1 Tuesday, 4 February 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

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

6 Let us hear the case.

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

8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

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

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian and

11 Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the Defence.

13 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Branko Lukic, John

14 Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me start by saying this: I have the

16 impression there are a number of problems to be resolved as soon as

17 possible. They are all together small issues, but the addition of these

18 small issues may amount to a mountain. And before this is the case, I

19 think it's absolutely necessary to have a meeting how to proceed, taking

20 into account the problems the parties have for the ongoing case. And

21 therefore, I would ask the parties whether it would be possible for them

22 to participate in a 65 ter (i) meeting this afternoon as from 5.00. Let

23 me know after the first break whether this would be appropriate or would

24 disturb your plans for today.

25 What we, no doubt, have to discuss in open court, and I mentioned

1 this yesterday, is the defendant's motion for testimony by videoconference

2 related to five witnesses. May I ask the Prosecution to comment on this.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we did not oppose the motion based

4 upon the reasons, the cause, given by the Defence. But we share the

5 Court's view that there are disadvantages to our own case, this is

6 disadvantages to cross-examining via videolink. Our preference would be

7 to do the deposition option that was raised if that is possible.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Related to all the five witnesses.

9 Anything to be added by the Defence?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honours. The only request we

11 make is that the Court keep cognizant of the economies that would be

12 warranted by having a deposition taken, and we thought this would be the

13 best avenue proceeding with the videolink as we have with OTP witnesses,

14 and we're taken aback a little bit that the OTP would like to have a

15 different standard applied when it comes to Defence witnesses. We think

16 the cross-examination, if any, would be consistent, as it was with our

17 presentation during their case, through videolink, through live testimony,

18 or through deposition.

19 This Court has insisted on numerous occasions to raise the issue

20 of economies of scale, equality of arms. And when you view this case in

21 hindsight, we ask in its totality that we see that each request made by

22 the OTP was reasonably and justifiably accepted by the Defence. On the

23 other hand, when those same requests were made, there has always been some

24 provisos or exceptions, and not reasonably accepted by the OTP.

25 We believe that the Court will, in determining whether this

1 proceeds by way of videolink or deposition, take into account the exact

2 same factors that they utilise when granting the OTP's request. We still

3 for the totality of the ICTY and this Tribunal that these five witnesses

4 should proceed via videolink testimony and that there's no prejudice

5 whatsoever to the OTP by cross-examining them as we have through the

6 procedure outlined in the Rules.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: May I just briefly respond: The Defence for the

8 witness that was used videolink during the Prosecution case did not

9 request a deposition. So it's not the case where one was denied for the

10 Defence and granted for the Prosecution. Furthermore, that was a witness,

11 as Your Honours I believe recall, who was basically testifying about being

12 a victim and witnessing crimes. It did not go to issues of the conduct of

13 the accused as these witnesses would. But again, I indicated in the

14 beginning, we do not oppose the motion but our preference is for

15 deposition. We think it will serve all parties better if that is

16 logistically possible.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Just briefly so the record is clear, Witness O who

18 testified by way of videolink could have been and should have been under

19 what counsel himself states perhaps a 92 bis witness. Instead, after the

20 direct examination, the OTP through Ms. Ann Sutherland decided to go far

21 afield from what the parametres of that witness's statements were to try

22 to extract opinion testimony as it relates to our client, Dr. Stakic. The

23 Court allowed an answer. It was favourable to the Defence. Then

24 questioning immediately ceased.

25 The Defence felt since she gave, in our view, favourable testimony

1 that there was no need to cross-examination -- to conduct

2 cross-examination of the witness at that time. We felt at that time, as

3 we did with their 19 92-bis witnesses that the economies should always be

4 viewed and placed on a balanced scale. And therefore, we did not insist

5 that the witness be brought or that we proceed by way of deposition, just

6 so that the record is clear.

7 I think counsel has a right and the Rules provide clearly that the

8 avenues for cross-examination could be and shall be done either through

9 viva voce or through videolink setup. And we think we should proceed in

10 that manner. We are welcome to go and we are happy to go on the field,

11 all of us, and spend a week to ten days there in order to conduct these

12 five depositions if that's the Court's ruling.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Court will decide on this issue as soon as

14 possible and as soon as practicable.

15 I would appreciate if I could know after the first break if such a

16 65 ter conference can be conferred this evening at 5.00 because also from

17 this short intervention, it transpires that there are a number of problems

18 that should be resolved immediately. But the place where to do it is, in

19 fact, a 65 ter (i) conference and not open court.

20 May I ask the usher, then, to please escort our witness --

21 [The witness entered court]

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Pardon me, Your Honour, before the usher does. I

23 think we have another issue.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it takes time. Continue.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: We did ask to be heard beforehand in connection with

1 the time schedule that the Court has placed on the Defence and the undue

2 burden that it has shifted upon the Defence. Our client has once again

3 informed us that he is not feeling well, that he is under an enormous

4 amount of stress and pressure because of the Court's schedule. With all

5 due respect, we are in the process of preparing a written application to

6 outline clearly and plainly for the Court how the schedule has changed

7 over the last two and a half months from the initial scheduling order to

8 the revised scheduling order, and we would like respectfully to point out

9 to the Court that there is no other case that's currently pending that has

10 the schedule that has been imposed upon us. Similarly, in our written

11 application, we will show for the Court --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think you need not to go into details. This

13 is the purpose of why I think it's necessary to confer in the 65 ter

14 meeting, and there it's the place to discuss these issues.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I can tell the Court now without waiting for a

16 break, we are not available at 5.00. We have to meet with witnesses. And

17 just so that the Court understands and has an appreciation for it, we meet

18 with these witnesses until wee hours of the evening in order to prepare

19 them. We do not have the opportunity, since we don't have any breaks, to

20 meet with them in the field with the counsel and then to have any

21 consultation with our client in connection with that. So it's unfortunate

22 that we will not be able to meet at 5.00.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about Thursday at 5.00? You are aware that

24 on Friday, we are not sitting the so-called, emphasise the so-called

25 entire day, because the Defence should be aware that the sitting hours we

1 are practicing now, this has been -- had been the sitting hours during the

2 last eight hours of the existence of this Tribunal. And there's nothing

3 special with this. So taking into account that Friday morning will be

4 available for your necessary discussions with both witness and your

5 client, would be Thursday afternoon?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Judge, with all due respect -- with all due respect,

7 I think it's a very, very critical issue that it cannot wait until

8 Thursday. But I also think that the schedule does not permit us. As the

9 Court knows, we do not start at 9.00 perhaps on Friday, but I believe at

10 10.30 if my recollection serves me correctly. It does not give us the

11 adequate time --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not correct. We are starting on Friday at

13 14.15.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, my client has insisted that I apply to

15 the Court - and I hesitate to do so with the witness being present here -

16 to make a specific application with respect to his physical condition and

17 his specific concerns. We don't think that it should be delayed, and we

18 should be heard on this issue immediately.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. What you can't say on the one hand side,

20 you are not prepared to participate in the meeting; on the other hand,

21 tell me Thursday would be too late.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd like to be heard on the issue today, now. I'd

23 like to be heard on the issue now. I asked the Court representatives that

24 we have specifically three issues to raise with the Court. As the

25 practice has been in the last seven, eight years, that's the procedure.

1 I've asked for that. And I was under the apparently misimpression that

2 the Court was advised that we have those issues to raise. We do not have

3 a recourse other than through --

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the clear ruling was that this has to be

5 done in the framework of a 65 ter (i) conference, and not in open Court.

6 And I will ask you to give me as soon as possible a possible date for a 65

7 ter (i) meeting. I'm available whenever you want.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm available right now, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. We have to hear the witness. And as you

10 know, to hear witnesses has always priority because of the time they spent

11 in The Hague and offering their free time in order to bring us closer to

12 the truth. And therefore, I don't want to waste any more time at this

13 point in time on this question. I know it's important for you. It's

14 important first of all for Dr. Stakic himself. But we can't use the

15 limited time available in this courtroom for these purposes. Therefore,

16 the Rules provide another possibility, and we have to take this.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just for the record, Your Honour, with all

18 due respect to the witness, this witness or any witness in all due respect

19 does not supersede my client's rights under the Rules of Detention or the

20 Rules prescribed by the ICTY.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you once again would have listened carefully

22 and would review the transcript, then you would come to the same

23 conclusion without these unnecessary comments, to put it this way,

24 Mr. Ostojic.

25 May we now proceed. Mr. Lukic, the floor is yours.

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 WITNESS: OSTOJA MARJANOVIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 Examined by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marjanovic.

6 A. Good morning.

7 Q. Have you had a good rest?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. May we continue reading?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. LUKIC: I would like the usher to deliver to the witness four

12 of our documents marked with the 65 ter numbers 262 through 265, please.

13 Can you please place on the ELMO the Document Number 262, please.

14 And give the witness the B/C/S version.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Marjanovic, we haven't had time to go through these

17 documents. I know that in the period in question, you were not the

18 managing director in the Ljubija iron ore mine. But I think that when you

19 see the document, you will understand what it's about.

20 Would you please read out the title of the document, tell us who

21 signed the document, and tell us whether you know that this kind of water

22 supply system existed on your premises in Omarska.

23 A. I can comment on this document in view of the fact that I was the

24 leader of the project of the construction of the Omarska mine from 1974 to

25 1979. When the facilities were being built, one of the issues was how to

1 ensure potable water supplies, especially in the canteen, but also in the

2 rest of the plant. The area is an iron ore mine, and for this reason, the

3 wells on the farms, when we checked the water, had a high content of

4 Fe2O3, also MnO, manganese oxide, and all of this is detrimental to

5 health. An analysis was made of the water, and a system was made to

6 design the well large enough to meet the needs of the employees in the

7 mine.

8 I must point out that in one shift, when the mine was being

9 exploited, there were over 350 employees working at any one time. Later

10 on, this was constructed -- the plant was constructed, and we had to have

11 devices to remove manganese and also Fe2O3. There was a strict quality

12 control of the water, and for this reason, this document was drawn up in

13 March 1979. And the title of the document is "operating instructions for

14 the potable water plant of the Omarska mine."

15 The document discusses technical exploitation --

16 Q. Just a moment, please. Would you please read the date once again

17 when this project was drawn up.

18 A. March 1987.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 A. The operating instructions refer to several areas, one is the pump

21 enabling the water to circulate through the pipes. Then there are

22 instructions about the electrical power for these pumps, and also a part

23 dealing with the chemical substances used to remove iron and manganese.

24 Control over the plant was performed by the safety and health protection

25 service which employed engineers of various kinds, a hydrogeologist and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 other kinds of engineers.

2 Sometimes it happened that due to negligence, a large amount of

3 harmful substances turned up in the water, and then a technical

4 intervention had to be made. The people who controlled the water drew up

5 records which were delivered to the managing director or the technical

6 director of Omarska who then had to take appropriate measures.

7 When the Omarska mine was to start up, the institutions of the

8 ministry in charge of energy and mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina sent

9 certain commissions which comprised a sufficient number of experts to

10 approve the use of a certain plant, or they would have comments. They

11 would make remarks, and then the deficiencies would have to be removed

12 before the plant could be started up. At the end of the document, it

13 says: "Omarska, March 1987, instructions approved by the service for

14 protection at work, engineer Franjo Galunic, and also technical director

15 of Omarska, Zdenko Ceraj, graduate mining engineer."

16 Q. Can you tell us the ethnic background of these two people?

17 A. Yes, I can. They are both Croats.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next available number would be D66.

19 Correct? Then this document is provisionally marked D66A and B

20 respectively.

21 MR. LUKIC: Could the usher be so kind and show the witness the

22 next document marked with our 65 ter number 263, please.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, can you explain this document

24 briefly, as you have explained the previous one.

25 A. Yes, yes, I can explain it. But I have to mention that I made a

1 mistake just a moment ago because I mentioned the republican ministry for

2 energy and mining. At the time, it was called the republican committee

3 for energy and mining. That was the mistake I made.

4 I mentioned that a commission was set up by the committee for

5 energy and mining of the socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

6 the document contains the number and the date of issue, and the decision

7 refers -- or rather, the decision is to the effect that the well and the

8 potable water supply system can be put into operation. The signature is

9 the assistant president of the republican committee for energy and

10 industry. At the time, this was Dr. Safet Cicic, an acquaintance of mine.

11 If you want to know his ethnic background, I think you do, he is a

12 Muslim.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be D67A, B respectively.

15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. The next document would be

16 the document marked with our 65 ter number 264.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, this document is short. Would

18 you please read it and explain it to us, please.

19 A. "DP, RJR, Ljubija/Prijedor." DP means socially owned enterprise.

20 "Workplace safety service, Prijedor. The 122nd of November, 1990.

21 156/90."

22 Minutes: "On the 7th of November, 1990, water samples for

23 bacteriological analysis were taken. The water is bacteriologically

24 satisfactory and correspond to the regulations on potable water quality.

25 "On that occasion, the 7th of November, 1990, I visited the source

1 of the local waterworks of the economic unit of the Omarska mine and found

2 the following situation:

3 "Neither prechlorination nor final chlorination are functioning.

4 Iron and manganese elimination from potable water are not being

5 performed. There is no disinfecting of water because there is no

6 chlorination. Of all the installed water treatment equipment, only the

7 sand filters are functioning. The water disinfection equipment must be

8 made operational as we can never know -- as we can never know when

9 secondary water pollution may occur with all the accompanying health and

10 legal problems." And as miners says, it says "Good Luck. Workplace

11 safety service, Faruk Cerimagic, graduate engineer of technology." And

12 his signature follows. The ethnic affiliation of Mr. Cerimagic, an

13 acquaintance of mine, is a Muslim.

14 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cerimagic's demands were met?

15 A. I can assume that this was mandatory. That this had to be

16 complied with because there were rigorous sanctions involved in the mine.

17 A large number of people used this water, so I am sure that there must

18 have been an intervention following this. But I can't guarantee this

19 because I have no personal knowledge of it. I wasn't there.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This document would be marked provisionally as

21 D68A and B correspondingly.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. There is one document left referring to this area. And the 65 ter

24 number is 265. We don't have a translation for this document. We

25 received it, along with the others, from the OTP.

1 Mr. Marjanovic, it will be a bit harder to read out this document

2 because the end is not legible. But I ask you to try and tell us what its

3 contents are.

4 A. Excuse me. "The iron ore -- the Ljubija/Prijedor mine, the

5 service for protection at work, number 86/90, Prijedor, 15th of June,

6 1990.

7 "Omarska mine economic unit.

8 "Omarska. To the attention of Branko Micic, graduate mining

9 engineer.

10 "Please find enclosed bacteriological water from your water supply

11 system. The analyses are negative, and the findings, I assume that it's

12 probably in accordance with the regulations for potable water, Official

13 Gazette of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia 33/87. I

14 assume that's what it is. The analyses are made at the source in the wet

15 area and in the canteen once a month. Good luck.

16 "Technologist, Faruk Cerimagic, graduate engineer and head of the

17 service for protection at work. Smail Zahirovic, graduate engineer of

18 mining."

19 Both are these are Muslims. And it says: "Deliver one copy to

20 the addressee and one copy to the archives."

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This document would be provisionally marked

22 D69B. And it should be mentioned that a provisional translation can be

23 found on the 12th and 13th page of today's transcript.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Let me just ask you, is it evident from this document that on the

1 15th of June, 1990, although part of the document is missing, that it can

2 be concluded that the water was potable?

3 A. Yes, assuming that they complied with what was previously found

4 about the deficiencies in the water supply system for the Omarska mine.

5 Q. I would like to cover a different area now and ask you if you know

6 the following: As you took part in the work of the bodies of municipal

7 administration, do you know respectively the positions of the president of

8 the Municipal Assembly, what are the president of the Municipal Assembly's

9 tasks?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sorry. I object. It's vague as to time.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Can you please answer what the tasks of the president of the

13 Municipal Assembly are and --

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May you please wait until the Trial Chamber has

15 decided. I'm surprised what's happening on this side of the Defence

16 during the last days.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following deliberations, objection sustained.

19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll restate the question.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, do you know what the tasks and

21 functions were of the president of the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor in

22 the period of time of 1991 and 1992?

23 A. I was never myself the president of the Municipal Assembly

24 obviously, but the statute of the Municipal Assembly contains clear

25 regulations governing his work in quite a specific manner. So as I had to

1 be familiar with the statute, I think I am to a certain extent qualified

2 to comment on the duties and tasks of the president. I would even go as

3 far as to say that the competencies and authorities from the 1980s, that

4 the president had in the 1980s, and those that he had in the 1990s are

5 almost the same, almost identical.

6 I think the same statute was kept to the end, to the very end of

7 the war. I think it may have been changed but only recently, only very

8 recently. I think what needs to be pointed out is that the president of

9 the Municipal Assembly is elected at a session of the assembly. Usually,

10 it has to be a prominent citizen highly regarded, both as a man and as a

11 humanitarian person. A person, a citizen with certain merits.

12 According to the statute, the president presides over the

13 assembly -- over the sessions of the Municipal Assembly when these

14 sessions are held. He sets the date for the sessions of the assembly, and

15 he convenes the sessions; however, the agenda discussed at the assembly is

16 drafted and proposed by the Executive Board, the Executive Board

17 representing executive authority. The Executive Board demands from the

18 president of the Municipal Assembly that the Municipal Assembly or the

19 Municipality discuss a number of issues, usually such issues as taxes,

20 revenues, and so on and so forth.

21 During the assembly's work, or before the work of the assembly

22 begins, the agenda is debated. And the deputies choose to either adopt or

23 reject certain items placed on the agenda following which the items of the

24 accepted agenda are debated during the session by deputies. Documents are

25 drafted following the debates, the assembly debates, and the documents

1 that result from that are decisions of the Municipal Assembly which are

2 then forwarded to the Executive Board for implementation.

3 The task of the president of the Municipal Assembly is to mediate

4 and to work with the technical services of the Municipal Assembly which,

5 if my memory serves me well, is managed and controlled by the secretary of

6 the municipality. I think this more or less comprises the essential tasks

7 of the president of the Municipal Assembly.

8 Q. During the time the Crisis Staff existed, did you ever have the

9 impression that the Executive Board was functioning, operating, at the

10 same time? And can you please explain where the secretaries of the

11 secretariat were sitting, in their own offices or perhaps in a different

12 place?

13 A. Your question about the operation of the Executive Board, whether

14 it was working, I can't give you an answer because I don't know if they

15 had any meetings. But all the secretaries, that is, most of the

16 secretaries that I used to see stayed in their offices and performed their

17 duties, the duties of their respective secretariats.

18 I myself went to see the secretary for the economy. I think it

19 was Ranko Travar. In a manner of speaking, he was my superior minister in

20 the municipality. So that was the reason why we had contacts throughout

21 that period.

22 Q. Let us please return to the department of your own enterprise in

23 Omarska, at the time when an investigation centre was operating there. In

24 that period of time, who was in charge of supplying goods, fuel, for

25 example, to that particular section of the enterprise? Was it done

1 through your own offices, if you could please explain that? What did you

2 have up there? Who was using the services of the petrol station?

3 A. I can't tell you exactly how this was happening, because that was

4 completely cut off at that time. But I know that there was a certain

5 amount left behind in the storage rooms of the petrol station. Petrol

6 stations were own by the Energopetrol company, a state-owned company,

7 distributing petrol and oil derivatives. I may be wrong, but I think the

8 quantities we are talking about are quite considerable, I think about

9 30 tonnes.

10 In earlier times, the petrol station was run by people from the

11 iron ore mine in Omarska. There were people there who issued petrol with

12 clear instructions to document, register, the exact number of vehicles

13 issued petrol, the name of the driver. And it was mandatory to take the

14 driver's signature and the specified quantity of petrol taken. Throughout

15 the period when the investigation centre was operating, I have no

16 information concerning that, nor was I ever informed by anyone. I'm not

17 sure if it was the people who were working there informing the managing

18 director of the Omarska iron ore mine, Dusko Vlacina. I'm not sure they

19 did inform him.

20 Q. Do you know what the trucks that were owned by your company in

21 Omarska were being used for?

22 A. I must try to draw a distinction here for my own benefit. The

23 Ljubija iron ore mine owns a considerable number of different vehicles,

24 small trucks with different capacities between 1 or 2 tonnes, and 70

25 tonnes. The range is as wide as that. However, speaking of Omarska, the

1 enterprise owns a wide range of different vehicles. I will try to

2 enumerate them for you so you know what they are used for.

3 The Caterpillar, the dumpers with 75-tonne capacity for

4 transporting the ore. We had a vehicle for transporting explosives, the

5 capacity 4 and a half tonnes. It was exclusively used for taking the

6 explosives used during mining from Ljubija to the mine, to the pit

7 itself. There were maintenance vehicles there, reparation and

8 maintenance. TAM vehicles, that was the make of the vehicle. We used to

9 refer to them as TAMici. They were between 1.500 and 2.000 kilograms

10 capacity. They had what we used to call Trambus Kabina. It was sort of a

11 long cab which apart from the driver seats perhaps four, five, or up to

12 even six people. The body of the vehicle itself, certain spare parts

13 could be attached to it, and diggers could be towed by this type of

14 vehicle. That's what these special vehicles and machines are used for.

15 They are used as tow vehicles for towing or tugging both the goods and

16 transporting the people who worked there.

17 Excuse me, if I may just add something: There were three

18 different production mines. The eastern mine, the southern mine, and

19 Omarska itself. Those were more or less the same production mines with

20 more or less the same equipment. Maybe the number of equipment differed

21 from one to the other.

22 Q. For the sake of the transcript, in order to clarify, did you say

23 southern mines or central mines?

24 A. If I say southern, I may have made a mistake. Central mines

25 Ljubija. We call them central because all the other production mines

1 developed from that central, original one, the main production mine. So

2 central, eastern, and Omarska.

3 Q. So in the summer of 1992, did you know what the trucks at the mine

4 were being used for? Did anyone inform you about that?

5 A. No. No one provided any kind of information to me. I don't know

6 what those trucks were being used for. I can only assume. The whole

7 production line in the depth of the Omarska excavation mine had to be kept

8 in operation constantly as at that time, there was not sufficient

9 electricity. I suppose maintenance workers there had to -- had to

10 redirect a certain amount of electricity to the generator supplying

11 electricity for the mine. So I suppose they were using some of the

12 vehicles to go to the pit, to the excavation mine and perform those tasks.

13 Q. Did you, or actually your company, around Tomasica and Omarska,

14 were you ever robbed around spring, summer, or autumn of 1992?

15 A. Yes. I will try to tell you exactly what happened. Please try to

16 understand that perhaps I'm not able to provide very precise time

17 coordinates. But I know that the 6th Sana Brigade, in the course of their

18 military operations, reached the central mine, and they wreaked havoc

19 there, useless havoc.

20 They took away all the glue supplies, which is of no use to anyone

21 outside the iron ore mine itself. They took some of our tools and

22 equipment, which are completely useless for any tasks outside the mine.

23 They fired shots at water tanks and at the electricity station. I suppose

24 they were taking away oil from there. They took whatever they could lay

25 their hands on. I don't think that they meant to use these things for the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 work of their unit. I think it was pure hubris. The same unit was

2 staying in the area of the eastern mines towards the end of the war where

3 again they caused an enormous amount of damage. They destroyed the lab,

4 the laboratory which performed analysis of the iron ore quality, the iron

5 ore we were producing.

6 In Omarska, several robberies of private character took place, of

7 private nature. It did happen on certain occasions that armed groups

8 consisting of two or three people would force guards, security guards, to

9 lie down. They would then take keys from them, and they would then go

10 into storage rooms and simply loot the storage rooms, take away things and

11 goods from the storage rooms. They took 12 sets of "zol" keys. Each of

12 them is worth $4.000. They stripped the electricity poles of the 220 volt

13 electricity system part of the structure, which caused two of the poles to

14 collapse. They used this equipment to make baskets, containers, for their

15 tractors.

16 At a later stage, in 1996, I issued an announcement to the

17 citizens of Omarska saying that whoever brings back the sets of stolen

18 keys would be amply rewarded and explaining that the keys were otherwise

19 useless to them. I had no one to complain to about the behaviour and

20 actions of the 6th Sana Brigade. There was no one to complain to, nor

21 would I have been given any attention if I had. I did send written

22 reports to the public security centre of the MUP in Prijedor, but they

23 took no measures whatsoever in this specific case. In order to explain

24 the whole context, the overall situation, they were quite eager, they

25 seemed quite eager when they accused me and my colleagues of having sold

1 parts of the equipment off to Serbia.

2 Simo Drljaca sent over two inspectors who went to Ruma, Kolubara,

3 the Neksic iron factory investigating what we had allegedly sold them, it

4 was scrap iron. Four months later, the inspectors came to see me. Their

5 eyes were full of tears. They said: "Ostoja, please, please admit to

6 something because if you don't admit to anything we will be fired if we

7 don't find anything." But they didn't find anything. I think this very

8 amply illustrates the modus operandi of those people.

9 Q. Would you please repeat whose work this illustrates.

10 A. The work of Mr. Simo Drljaca who was at the head of the MUP.

11 Q. After the police took over the Omarska mine complex, do you know

12 who operated the petrol pump?

13 A. No, I don't. I don't know. And to be quite honest, I didn't know

14 fully even before that. Those were people who worked there. The foreman

15 designated them, and they had the director of Omarska, and then they had

16 the foremen, and they designated the people.

17 Q. I would also like to ask you about the kitchen, preparing the food

18 which was near the Separacija. Do you know who ran the kitchen at the

19 time?

20 A. No, I don't. Previously, this was done by a canteen service which

21 delivered food at the level of the whole company, and they had cooks who

22 prepared the food. However, in this period, I have no information nor did

23 anybody inform me, nor was I able to know who did this and how they

24 worked.

25 Q. You spoke of the guards at the entrance to the buildings. Who

1 organised the guards and who was there with you in front of your building?

2 A. After the events at the end of May, and the attack on Prijedor on

3 the 30th of May, there was a situation of chaos. One didn't know where

4 danger might be coming from. And people organised themselves on their own

5 initiative and kept watch at their entrances. They even put iron bars on

6 their front doors. I also kept watch.

7 On several occasions, Ivo Komljenovic kept watch with me. We have

8 already mentioned him. He's a Croat. And then there was Minka Cehajic, a

9 lady who was a doctor and who lived in the same entranceway, and she was

10 there with us. The purpose of this guard duty was for us to be able to

11 raise the alarm if anything happened. We would chat and drink coffee

12 throughout the night. And fortunately, at the entrance to our part of the

13 building, nothing ever happened.

14 Q. We have already mentioned Mr. Ivo Komljenovic. Now you have

15 mentioned him again. Would you please explain to us how he left Prijedor,

16 who helped him, and why he left.

17 A. Ivo Komljenovic was a neighbour of mine, a mining engineer. He

18 was the technical director of Nemetal. I think we looked at the document

19 yesterday where he signed for the employees, the work force. He had two

20 small children and a wife. We were on visiting terms.

21 In 1992, in June or July and further on, there was no production.

22 The situation did not promise anything good. You couldn't expect any

23 payments of salaries because I have already said, we were not able to

24 collect the payments for everything we had exported to Zenica. He, I

25 think, had two or three brothers in Germany, and his wife also had

1 relatives there. He contacted them, and they sent him documents. I think

2 the documents arrived through Caritas, the charity organisation.

3 When he received the documents, he asked me whether he should go.

4 I couldn't tell him. I said: "If I tell you to go and this turns out not

5 to be a good decision, I will be to blame for this. If I tell you to stay

6 and things don't turn out well, again, I will be the one to blame." I

7 told him he should decide for himself. And he made up his mind. He asked

8 me to help him. I transported him and his family. We used his car and

9 another car as far as Dvorna Uni, and he went to Vojnic, and after that,

10 he went on towards Croatia.

11 Q. Does Mr. Komljenovic ever contact you?

12 A. Yes. He contacted me from Wiesbaden during the war. He now lives

13 in Zagreb. He is back from Germany, and he visited Prijedor a few times

14 from Zagreb. I didn't know that his wife has said a lot of bad things

15 about me, but this is of no interest now.

16 Q. In order to go from Prijedor toward Croatia, did these people have

17 to have passes?

18 A. They were supposed to have passes. At the time, checkpoints were

19 set up in places where they were needed and also where they were not

20 needed. I am aware now that some of these checkpoints served for looting

21 purposes. I received documents for Ivo and Dragica Komljenovic, and

22 that's how we managed to pass through all the checkpoints.

23 MR. LUKIC: Just for the record, in the index of seized documents

24 that we received from the Prosecution, in the section PS, II, 45, on page

25 45, ERN numbers P0050095 and P0050096, there is a trace that

1 Mr. Marjanovic requested and got the passes for those two persons.

2 Now I'd like the usher to show the witness document -- we have to

3 find the number first, sorry. We will move on and be back with this

4 document later on.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Although this has nothing to do with this topic,

6 I would like to ask you now whether you heard of the existence of one or

7 more interventions platoons in the municipality of Prijedor and in the

8 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time?

9 A. I have heard of the term Intervention Platoon, which is

10 established in units carrying out war operations. Brigades had

11 Intervention Platoons and even battalions, I think. In military terms, an

12 Intervention Platoon is the first to go into battle and is supposed to

13 break through the enemy defences so that advances can be made.

14 Q. Do you know whether there was an Intervention Platoon in the

15 municipality of Prijedor commanded by the Crisis Staff or later on the

16 Municipal Assembly?

17 A. I do not know. I think no such platoon existed, and I would have

18 heard about it because I lived there. But I never heard of any such

19 platoon.

20 Q. It has not entered the record, so I will repeat my question. Did

21 you say that if such a platoon existed, I would certainly have heard about

22 it?

23 A. In view of what I have said before, anything that happened in

24 Prijedor at the time and that I heard about, I commented on. In view of

25 my role as managing director of the mine, I'm sure, a hundred per cent

1 sure, I never heard about this.

2 MR. LUKIC: Now we can turn to the -- sorry.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I'm not accusing counsel of any ill

4 intent. But it counsel speak to each other in their own language loud

5 enough for the witness to hear, there's obviously a potential that it

6 could influence the answers of the witness.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I didn't want to interrupt at this point in

8 time. But in fact, we have to speak in the courtroom in a language we

9 understand. It's no doubt the possibility to speak with your client, if

10 necessary, and nobody has any right to listen to this. But to inform

11 maybe -- we don't know what's happening -- the witness on the expected

12 answer by speaking in a language which is not an official language of this

13 Tribunal is a method that should be at least be discussed as soon as

14 possible.

15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, thank you. And I appreciate that my

16 learned friend warned us. But it can be checked from the audiotapes that

17 the witness has already said what I asked him later on, only it was not

18 reflected in the transcript. So it's very easy to check it that he said

19 the same thing previously.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, the interpreter did not

21 translate the witness's specific statements where the witness said that.

22 So for purposes of clarity, we just wanted that suggested. But certainly

23 the interpreters in their booth specifically on page 24, line 8, we invite

24 them to review the audiotape so they can then correct that mistake as

25 well.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please calm down and take the tone necessary for

2 the courtroom. And this is not a joke, Mr. Ostojic. I asked you to

3 behave as it can be expected from a Defence counsel in this courtroom.

4 And if you have problems with the translation, we had during the last 112

5 days always a method how to resolve the problem. And this was to ask the

6 booth whether there was a mistake or not. And please stay to the rules

7 and obey the rules.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just briefly, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, not in the moment. The Defence asked for an

10 immediate hearing on procedural issues. Therefore, based on Rule 65 ter

11 (i), I hereby convene a meeting of the parties starting in 5 minutes in my

12 office. The trial stays adjourned until further notice.

13 May I ask the parties and the participants to be prepared to be

14 back in the courtroom at 11.00 sharp, and if there should be any delay

15 I'll let you know.

16 --- Proceedings adjourned at 10.23 a.m.

17 to be reconvened sine die

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25