj and Sasa Karagic were killed?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Are you aware of any of your fellow employees of Muslim or Croat

19 ethnicity from the Prijedor police who were killed?

20 A. How should I know who was killed? I really don't know who was

21 killed.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I have no further questions at this

24 time.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I start the line of questions with two

1 apologies. First of all, unfortunately, my LiveNote didn't work

2 yesterday, and therefore I have the transcript before me and not the

3 LiveNote and therefore quote from the transcript as such. And second, to

4 the witness, because also after reading your testimony twice and three

5 times, I wasn't really clear about some details, so therefore please

6 understand that some questions may be repetitive.

7 Questioned by the Court:

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the usher to put S2 or the two

9 pictures, number 1 and 2, depicted on this document, on the ELMO.

10 While this is done, may I just for clarification, and due to the

11 fact that the Defence has offered this information to us, is it correct,

12 Ms. Markovska, that you're a Serb? Normally, I wouldn't ask --

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- but unfortunately, in this context, we have

15 to ask this.

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you identify the two buildings on the

18 pictures before you?

19 A. This building, that's the public security station number 2.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the other one?

21 A. I can't see clearly.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could that be the building of the Municipal

23 Assembly?

24 A. The image is not very clear. I really can't tell. But speaking

25 of the model we used yesterday, I'm really very bad with these drawings

1 and getting my bearings. Perhaps it might be easier to draw a sketch for

2 you myself. Please don't get me wrong, but what I said about the

3 buildings yesterday, and it was very difficult for me to really recognise

4 them. But you have here both the SUP building and the Municipal Assembly

5 building. I'm not really sure if this is the Municipal Assembly. I

6 really can't see very clearly. It may as well be, but I can't say for

7 sure. And what we said about the distances, you know, it's difficult to

8 really see clearly.

9 My window was at that time up on the first floor.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the side we can see here on this picture, the

11 first floor, picture number 2.

12 A. Yes, yes. Well, yes.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And is it -- unfortunately, we didn't have any

14 possibility to see it ourselves. In the middle, this was your --

15 A. Yes, yes. Yes, here, the first one, and the second one, the one

16 on the first floor. And from here, you can see very clearly the entrance

17 to the Municipal Assembly. If you go there way, this is the street, and

18 then if you take this street here, if you cross the street, you can see

19 very clearly.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So in the middle of the SUP building, this is an

21 entrance, or is it even the main entrance, what we can see in the middle?

22 A. Yes, this is the entrance to the building. And this here, this is

23 the ground floor, and then this is the police unit. This is the shift

24 leader. And then the policemen, those who would come back from the field,

25 and then I worked in this office here, down here. And you would take the

1 staircase to the first floor and the second floor.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the transcript, the witness pointed to the

3 windows at the right-hand side on the ground floor, and then related to

4 her own office, to the second window seen from the main entrance to the

5 right-hand side behind the tree.

6 Correct?

7 A. Yes. That's correct.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And can you please tell us who was in the room

9 to your left-hand side and to your right-hand side?

10 A. In the room to the right was Ranko Mijic; and to the left, it was

11 Zivko Jovic. I was in the one in the middle.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let us come back to the time before April 30,

13 1992. For whom did you work at that time?

14 A. I worked for the crime suppression department. My boss was

15 Mr. Mijic and the inspector.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you been specialised in certain types of

17 crimes?

18 A. That was general crime, general crime. We had the so-called

19 economic crime and general crime. You understand about these things.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So let's try again. I can understand that it's

21 difficult to identify this from the pictures. But between the two

22 buildings, Municipal Assembly and the SUP, is there a street or is there a

23 park or how would you describe this?

24 A. This is the municipality, and here is a park. And this is where

25 you cross the street to the building where I worked. And this is not a

1 very large distance. I'm very bad with distances. It's always difficult

2 for me to tell, so I often make mistakes with distances. But I can tell

3 you for sure that there is not a big distance between these two.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Where would be the main entrance in the

5 Municipal Assembly building?

6 A. It must be around here, down the middle of the building. But you

7 can't see it really in this photo. I can't see very clearly, but I think

8 it was here, right in the middle, the main entrance hereabouts, here in

9 front.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There seems to be a car parked.

11 A. No, no, that's not what I'm saying. Yes, you can park your car

12 here; there is some parking space outside. That's perhaps 2 or 3 metres

13 of space, and you can leave your car right here next to the building.

14 Right here.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You offered yourself to draw a sketch about the

16 relationship of the two buildings. Could you please be so kind. May the

17 usher give a piece of paper and a pencil to the witness that -- we tried

18 already several times to have -- to find out where these buildings are

19 located. So maybe you can really assist us.

20 A. Well, the exact locations of the buildings, well, it was like

21 this. I don't think I should draw this sketch now. I can tell you.

22 Well, this is not exactly...

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We get a good impression of this.

24 This would be which building? The SUP?

25 A. This is the SUP building, and this is the municipality building.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please indicate municipality building

2 in your language, yeah. Could you mark the municipality building with an

3 "M."

4 A. The municipality building.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please mark it with an "M."

6 A. [Indicates].

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the other with an "S," please.

8 A. [Indicates].

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then, my understanding is to the left-hand

10 side of the main entrance of this building, the first floor, there was

11 your room and you had a window to the other side, and there's the

12 possibility to have a look on the entrance of the municipality building.

13 A. Yes, yes, exactly.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The estimate distance would be hundred metres,

15 200 metre?

16 A. I really am very bad with distances. I couldn't tell.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just for -- thank you, usher. We don't need

18 this pictogram any longer. May this be the next exhibit number, J -- I

19 don't know.

20 THE REGISTRAR: J21.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: J21. Admitted into evidence.

22 When you worked in this building, you told us when you had to

23 leave. You told us it was crime in general and economic crime. When did

24 you hear the first time that there was planned something like the setting

25 up of investigation centres, not limited to Omarska?

1 A. Well, as I've said, there was the attack on Prijedor, and that was

2 in the early morning hours. It woke me up, so I didn't know what was

3 going on. I was scared. I called the SUP to ask what was going on. They

4 told me that Prijedor was under attack and that I shouldn't leave home

5 before I was notified that it was safe. So I'm not sure if it was that

6 same day or the next day, they called me and told me to come to work.

7 They took me to work in an official police vehicle, and that's the first

8 time they told me that I would be sent to Omarska to the investigation

9 centre with my inspectors, because some people had been brought in there

10 and were to be questioned by the inspectors so that criminal reports could

11 be filed against them. That was our job.

12 And we were told then that it would only last a couple of days.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were all your colleagues, typists,

14 investigators, secretaries asked to worked in the near future in Omarska?

15 A. I went with my own unit, my own department. Lakic, my colleague,

16 was sent there by state security, and they thought that the two of us

17 would be sufficient to do the job, being the professionals that they were.

18 But we worked every day under very strenuous conditions. So after

19 about a month, I requested to be temporarily replaced, and then Nevenka

20 Sikman came. Probably the people back at the station were very busy.

21 I'm not sure what they were doing while I was over there in Omarska.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But isn't it true that there were also other

23 institutions, you call it investigation centre, aside from Omarska?

24 A. Yes, while I was in Omarska, I heard of Keraterm. Trnopolje was

25 not an investigation centre, it was a collection center. And people went

1 there of their own accord.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were colleagues of yours asked to go to Keraterm

3 and to do the same work that you did in Omarska?

4 A. Well, I think that a group did go to Keraterm. But some were in

5 Keraterm, and others were in Omarska. But not at the same time. At the

6 beginning, everyone went to Omarska. I'm not sure when Keraterm started

7 operating, but then at a certain time the groups split up and a small

8 number of people.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever have contact with your colleagues

10 in Ljubija?

11 A. I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was there also an investigation centre in

13 Ljubija?

14 A. Not that I knew of.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Now, it's still difficult for me to understand,

16 so therefore I have to come back to this question. When did you see

17 yourself for the first time Dr. Stakic?

18 A. He was not a very famous person, at least not for me. But after

19 the elections, he became vice-president, and that's when I first found out

20 about him being the vice-president. That was following the takeover. And

21 then later on, he was to become president of municipality.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever been introduced to him in person?

23 A. There was no need. How do I know? There is a colleague of mine,

24 a person I worked with Radenko Stakic, I used to tease him, a relative of

25 yours has just become president of the municipality, and that's why I

1 remembered. But I don't think they were actually related, the two of

2 them.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you told us you never saw Dr. Stakic on

4 television. You never were introduced personally to him. How could you

5 find out that who was Dr. Stakic? A number of persons apparently are

6 leaving and entering the building of the Municipal Assembly. How did you

7 know the face of Dr. Stakic?

8 A. Well, it's a very distinctive face, Mr. President. He has a

9 very -- he has very distinctive facial features. I've already explained

10 why. It's because he's bald.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, you told us this.

12 A. I apologise, but he was only pointed out to me once, and I

13 immediately memorised him, Stakic, Mr. President. That's later on, he

14 became president.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was my question. When was it that he was

16 first, as you call it, pointed out to you? When was it?

17 A. After the elections, as I've told you.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And who --

19 A. Radenko Stakic, and there were other colleagues in the office.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, maybe I have some problems today. But I

21 still can't understand. Was it this -- what was the name, Radenko Stakic,

22 who introduced to you Dr. Milomir Stakic in person, that you really met

23 Dr. Milomir Stakic in person?

24 A. No, no, not introduced me. I had heard that Mr. Stakic was

25 vice-president of municipality, and then I teased my colleague. I used to

1 tell him, "Now a relative of yours is the vice-president of municipality."

2 But then he told me that they weren't related, and then he said --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then you don't have a connection between the

4 face and Dr. Stakic.

5 A. What do you mean the face and Dr. Stakic? No, it was when he left

6 the building and we were in the office --

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You have never seen Dr. Stakic in person?

8 A. Of course I did. That's exactly what I'm telling you. I saw him

9 leave the building. This is the building he --

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But how can you know that was Dr. Stakic leaving

11 the building when you were never introduced to him?

12 A. Well, I didn't need to be introduced to know him. It didn't take

13 a formal introduction for me to know his face.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There must be any kind of introduction that you

15 can combine a face with a certain person, that you clearly can state "I

16 saw this person coming in, coming out." You told us just before you saw

17 him leaving the building. When was this?

18 A. As I said, after he became vice-president. But I can't give you

19 the exact period of time.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Last attempt. You saw people leaving the

21 building of the Municipal Assembly and entering the building, a number of

22 persons. How was it possible that you can state "I saw Dr. Stakic leaving

23 the building of the Municipal Assembly" if you don't have a clear

24 connection of the name. It's easy to understand that you had the name,

25 but the combination, name and face, this is what I can't understand. How

1 it was possible for you to identify Dr. Stakic?

2 A. Okay, let's say I'm looking through the window. Somebody a

3 passing by, and somebody is standing in the room with me. And that person

4 gives me the other person's first and last names. And that person whose

5 name I'm given has a distinctive feature, and then after that, I see that

6 person all the time coming in and out. Sometimes I would see him leaving

7 the municipal building towards the Rudinska building. Sometimes he would

8 cross the street. Sometimes he would go towards the building of the

9 Court. He was never escorted by anybody. He was just a common -- just as

10 any other common person. He would always walk alone.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So your interest was focussed on Dr. Stakic, I

12 understand?

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And tell me, how is it possible that you can

15 tell us, as you did yesterday, that you did not see Dr. Stakic entering or

16 leaving the building of the Municipal Assembly during a certain period of

17 time; namely, between April and September 1992? Admittedly, I couldn't

18 tell you whom I saw or whom I did not see between April and September

19 1992. How is it possible that you have this clear recollection limited to

20 April -- to the time between April and September 1992?

21 A. I don't understand. You asked me firstly how I knew who

22 Dr. Stakic was and how I met him.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then, that it's quite clear for you and for

24 all the other participants, on the official transcript, it reads "not

25 official transcript, not corrected," page 9934, line 12, question by

1 counsel Lukic: "Did you ever see Dr. Stakic between April and September

2 1992 entering the MUP building at any time?" Your answer was: "No."

3 How is it possible?

4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, MUP building is not Municipal Assembly

5 building.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, right. It's not. But how is it possible?

7 It's now a different question. How is it possible to tell that you did

8 not see a person just in this period of time, from April to September?

9 My question would be, did you ever see Dr. Stakic entering the MUP

10 building?

11 A. That was the question put to me by counsel Lukic, and my answer

12 was no. But the question did not refer to the municipal building.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Correct. But the question counsel Lukic related

14 to the MUP building, no doubt, was limited to April and -- to the time

15 between April and September 1992. So my question would be, now, did you

16 ever see Dr. Stakic entering the MUP building?

17 A. No.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So there was nothing special that you did not

19 see Dr. Stakic entering -- not entering the MUP building between April and

20 September 1992?

21 A. No, I didn't see him entering that building. Somebody else may

22 have, but I didn't.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Just for this clarification in advance,

24 one more technical question in the order of the questions of yesterday.

25 Is it correct that you still work in the public security station in

1 Prijedor?

2 A. Yes.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was there any break in between since 1992?

4 A. Yes. Yes.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When was this, please?

6 A. In the year 2000, I retired. I was issued a retirement paper. I

7 complained to the minister, and I received a negative answer. And then I

8 filed an appeal with the administrative court. When I was here in 2001, I

9 was notified that I won the case. Then I started working again. And then

10 at the end of 2001, they -- I was retired again. Again, I complained, and

11 then I came back to work. Again, in 2002, they wanted to retire -- put me

12 in retirement. I complained again. I was returned to work. Again, I

13 was -- they wanted to put me in retirement. And now I'm really fed up and

14 tired. I don't have any more strength to fight them.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clear answer.

16 When you had been ordered to go to Omarska by bus, how many people

17 were in the bus?

18 A. I don't know exactly how many seats there were on the bus. 20 or

19 30, I believe. And I believe that there were some restaurant workers with

20 us as well. They were taken to the restaurant on the same bus. They

21 would get off, and we would continue our journey after they got off.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "We," that means other typists or also

23 investigators?

24 A. Investigators as well. Investigators, myself, and my colleague,

25 the other typist.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you discuss your work or the work of the

2 investigators during your journey to and from Omarska?

3 A. No. We didn't talk. The only thing I was interested in was

4 getting home as quickly as possible. It was usually very late. We were

5 fed up and tired, and we wanted to put the day behind us as fast as

6 possible. We wanted to forget about the conditions of our work and the

7 work that we were given to do as quickly as possible.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What was so bad with the work that you wanted

9 immediately to forget about this work?

10 A. One bad thing was that we were originally told that it would only

11 last for a day or two, and it lasted much longer. And we worked long

12 hours. Our conditions were very bad, and the inmates' conditions were

13 even worse. And we wanted all this to be over as soon as possible so we

14 could go back to our normal, everyday life, and to go back to working to

15 our normal workplace.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The workplace in Omarska, you shared this room

17 with another person, or did you work alone in this room?

18 A. There were two of us, and we were sitting next to each other. We

19 had two desks, two typewriters. There was a third desk for the radio set.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask, what is the name of your colleague

21 you worked with and you shared the room with?

22 A. Her name was Slavica Lakic.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: How was the work organised? Did you get some

24 handwritten drafts or did the investigators ever dictate statements?

25 A. The investigators would bring us handwritten reports, and only

1 exceptionally when there was something urgent, we would be asked to take

2 dictations.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yesterday, on page 9.920, line 15, when you were

4 asked by Mr. Lukic: "Did the investigators ever dictate the statements,

5 their notes, to you directly?" You answered: "No, not to me personally,

6 but one of my colleagues did take their notes occasionally depending on

7 their degree of urgency." What is correct? Did they or did they not

8 dictate to you directly?

9 A. No, not directly. I've just explained that this was only

10 exceptionally, and she would be the one to take dictations when needed.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it would be your colleague taking these

12 dictates; correct?

13 A. Yes, yes. Yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what was the form of the drafts? Was it in

15 the form of questions, answers; or was it in the form of a mere report on

16 statements of inmates of Omarska?

17 A. Inspectors were both from the state security and the public

18 security, and their styles differed. But whatever they brought to us, we

19 had to type. Sometimes it would be in the form of questions and answers;

20 sometimes it would be in the form of statements or reports. But whatever

21 they brought to us, we had to type, and the drafts came in all shapes and

22 forms.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was it foreseen that these statements should be

24 signed by the persons who had given a statement?

25 A. The statements would go back to the investigators. What they did

1 with them, I don't know. Whether they gave them to somebody to sign them

2 or not, I really don't know.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When you got such a request to type a statement,

4 be it in the form of question and answer or a report only, before April

5 30, wasn't it a custom that under the entire text, there was space for the

6 signatures of the investigator and the person who gave the statement?

7 A. Yes. Yes. But when we were there, we were told not to put

8 anything like that. I don't know why.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

10 Yesterday, you were asked about superiors of, for example,

11 Mr. Jesic and others. That we don't forget it, you were not asked who was

12 the superior to Mr. Majstorovic.

13 A. Probably somebody from Banja Luka. He was an officer in the army,

14 so I don't know. I would only see him occasionally. Sometimes he would

15 come to our office, but I didn't have anything to do with the army

16 whatsoever. I sometimes -- I didn't even communicate with my own bosses,

17 let alone him.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you had never to type anything on behalf of

19 this military personnel. Correct? There was a distinction between police

20 and military, and you had never to type anything from persons working

21 together with Mr. Majstorovic, subordinates of him? Or was it also

22 possible that --

23 A. I have already told you at one point that we had inspectors for --

24 from all over the place, from the state security, from the public

25 security, from the military security. They would sign the statements.

1 They had their nicknames, their pseudonyms, and I would sometimes not know

2 where -- who they were affiliated with, which branch of security they were

3 affiliated with.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Of you told us yesterday that you brought

5 parcels, sometimes parcels to Omarska. What was the reason for this? Did

6 you know anybody there who you believed that it would be necessary that

7 these persons get parcels?

8 A. I took parcels on behalf of Nedzija Fazlic, whose husband was

9 there. And there was a need. Everybody needed something. The majority

10 of those who were in Omarska found a way to have things brought to them.

11 And I did that on several occasions, whenever she asked me to do her that

12 favour, I would take something to her husband.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please repeat the name you mentioned.

14 A. Nedzija Fazlic.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Nadzija or Nedzija Fazlic?

16 A. Nadzija or Nedzija, it's just one letter. I believe it's an A,

17 but...

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you have a good relationship with her or her

19 husband?

20 A. No, we just worked together. We were never really close. I never

21 socialised with any of my colleagues. I had my own family who needed me

22 after work. And I had very little time after work to spend with my

23 family, let alone hang out with any of my colleagues from work. So I

24 didn't do that.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was the only person who received parcels

1 from you, or were there also other persons?

2 A. Yes, that was the only person who received parcels from me. But

3 there were other people. There was another colleague of mine who took

4 parcels to Omarska. Some of my colleagues, inspectors, also took parcels.

5 Policemen as well very often took things to Omarska. Things would be

6 brought to Omarska in different way, by different people.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever have the idea, having worked for

8 the criminal police in Prijedor for a long period of time, to bring

9 parcels to inmates in Prijedor, being arrested for crimes?

10 A. I don't understand your question. What do you mean when you say

11 "in Prijedor"?

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You told us yesterday and today in the beginning

13 that previously, you worked on ordinary crimes, economic crimes, and I

14 think in this connection, there were also persons arrested. Did you ever

15 have the idea to bring a parcel to an inmate based on such an arrest

16 warrant for economic crime?

17 A. We don't have a detention unit. And while investigation was going

18 on and while these people were kept there, they were given food and stuff.

19 And we could only keep them for three days, for the purpose of

20 investigation. And after that, we would send them to Banja Luka. So

21 nobody was actually detained in Prijedor for a longer period of time. And

22 if they needed something like coffee or cigarettes, that's what we would

23 give them while they were detained in Prijedor.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to finalise this, before the break, how

25 many times did you bring parcels to Ms. Fazlic?

1 A. Whether it was four times or more, I can't really remember. She

2 would wait for me in front of the bus whenever she wanted me to take

3 something there. I would take it from her, and I would take it to

4 Omarska.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What ethnicity was the family Fazlic?

6 A. Muslim.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yesterday, you told us that there was a number

8 of lists, some short lists, some longer lists, sometimes even pages, you

9 had to type containing names of inmates. And you -- can you identify by

10 the names whether there was a majority of Muslims and Croats on these

11 lists?

12 A. Yes.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever see names of former colleagues,

14 policemen or neighbours of yours or other persons you knew from Prijedor,

15 on these lists?

16 A. I'm -- there must have been, but I can't remember any of them.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's easy to understand. Ten years later, I

18 myself would not be able to recollect the names. I have the same problem

19 as you have. But is it true that at that time, you could think "This is a

20 neighbour, former neighbour of mine, this is a former colleague of mine"

21 on the list? Is this true that this happened sometimes?

22 A. But of course.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And did you understand why it was necessary to

24 detain these persons you knew?

25 A. Well, I didn't understand. I didn't know, but I suppose that

1 those who detained them knew why they did that.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's have a break now until 11.30.

3 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

6 May I ask the usher to put Document S15-18 on the ELMO, please.

7 Madam Markovska, yesterday you told us where your office was

8 located and where the restaurant room was. Can you please be so kind to

9 show us on this picture from where the delegation and the cars came.

10 A. They passed here, this way.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The cars as such entered the -- this area? And

12 they did not stay outside the area.

13 A. Yes, yes, that's right. I mean, the vehicles with the delegation.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Apropos, the delegation, was it only once there

15 was a delegation?

16 A. As far as I know, only once.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please once again with the pointer

18 point to the restaurant room from where you had the possibility to see the

19 delegation.

20 A. It wasn't in the restaurant; it was in the largest room where we

21 took breakfast. That was here.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it was during the time you took breakfast

23 the delegation arrived?

24 A. No. As I explained yesterday, we knew that the delegation would

25 be arriving, and through our window we could see, we could observe their

1 arrival outside. And you could hear people singing. As my colleague was

2 a bit more curious than I was, and she used to move about a bit more, she

3 said "Let's just go there and look at them." Once we were back in our

4 office, the door was open, and they passed -- they entered here. They

5 took this entrance. They went up the stairs and went to the staff room.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So what time of the day was it when this group

7 of delegation arrived?

8 A. That was in the morning hours. I don't remember the exact time.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was it close to breakfast or close to lunch?

10 A. It was between breakfast and lunch, I think, but I can't say with

11 any degree of precision.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to go into these details, but did you take

13 breakfast, lunch, and dinner in this restaurant room?

14 A. No, no, we only had breakfast here. But lunch, which was lunch

15 and dinner at the same time, that was after we returned, the restaurant

16 where they prepared the food for us.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was outside the Omarska area --

18 A. The restaurant was called "Separation."

19 Yes, yes, that's correct.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And if I understood you correctly, you had

21 already finished breakfast, went back to your office; then you were aware

22 that a delegation would come, and went back to the room where you had

23 breakfast before, but it was still in the morning. Is this correct? Is

24 this your testimony?

25 A. As I've said, I can't give you the exact time, but we knew that

1 the delegation would arrive on that particular day.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. But to be -- we have to be precise here.

3 To the best of your recollection, it was, as you said, between breakfast

4 and lunch.

5 A. Yes, I should suppose so. But I can't tell you anything more

6 precise than that. Breakfast was sometimes at 10.00, sometimes at 11.00,

7 sometimes even as late as at noon.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And then you got your meal. It might be

9 of assistance to have a look on the video. I think until now, it has only

10 a 65 ter number, 807. May we please see only one very short clip of 65

11 ter number 807. And may I ask Madam Registrar to crosscheck whether this

12 was already admitted into evidence or not.

13 Yes, please play the video now.

14 If you want to comment on something, please say stop.

15 [Videotape played]

16 "SPEAKER: ... also being denied access to Omarska, hidden until

17 now from the world. We were not allowed to follow them to their living

18 accommodation --"

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Stop.

20 Can you identify this building? If you please could wind a little

21 bit back that we can see the entire first building.

22 Stop. Stop here.

23 Can you see now where is the room where you worked and the room

24 where you had breakfast?

25 A. The room where we had breakfast, you can't see it in this picture.

1 You can't see it from this particular angle, because it's inside the

2 building, and this was the office where we worked.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you point to the room where you --

4 A. Or perhaps it's this one here. I'm talking about the room where

5 we had breakfast, but I can't see very clearly. I'm not sure. But I do

6 know that you passed through a corridor, and then the last room on this

7 side of the building, that's where it was.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you please use the pointer.

9 A. Yes, I can. What am I supposed to point at?

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, sorry. Sorry, this was my mistake.

11 You pointed in the direction to the right-hand side above the car

12 standing there. But the first floor, would this be the room where you had

13 breakfast or --

14 A. I think it's actually behind, behind over there. I'm not sure if

15 the window was here. But this is really difficult to explain.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Then let's turn back to the entire

17 building. Thank you for offering this other picture.

18 Let's turn back to the video, please. Could we please see from

19 the video unit the picture of the building on the video, please.

20 May we have the video once again, that what we saw a moment

21 before. Here, your own office room, could you identify your own office

22 room.

23 A. Here.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could I make a suggestion. I don't know if this

25 would work, but is it possible to have the witness, just for this purpose,

1 sit where the Registrar is use and the monitor and counsel and I can stand

2 behind and we can all see what she is pointing at, Your Honours can see

3 what she is pointing at. Use the microphone --

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is possible to use the microphones. We see a

5 number of rooms on the first floor. Did your office have to this side of

6 the building, was there a window to this side of the building?

7 A. Yes, I think it was here, but I'm not sure which room it was. I'm

8 not sure where the toilet was. And then just next to the toilet was where

9 my office was located. But I'm not sure if it's these windows here, this

10 row of windows, or another one. But I really can't be sure. I've tried

11 to explain as well as I could.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I understand that -- please, let the video as

13 it is.

14 That when the delegation arrived, you left your office room, maybe

15 heading to this side, and went to the other room where you --

16 A. No, no, no, this other side. This is not where I was. We went to

17 the other one over there where I said we used to have breakfast.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. So you left your office and went to the

19 room where you had breakfast.

20 A. Yes. Precisely.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And can you exclude that part of the group went

22 in front of the house we see now on the video before us, and another part

23 of the group you saw there from this breakfast room?

24 A. I'm not sure which group exactly you're referring to.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are discussing --

1 A. Which group?

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- the appearance of a delegation, and the

3 question is --

4 A. You mean the delegation.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Can you exclude that you saw only a part

6 of the group from this breakfast room, and another part of the group,

7 which would be the testimony of another witness, went along this side we

8 can see now on the video in front of the building?

9 A. No, they all came this way and went out where I told you. They

10 passed that section; they took the main entrance, and then they went

11 straight to the main room.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Main entrance this would be from the direction

13 we are sitting now in front of the building, and the main entrance would

14 be directly --

15 A. Yes, yes. Yes, they had to pass the restaurant on their way.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you exclude that some cars remained outside

17 this area of Omarska, and some of the dignitaries went by foot the one or

18 other direction?

19 A. I just don't find it likely. You can see clearly from this room.

20 We could watch them arrive, the entire delegation. I don't believe that

21 any of them would have walked. I don't find it likely.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You told us that you heard people singing. Did

23 you know where these - I think it were inmates - were located? Because I

24 think the intention of singing is to give a salute to the delegation.

25 Wouldn't this be true? Could you see the inmates singing from your

1 breakfast room?

2 A. No.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you see inmates singing and preparing for

4 the appearance of this delegation from your office room before the

5 delegation arrived?

6 A. If I leaned out the window, yes, I could see, but that's not what

7 I did. They were here, next to this wall.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So they were lined up in front of this house we

9 can see before us. Is this correct?

10 A. Yes, yes, that's correct.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what kind of songs did they sing?

12 A. They sang Chetnik songs.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Even though they were Muslims and Croats, they

14 sung Chetnik songs. They were forced to sing these songs?

15 A. Yes, yes, they were forced.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did the group, the delegation, ever pass these

17 lined-up inmates? Because only this would make sense, that they clearly

18 can hear and see what is going on.

19 A. They didn't pass them, but on their way in, yes, I think they

20 could see them. That was the point of the whole thing.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let us leave it with the video -- with this

22 video. Maybe we come back to another one. But we should not forget, if

23 there are no objections, to admit this video with the 65 ter number 807 as

24 J22.

25 You told us yesterday that you typed lists of inmates. Were there

1 several categories of inmates?

2 A. When we typed the lists, no, there weren't any different

3 categories. But later on, I heard that there had been different

4 categories. Now who was in charge of defining the categories, I really

5 didn't know.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what are the different categories?

7 A. I heard they had the first, second, and third categories.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what was the underlying reason for having

9 three categories? What did it mean, for example, to be put into category

10 1?

11 A. I suppose those would have been persons who had taken part in the

12 organisation of the attack and the attack itself on Prijedor, and the

13 attack against the army. I suppose those would have been the persons

14 included in group 1. Group 2 were probably persons in possession of

15 weapons. And group 3, those who had nothing in particular. And most of

16 persons categorised as belonging to group 3 were later released.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Released directly or via another, call it,

18 investigation centre?

19 A. I don't know how they were released exactly, I know that they were

20 released. Now who released them, I'm not sure. I don't know.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever later, it's now ten years ago,

22 speak with your neighbours or other citizens of Prijedor about this

23 categorisation, and did you ever speak with people who survived the

24 Omarska camp or investigation centre?

25 A. Yes. May I be allowed to add something? You asked me about my

1 ethnic background, and I told you. But I never looked at people as

2 belonging to different ethnic groups. The only thing that matter to me

3 was what kind of person you were, and even in my family, there are a whole

4 lot of mixed marriages. And even after the war, I still have friends who

5 are Muslim or Croats. We sometimes have coffee together. We talk over

6 the cup of coffee we share. If you're a good person, you're just a good

7 person. And even during the war, it was the same. I believe that I

8 was -- I managed to stay a good person, too. And whenever someone

9 appealed to me for help, regardless of their ethnic background, I helped

10 wherever I could. It's still the same today, and I intend to stay that

11 way.

12 Before the war, I didn't even know who was a Croat and who was a

13 Serb. Muslims had particular -- very distinctive names, so you could tell

14 a Muslim from the other people. I was a member of the party back then,

15 before the war. But I will never be a member of any other party. I'm not

16 really into politics. I just do my job. That's all. I used to see a lot

17 of Kiki who was later in Omarska. He would always greet me. I saw Vahid

18 later on, afterwards, when the whole thing was over, and he also said

19 hello. There may have been people who had a different view of me, but

20 then again, those people who see me in a different light probably won't

21 say hello when they pass me on the street. I think I was the same person

22 before the war, during the war, and after the war. I have always stayed

23 the same.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think, no doubt, this is the way we should

25 look on each other irrespective of the background, be it the political,

1 ethnical, or other background. And I appreciate your special comments on

2 this. But we have to find out what happened at that time in Omarska and

3 in other camps --

4 A. No problem.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- and you already told us that on the basis of

6 the names, you could identify that there were numerous if not the majority

7 of the inmates of the lists you had to type of Muslim ethnicity. It's a

8 shame that one has to make this distinction, but apparently at that time

9 some superiors decided that this should be necessary.

10 Looking back -- I already touched upon this issue on the

11 statements, the results of the interrogations -- did you always see that

12 there was an alleged crime as you were acquainted in the past that, for

13 example, to a certain extent you worked in the area that we are working

14 now when you were working for the criminal police, but in the beginning,

15 there was an offence mentioned, and then later on the person was warned

16 that a person has a right to remain silent and all these warnings, the

17 right to have defence counsel, was all this included in the statements you

18 had to type?

19 A. That wasn't part of it. Before the war, it wasn't really common

20 practice. That's after the law was amended. If a person is brought in,

21 if any person is brought in, they have a right to legal assistance and to

22 remain silent. But it wasn't like that before the war. It was not

23 envisaged by the law. It was only after the person receives a decision on

24 detention, then this state that he has a right to legal assistance. And

25 after the case is forwarded to the judge.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the inmates in Omarska? Did they

2 have the same rights? Did you ever see defence counsel working on behalf

3 of the inmates? Did you ever see something like these admonitions in the

4 statements or question/answer you had to type?

5 A. As I've just explained during the war, and before the war for that

6 matter, this was not part of our law. The whole time they were there, no

7 criminal reports were ever filed against them, and they were still being

8 investigated. It was only after a criminal report has been filed that you

9 can -- then you detain the person, and it's only then that the person is

10 entitled to receive legal assistance. And the reports only contained what

11 they had previously stated.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But to be very concrete, did the report and the

13 line of questions start with the concrete alleged offence?

14 A. When you say that, you mean whether that was in the statement?

15 No, that wasn't in the statement. The article was not mentioned; the

16 alleged act was not mentioned. This is something that would be part of a

17 criminal report, and these initial statements are enclosures to the

18 possible future criminal reports.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this concrete answer.

20 May we take the opportunity and if you could be so kind and follow

21 the video we can see now on our screen. Could the usher please be so kind

22 and change the screen of Madam Markovska.

23 Could this video be played. This would be, then, J23, the former

24 806, 65 ter number. Could the video please be played.

25 [Videotape played]

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Stop. May we please stop the video. Rewind it

2 a little bit back.

3 Do you know this person?

4 A. Yes.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's who, please?

6 A. Simo Drljaca.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And wind a little bit further.

8 If you can recognise a person, please tell us. And then a little

9 bit, wind it back, please.

10 Do you recognise this room?

11 Please wind back again, further.

12 Stop, please.

13 This was the main entrance to Omarska. Correct? Can you identify

14 this?

15 A. No, I can't. The image is moving. That's why.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you could move on a little bit that it

17 becomes more clear.

18 Would this be another view, another perspective on the building

19 you were at that time when the delegation appeared?

20 A. No, no, I don't know. I can't see clearly.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then let's leave it with this video.

22 And then may we finally have a look on Exhibit S157, the next

23 video, please. Can you move it a little bit forward and backwards. Can

24 you identify the persons sitting here. And can you please tell us who are

25 the four men sitting on the left-hand side.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts. Pages 10010 to 10016.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Mr. Stakic, Mico Kovacevic, and I believe that the third one is

2 Drljaca, and I can't see the fourth person.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could the video be played a little bit further.

4 [Videotape played]

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay, thank you.

6 Did you ever see yourself Dr. Stakic in uniform as we could see it

7 on the video here?

8 A. I don't remember. I don't remember ever seeing him in a uniform.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you ever see the late Dr. Kovacevic or Simo

10 Drljaca entering the building of the Municipal Assembly?

11 A. Simo Drljaca, I don't know. I didn't see him at the time while I

12 was in Omarska. But later on, I did see him.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the time before, especially in April 1992?

14 A. I don't remember that I have.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you tell us how come that your recollection

16 is focussed in this way on Dr. Stakic? Was he such a prominent person, or

17 what was the reason that, to the best of your recollection, you can

18 testify today that you saw Dr. Stakic several times leaving the municipal

19 building, because you could see him from your window as you indicated, but

20 not the other ones? How is this possible? Was he the most responsible

21 person? Or what -- I still want to --

22 A. No, no, no.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What's the reason that you focussed this way on

24 Dr. Stakic?

25 A. I don't understand the question, sir.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You told us that through a long period of time

2 you saw Dr. Stakic leaving the municipal building, and you explained to us

3 why you were able to do so sitting in your office and heading to the --

4 that from there, you could see Dr. Stakic. And you stated you saw him

5 several times. But you can't at the same time tell us that, for example,

6 the late Dr. Kovacevic entered or left this building. Wasn't he also, as

7 you said, a bald man?

8 A. No, that is what I said when I answered your question about how I

9 met Dr. Stakic or how I knew that that person was Dr. Stakic. It is not

10 that I was particularly focussed on him.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay, then just two final questions: What is

12 your own estimate how many inmates have there been the entire period of

13 time in Omarska?

14 A. That information was not available to me, but I would say that

15 there were 2.000 or so, or even more, because people would come and go all

16 the time. Some would come; some would leave.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What would you say is the maximum of people

18 being there at the same time?

19 A. At the beginning, there weren't that many. As time went on, other

20 people were brought in. Some were released. And I can't really give you

21 the exact number. Whatever I gave you would be imprecise. I don't want

22 to make a guess. But I do assume that throughout the entire period of

23 time, that is how many may have gone through Omarska.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From your point of view at that time, who do you

25 believe was de facto the person or the persons responsible for setting up

1 Omarska? I'm not interested in documents. You saw a number of documents

2 yesterday. But from your point of view as a citizen of Prijedor.

3 A. To my mind, I believe that Banja Luka was responsible because in

4 Banja Luka was the seat of our ministry, the army, and the easiest thing

5 to do is to set something like that up in a different place. And that's

6 how we ended up where we ended up, and I don't want anybody to have to go

7 through what we in Prijedor had to go through. It was not our own desire,

8 believe me. It's my opinion, but I believe that if you asked other

9 people, they would have never accepted a situation like that of their own

10 will.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I fully understand.

12 May I ask you a last question: Defence counsel, Mr. Lukic, asked

13 you yesterday on page 9.938, line 1: "But who did you notice was given

14 the most weapons, which group?" And you answered: "To Muslims."

15 How can you know about this?

16 A. Let me tell you. When this was happening, we had reserve

17 policemen, and that unit was not full. So when Yugoslavia started

18 breaking up and when Mr. Talundzic came, there was a disparity between

19 Muslims, Croats, and Serbs in the reserve force. And then he recruited

20 new people, and that's why there was also disparity in the armament of

21 various groups. So that's why Muslims received more weapons, and I'm

22 talking about the reserve police, the reserve policemen who were armed at

23 that time.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clear clarification of

25 yesterday's answer.

1 May I ask, Judge Vassylenko, please.

2 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Ms. Markovska, at present, you have an

3 opportunity to see Dr. Stakic here in this courtroom. Has Dr. Stakic's

4 appearance changed since 1992?

5 A. I don't know what to say about that. I think he is the same.

6 Maybe a little -- I mean, we have all changed a little. But he has

7 remained the same, I would say.

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

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to -- as a follow-up question, did he wear

10 a moustache at that time?

11 A. [No Interpretation]

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I didn't understand your answer, I'm sorry.

13 Could you repeat?

14 A. I'm not sure about the moustache. I'm just sure about the face.

15 I usually just see the face, I don't see the details on the face, and that

16 is one of the minor details on his face as such. Somebody may have -- may

17 sport a moustache today and may not sport it tomorrow, so it's a minor

18 detail on one's face.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

20 Judge Argibay, please.

21 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Yes, please. Good day.

22 A. Good afternoon.

23 JUDGE ARGIBAY: I want to ask you, you mentioned at the beginning

24 of your testimony yesterday some fountains that you could see from your

25 window in Omarska from your office window in Omarska, and they were used

1 by the detainees so I understood your answer. What were they used for?

2 A. Yes, they used them as a source of drinking water. It was hot,

3 and men wore T-shirts and swimming trunks. And they could also take a

4 bath there. They could use it to take a bath. That's what I saw.

5 Basically they used those fountains to refresh themselves, not all of them

6 at one time. They would go to the fountains in smaller groups.

7 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. Then can you tell me if you noticed from

8 the beginning of June, when you started working, to the -- to August when

9 your work finished in Omarska, the physical condition of the prisoners

10 using the fountains, if they were deteriorating or were they all the same

11 from June to August?

12 A. Their condition was not the same, but our condition was not the

13 same either. There was no food, and the families would try to make do as

14 they could. Everybody had a difficult time, even those who remained in

15 Prijedor had to go through a difficult period. And none of us had an easy

16 time at the time.

17 JUDGE ARGIBAY: I suppose so. But this is related to the next

18 question. When you told us that one of your neighbours or acquaintances

19 gave you something to -- for you to bring into Omarska for her husband,

20 how did you manage to arrive to this man and to give him the parcel?

21 A. Me and my colleagues would bring those things, but we would not

22 deliver them ourselves. We would hand the parcels over to somebody from

23 the police. Usually it was Nadjo Radic or Ckalja or whoever was on duty

24 and whoever knew where those persons were. I don't know where those

25 persons were so I was not the one that would deliver the parcels myself.

1 I would hand them over to somebody.

2 JUDGE ARGIBAY: And how can you be sure that the parcel was

3 delivered to the right person?

4 A. Well, when they returned, I would inquire. I would ask them

5 whether they had delivered the parcels, and they would say "Yes." I know

6 that I would do that, so I believed them when they said that they did. I

7 personally didn't -- was not in the position to hand-deliver any parcel.

8 None of us were in that position.

9 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay, that's clear. And another one: You told us

10 a moment ago about the practice in interrogation or the legal practice in

11 your country before the war, I suppose, when you told us that a person had

12 a right to defence counsel only when he or she was forwarded to a judge,

13 not when being interrogated. And at that time also, it was the practice

14 to conduct interrogations under beating or mistreatment of the person

15 interrogated?

16 A. I don't know of any such practice.

17 JUDGE ARGIBAY: So I can gather that it was not the practice?

18 A. No, no, it wasn't. In my service, we get a lot of crimes. And

19 time will pass, and we will arrest somebody, and then somebody, for

20 example, a group of criminals, and somebody will confess and will snitch

21 on others. So there was no need to use physical force, but I believe that

22 the situation was different in the conditions of an immediate war threat

23 or something, but I don't know. I'm not sure of that.

24 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Did you think about reporting these beatings or

25 mistreatment of the prisoners to your superior officer?

1 A. But they knew it. Those who worked in the main office, they knew

2 it. I was a nobody. I was just a nobody. What was my role? Let me tell

3 you, I worked all day, and then a person from the state security asked me

4 to do something. I was very tired, and he told me, "This needs to be done

5 urgently." And I said, "I am tired." And he said, "You have to." And I

6 said, "The only thing I have to do is die." And then he closed the door

7 and he said, "Die, then." What else can I tell you. That's how things

8 were.

9 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay, I understand that. But even as you said you

10 were nobody, no one is nobody. You were a person listening --

11 A. Yes, yes, but I only did my job. And I don't think that anybody,

12 even if I had said something, who would have respected my opinion or

13 listened to me? That's what I meant when I said I was a nobody.

14 JUDGE ARGIBAY: I was only asking if you were -- if you thought at

15 some times of reporting this or commenting this to your superior officers?

16 A. No.

17 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay, thank you.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What is the estimate you need for --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What is the estimate you need for additional

21 questions?

22 MR. LUKIC: I think that we can finish it in 15 minutes.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay, then let's try, in the interests of the

24 witness, to continue.

25 Further examination by Mr. Lukic:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, once again, Mrs. Markovska. I

2 will start with the last things first, so they say.

3 When Judge Vassylenko asked you about how Dr. Stakic's appearance

4 has changed, you only showed, and your gesture was noticed by nobody else

5 but Judge Vassylenko. This did not enter the record.

6 A. Well, his beard has changed.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 A. He now has a beard.

9 Q. Thank you again.

10 When the Prosecution showed you Exhibit Number S107, we were

11 speaking about Simo Drljaca. Do you know who it was that appointed Simo

12 Drljaca chief of the public security station in Prijedor?

13 A. The SDS did.

14 Q. Did the SDS just nominate him, propose him, for appointment or --

15 A. Yes, they proposed him. They made a formal proposal, and then the

16 ministry appointed him. I'm already becoming a bit confused.

17 Q. It's all right. Just take one thing at a time.

18 When you looked at the signatures that were shown you yesterday as

19 Simo Drljaca's signatures, were you sure that those you were shown were

20 indeed his signatures? Or did they merely look like Simo Drljaca's

21 signatures?

22 A. Well, since his first and last name was there, I should imagine

23 that he was indeed the person who signed those documents. But he may not

24 have been the person. I really can't tell.

25 Q. So you drew your conclusion on the basis of his first and last

1 name being typed on these documents?

2 A. Yes, that's correct. His first and last name were typed there.

3 Q. When the Prosecution showed you S130, it was about the attack on

4 Hambarine. You said that a colleague of yours had told you that the

5 military were asking for weapons to be turned over.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you. If someone was sitting in an office in the Municipal

8 Assembly building, the same side where the entrance is located, could that

9 person see the MUP building sitting where he was or have an overall view

10 of the other side of the street?

11 A. No. If sitting inside, the person couldn't see the other side of

12 the street.

13 Q. You claim that a person named Radenko Stakic used to work with

14 you.

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. We had a bit of trouble translating a term, so the Presiding

17 Judge Schomburg insisted on finding out how it was that you knew

18 Mr. Stakic or that you were familiar with him without ever having met him.

19 When we say "meet," in our language, that can meet both formal

20 introduction and informal introduction or meeting in the sense of meeting

21 someone. Or you can sort of be familiar with someone or with a person's

22 appearance or face if the person is pointed out to you by someone else.

23 In all of these cases, we use the term "to meet."

24 Did Radenko Stakic, in fact, point Dr. Milomir Stakic out to you?

25 A. Yes, he did.

1 Q. After that, did you see Dr. Milomir Stakic again?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. Do you know now that a trial is underway where Dr. Milomir Stakic

4 is being tried?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Did I ask you for that very reason to focus on Dr. Milomir Stakic?

7 A. No, that's not what you asked of me. You only asked me to come

8 here and testify and say what I know.

9 Q. Did I not first ask you to name for me all the people you could

10 remember as members of the delegation from Banja Luka?

11 A. Yes, you did.

12 Q. Did I not ask you after that whether you had seen Dr. Stakic

13 together with the members of that delegation?

14 A. Yes, indeed, you did ask me that.

15 Q. Did you no at that point tell me that you had never seen

16 Dr. Stakic with that particular delegation?

17 A. Yes, that is what I told you.

18 Q. When the delegation was passing your office on their way to the

19 main office, the main room - I'm referring now to the members of that

20 delegation - did they all pass by your office every single member of that

21 delegation?

22 A. Yes, they all did.

23 Q. Were you looking that day as they were passing?

24 A. Yes, I was.

25 Q. Are you absolutely positive that Dr. Stakic was not with that

1 delegation?

2 A. Yes, I'm positive.

3 Q. Thank you very much.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions to ask.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

6 Further cross-examination by Mr. Koumjian:

7 Q. Ma'am, can you tell us how you know that the entire delegation

8 passed by your office? How would you know if someone from the delegation

9 did not pass by your office?

10 A. Well, how did I know? All the members who came in passed by the

11 office on their way to the main room.

12 Q. How would you know if someone did not pass by your office?

13 A. I don't quite understand what you mean by "how would I know" or

14 how would I not know.

15 Q. If someone from the delegation did not pass by your office, you

16 wouldn't see them. Correct?

17 A. No, I wouldn't. That's for sure.

18 Q. Okay. Let me move on.

19 When the delegation passed by your office, you said that your

20 colleague, the driver, came in and started to talk to you. Now, when your

21 colleague came in, did you look at him and did you speak to him? Or did

22 you maintain your sight always on the door and who was passing by?

23 A. They all passed the office on their way to the main room, and our

24 colleague did, too. And then it was later that he came back to see us in

25 our office. First, they all went to the main room.

1 Q. Why is it that when Judge Schomburg, the President, was asking but

2 when you met first Dr. Stakic or when he was presented to you, you didn't

3 mention the fact that your colleague had pointed him out to you and you

4 only did when asked that question by Mr. Lukic just now?

5 MR. LUKIC: Objection, this is mischaracterisation.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I did say that, too. That's

7 not correct.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN:

9 Q. I think we have different recollections. Isn't it correct that

10 you did not say -- you said your colleague told you that -- the transcript

11 will speak for itself.

12 Ma'am, let's talk about the signatures of Mr. Drljaca. Yesterday,

13 did you tell us the truth about -- when you were testifying?

14 A. Of course.

15 Q. Okay. On page 70 of the LiveNote on line 17, you were asked about

16 a document. I showed you three documents. I've only found two. But you

17 were asked about a document, S353. And on line 17, the question was:

18 "Looking at the last page, do you recognise the signature of

19 Mr. Drljaca?" And your answer was: "Yes, but this is not something that

20 I typed. I am a hundred per cent sure of that."

21 You were also shown another document --

22 A. What I meant --

23 Q. Please let me finish. Let me finish the question, please. You

24 were shown Document S114. And on page 73, line 7, you were asked: "Do

25 you recognise the signature of Mr. Drljaca?" And your answer was: "Yes."

1 And you were shown a third document, and I'm sorry, I haven't found it in

2 the transcript. And again you indicated you recognised the signature of

3 Mr. Drljaca.

4 A. What I meant is it reads "Simo Drljaca." That's the only thing I

5 wanted to say, because it read "Simo Drljaca."

6 Q. But --

7 A. I didn't -- I couldn't really distinguish whether it was his

8 signature really, whether he was the one who signed it.

9 Q. I'm going to come back to the last -- look for the other document

10 and try to find that and come back to that.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just in the meantime, could the usher distribute

12 the document ERN number 01109208.

13 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I think this is beyond the scope of my

14 re-examination. It's a new document.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I believe it goes -- it's relevant to

16 some of the questions Your Honour asked about the employees who went on

17 the bus and the number of people working at the camp, not to the counsel's

18 re-direct.

19 And this document was disclosed to the Defence in February 2002.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection is dismissed after deliberation

21 because it's in fact in line with the line of questions we had earlier.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could be shown the B/C/S copy.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please continue, because we are short

24 in time.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, sorry.

1 Q. Ma'am, having looked over, if you can quickly look at this, does

2 this indicate it's a list compiled of workers providing security for the

3 Omarska collection centre who need to be issued special passes, dated the

4 21st of June, 1992.

5 A. I'm not familiar with these people. Most probably they had

6 passes, but I really can't say.

7 Q. You don't recognise any of the names of these individuals?

8 A. These were probably people who had worked in the iron ore mine

9 before the war. Perhaps they were maintenance workers. I'm not sure what

10 their job was. We didn't have electricity. We were using an aggregate.

11 So some of them were in charge of that.

12 Q. Just very quickly, number 11 in part 2, Milorad Stakic, did you

13 know a Milorad Stakic who worked at the mine during the time the camp was

14 opened and worked at the camp -- at the collection centre?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Turning to the last page, do you recognise the signature of Zeljko

17 Meakic?

18 A. I didn't type this up, and I couldn't recognise his signature

19 because I don't know his signature.

20 Q. The last paragraph indicates "The only other people entering the

21 collection centre compound will be police employees organised into three

22 shifts, and for whom regular records are kept. They will only enter the

23 compound by bus in an organised manner after a completed roll call."

24 Is this consistent with what you experienced in your work at the

25 camp as a police employee, that it was organised, that regular records

1 were kept, people entered by bus?

2 A. No, there weren't any roll calls. We would just come in without

3 our names being called out or anything like that.

4 Q. Okay. Just to finish up quickly, going back to page 62 of the

5 transcript, you were shown a document S107, and you were asked if you

6 recognise this as a copy of a document from the Prijedor police. And you

7 answered: "This is Simo's signature." So is it your testimony today that

8 yesterday, you did not, in fact, recognise Mr. Drljaca's signature despite

9 saying you did three times?

10 A. I meant here it reads "Simo Drljaca." That's the only thing I was

11 referring to. Now you asked me specifically about Zeljko Meakic.

12 Q. No, ma'am, I'm asking you now - I'm sorry to switch the subject.

13 I'm asking now about the signatures of Mr. Drljaca. Yesterday you looked

14 at three documents. You didn't say "This is Mr. Drljaca's name." Each

15 time you said, "This is Simo's signature" or "Mr. Drljaca's signature."

16 In fact, you recognised his signature, didn't you?

17 A. No, I didn't. I'm not sure we really understood each other.

18 Q. Okay. Which are you more sure of, that when you said that you saw

19 Mr. Drljaca's signature that it was his? You could have made a mistake?

20 Is that what you're saying?

21 A. What I want to say is that it read "Simo Drljaca." Now the

22 signature may have been his or not. That's the only thing I want to say.

23 I can't know for certain, and I can't claim that this is his signature.

24 Q. So yesterday, when you said under oath this was his signature, you

25 really were not sure it was his signature?

1 A. No, I wasn't certain. But I only wanted to say here it reads

2 "Simo Drljaca" the part that was actually typed out. That's actually

3 what I was referring to.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have no further questions.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see any request for the floor, so it

6 remains for me to thank you --

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would move both the videos and the last document

8 into evidence.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we come back to this after the break.

10 I have to thank you, not only for coming, but also for testifying

11 here. I know it's extremely difficult for you under the concrete

12 circumstances in your own country to come here and testify. But in fact,

13 it helps. It helps bring us to the truth, and what we want to have is the

14 testimony of all persons having undergone this incredible situation in

15 1992. And I only can hope that the situation in your country will be

16 stablised in the future and that all the ethnicities can once again live

17 together as they did in the past as you told us in your testimony. I wish

18 you a safe journey back.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, Your Honour, before the witness leaves,

20 may I go into closed session and make a request to the Court regarding the

21 witness. Private session, sorry.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Private session, please.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 10033 – 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 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.59 p.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Before we start with the next

4 witness, I would just ask the Defence to be so kind in case a witness has

5 been heard already earlier to indicate this to us in due time that we can

6 read the transcript in advance. That will, no doubt, save time, as it was

7 done during the Prosecution's case.

8 Second point is related to your motion of today. The motion for

9 leave to amend the witness list, two questions: Under paragraph 3, you

10 mentioned that a witness suffered from throat cancer and medically is

11 unable to travel or testify. Is this final or is it only in the moment

12 that this witness is not able to travel or testify?

13 MR. LUKIC: Probably final, Your Honour, because it's throat

14 cancer.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you let us know --

16 MR. LUKIC: And probably for this witness, we'll kindly ask your

17 permission for this witness to be replaced. We would like to have

18 somebody from the Red Cross who was in Trnopolje. But we haven't found

19 the replacement yet.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. But for the purposes of our own

21 witness list, we can strike this person for the moment from the list. Is

22 this correct?

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then under 4(b), Witness 040 appears in the

25 final witness list under 92 bis. You are aware of this, or is it on

1 purpose that you want to come back to hear this witness live?

2 MR. LUKIC: I think that the Prosecution asked to have this

3 witness in cross, so we changed our mind and called this witness to

4 testify live in front of this Chamber. And this witness is scheduled for

5 the next week, and everything is prepared for him.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. I just wanted to have it confirmed that

7 there was no mistake in the witness list.

8 Anything else?

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just regarding the Witness Number 40, our search

10 has not been completed on that, and I think that probably it's one of the

11 more lengthy searches. Is it possible to switch the order and have that

12 witness testify last, assuming that this is the order? I don't know if

13 the Defence has any problem.

14 MR. LUKIC: We don't have any problem with that, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.

16 Then the Prosecution has tendered the document with the ERN number

17 01109208. Objections?

18 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S379.

20 This brings me to the final question: What about the list of

21 exhibits to be presented by the Defence? There is any development? Can

22 we proceed as envisaged, that the parties discuss the documents, and only

23 those documents which are disputed, there should be a ruling, a special

24 ruling, by the Chamber? Can we proceed this way?

25 MR. LUKIC: We agree with your proposal, Your Honour. Only we

1 submitted all the documentation which is not translated to the translation

2 unit, but it hasn't been done yet. And they promised that it should be

3 finalised on the 4th or 5th of January, but we haven't received any

4 information yet.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: We would agree, but it might be helpful to us if

6 the Defence -- I don't know maybe to everyone -- if we could break it into

7 groups, like the Prosecution had the various lists, rather than going

8 through that entire set of documents at once. If we have partial

9 translations or translations of some of the documents available sooner, we

10 can make up a list of those and resolve it and bring any dispute to the

11 Chamber. We don't have to do them all at once, I think, waiting for the

12 last translation.

13 MR. LUKIC: We'll check with the translation unit today or

14 tomorrow and inform Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this.

16 I was informed by a representative of the translation unit that

17 there will be this evening a meeting of translators, interpreters,

18 scheduled for a quarter to 5.00. If there is no strong objection from any

19 side, especially not from the booth, I would like to proceed, therefore,

20 then without any break until half past 4.00, so that it's possible for you

21 to join this important meeting. I think this is already an answer. Is it

22 okay, may I ask?

23 THE REGISTRAR: I see the interpreters are nodding, but we will

24 have to interrupt for a few minutes for the tapes.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Please let us know when we have to

1 interrupt for the purposes of the tapes. That's the only reason.

2 Protective measures for Witness DE.

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, this witness asked me specifically

4 to testify in the closed session, because she is afraid that -- she's

5 afraid she might have problems with her family, because some actually --

6 almost all members of her family are objecting her to testify in favour of

7 Dr. Stakic.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All witnesses are objective, and in the moment,

9 a witness appears here in the courtroom, as it was said already in the

10 first case of this Tribunal, are objective witnesses, and no longer

11 witnesses of a party. So but to be serious, is it absolutely necessary?

12 Wouldn't it be -- we have to take into account the principle of

13 proportionality, to have face and voice distortion?

14 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, because it would be very easy to

15 identify this witness through her occupation.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections by the Prosecution?

17 MS. SUTHERLAND: No objections, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we must go into closed session. And the

19 usher, maybe she is already underway to bring in the witness.

20 Witness DF.

21 [Closed session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 10039 to 10072 – redacted – closed 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 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.33 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Friday, the 19th day of January,

15 2003, at 9.30 a.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25